Early Criticism: What’s Unfounded and What Isn’t

[ToddCam]

I have diabetes and I wouldn't normally consider myself disabled even though it is a great strain on my life. Yes, I would take the instant cure. I think I'd probably be annoyed if they depicted a full-on diabetic in the future because I think it would be silly and disheartening. However, an analogous scenario might make me feel seen.

I do feel we sometimes overcorrect to appear more inclusive to the point of absurdity. I especially find things like using the term unhoused silly, as if your average homeless person would want to treat it as a personal identity. (I've been homeless in the past. That was never a thing I wanted.) I think it comes from a desire to have people feel included and respected.

When it comes to disability I think you can't ever be remotely sure you're doing it right because there are so many ways to come to the disability and how you respond to it. You're going to alienate someone.

I can't imagine that if I were to lose my hearing or sight I would ever not want to get it back. I hope I'd be understanding of those who don't or never had it in the first place.

Not a disability but I am gay, and I appreciate being part of a group that goes beyond my particular identity, but I don't think I'll ever identify as queer. To me it is a slur first, and while I appreciate the idea of reclamation, it alienates me every single time I hear it. I use some form of the letter soup generally but awkwardly use queer when necessary. It took some time, but I've come to accept I don't have the popular position and try not to be resentful (though non-queers using it bugs me a little more). I don't expect my view to be acceded to most of the time, but do appreciate it when my view us acknowledged.

Is that analogous? I'm sure someone's going to find it offensive. The only perspective I don't care about is the one that leads to complaints about wokeness.

 

[Set Harth]

Not a disability but I am gay, and I appreciate being part of a group that goes beyond my particular identity, but I don't think I'll ever identify as queer. To me it is a slur first, and while I appreciate the idea of reclamation, it alienates me every single time I hear it. I use some form of the letter soup generally but awkwardly use queer when necessary. It took some time, but I've come to accept I don't have the popular position and try not to be resentful (though non-queers using it bugs me a little more).

Yeah, some of the people identifying as "queer" are straight. Not gonna name names...

 

[Starflight]

Not a disability but I am gay, and I appreciate being part of a group that goes beyond my particular identity, but I don't think I'll ever identify as queer. To me it is a slur first, and while I appreciate the idea of reclamation, it alienates me every single time I hear it. I use some form of the letter soup generally but awkwardly use queer when necessary. It took some time, but I've come to accept I don't have the popular position and try not to be resentful (though non-queers using it bugs me a little more). I don't expect my view to be acceded to most of the time, but do appreciate it when my view us acknowledged.

I'm with you on this for what it's worth, I don't mind seeing the word or people calling themselves it, but if anyone calls me it directly I still bristle. Especially here in the UK the turnaround from it being a slur to being something academics and corporations were using freely seemed to take about twelve seconds. I'm sure there's been polling now and then that shows a huge proportion of gays and lesbians hate it in reference to themselves.

 

[Michael]

I’m not sure it’s even possible to find a word that absolutely everyone from the LGBTQIA+ community would agree on. As a German native speaker I can only say that I always thought it’s a good term to talk about a group of people that isn’t just homosexuals, and I don’t think in the German language there exists a word right now that fulfills the same purpose. It manages to group together a number of identities that face similar systemic bigotry and challenges, and in that regard it has proven to be very helpful. It also helps that it’s the word used in academic contexts to talk about a broad spectrum of people with similar (albeit not identical, of course) experiences. That said, I can appreciate the history of the word and than not everyone would feel comfortable with it. I have to say, though, it is a good thing to have a word like that to talk about these issues in a respectful and sober way.

The only perspective I don't care about is the one that leads to complaints about wokeness.

Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but I would say we should never let our thinking be guided by what some people dismiss as “woke”. If you start doing that then all conversations or actions that aim to create a world that is more just will inevitably be silenced, because the field of what is complained about as “woke” is growing larger and larger, to the point where random stuff like, I don’t know, beer brands are suddenly “woke”. Or fucking rainbows.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

I have epilepsy and I would absolutely want to never have a seizure again if non-invasive Trek tech could solve it once and for all. (It's manageable without meds, and I don't want to undergo having part of my brain removed - that option was never suggested to me, but I wouldn't want to undergo it anyway).

 

[ToddCam]

I’m not sure it’s even possible to find a word that absolutely everyone from the LGBTQIA+ community would agree on. As a German native speaker I can only say that I always thought it’s a good term to talk about a group of people that isn’t just homosexuals, and I don’t think in the German language there exists a word right now that fulfills the same purpose. It manages to group together a number of identities that face similar systemic bigotry and challenges, and in that regard it has proven to be very helpful. It also helps that it’s the word used in academic contexts to talk about a broad spectrum of people with similar (albeit not identical, of course) experiences. That said, I can appreciate the history of the word and than not everyone would feel comfortable with it. I have to say, though, it is a good thing to have a word like to talk about these issues in a respectful and sober way.


Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but I would say we should never let our thinking be guided by what some people dismiss as “woke”. If you start doing that then all conversations or actions that aim to create a world that is more just will inevitably be silenced, because the field of what is complained about as “woke” is growing larger and larger, to the point where random stuff like, I don’t know, beer brands are suddenly “woke”. Or fucking rainbows.

If I had my druthers, I'd call us the + (plus) community. That way it's all inclusive (nobody gets relegated to the "and the rest" part that comes with the initials) and it's a bit cheeky... we have something "more" than everyone else. It embraces the specialness of it.

i think you misunderstand me. If someone wants me to dismiss their position, they can start with the "woke" complaints. That way lies grifters and outright bigots.

 

[Michael]

^ Got it. And for what it’s worth, I’m all for calling it the + community!

 

[Michael]

I have epilepsy and I would absolutely want to never have a seizure again if non-invasive Trek tech could solve it once and for all. (It's manageable without meds, and I don't want to undergo having part of my brain removed - that option was never suggested to me, but I wouldn't want to undergo it anyway).

Oh, I didn’t know that about you, Laura. I’m so sorry you have to deal with that.

I’m curious: Have you ever felt there was a Trek episode or story that dealt with epilepsy, even if just in an allegorical way?

 

[Set Harth]

and I don’t think in the German language there exists a word right now that fulfills the same purpose.

That's surprising. German tends to have a word for everything!

 

[flyerdog]

Also, do you think actors with paraplegia / quadriplegia should be able to get a job on such a television show, or should they not, since they simply wouldn’t exist in the future?

I don’t suppose the answers to these would be quite as unanimous.

sadly no it would be inconsistent with the um...canon...there's that word.

In a universe where medical advances have resolved most issues and challenges (which was the point) ...putting someone in technology from centuries prior seems like regression...and to cast a para or quad in a series merely for the sake of inclusion, when it defies logic based on the lore that has been established, it's merely "present-ism"....

But therein lies the foundation of star trek wherein a para or quad could look at that universe and think "How amazing would it be if WE could clone a spinal column and give me my mobility back"

 

[Starflight]

sadly no it would be inconsistent with the um...canon...there's that word.

Amputees famously used to get a lot of work in zombie films, which is obviously a bit on the tasteless side, but there's a wealth of cool opportunities for disabled actors in sci-fi/fantasy. Hemmer from SNW comes to mind.

You could cast an actor with paraplegia in a Melora-type role to inform the performance and bring their own experience to the role, it'd be great.

 

[Uncle Sock]

I’m not a native English speaker, but as far as I understand, queer originally meant “strange,” and it has historically been used that way. For example, in The Crown, Olivia Colman, as Queen Elizabeth, uses queer to mean “odd” or “unusual.” So while queer is now an umbrella term that can include people across the spectrum, it can still feel insulting to some. That reaction tends to be stronger for native speakers, because words in your first language carry more emotional weight. This is a well-documented phenomenon in psycholinguistics known as the foreign language effect, where emotional responses are dampened in a second language due to reduced affective resonance.

That is to say, I’m “one of those letters” myself—but I don’t label myself. For me personally, and in my own opinion, adopting a specific term would reduce me to just one aspect of my overall identity. On top of that, straight people don’t introduce themselves as “heterosexual”; it’s treated as the implied norm, and I claim that same normalcy by not using a specific label for my sexuality. I’m just Uncle Sock.

This isn’t to say I’m opposed to labels in general. For some people, especially when they’re still figuring things out, labels can be important and provide a sense of belonging. But I don’t need external validation to know who I am (or at least I tell myself that), so I don’t feel the need to identify as just one thing. When someone asks, I usually respond with either “I’m just Uncle Sock,” or, if they keep pressing, “I’m queer.” But I have absolutely no emotional attachment to the word as a native speaker would, so that may make it easier for me.

 

[Set Harth]

it's merely "present-ism"....

Which sci-fi is inherently susceptible to in any case, even before it becomes a vehicle for Current Day political virtue-signaling.

 

[Michael]

That's surprising. German tends to have a word for everything!

I figure you’re jesting, but I’m afraid that’s a bit of a stereotype that’s not necessarily grounded in reality. German certainly does have long compound words that are able to convey a lot of meaning, I guess. And there do exist some German terms that come close to encapsulating what “queer” is expressing, but none as all-encompassing and widely used.

I’m not a native English speaker, but as far as I understand, queer originally meant “strange,” and it has historically been used that way. For example, in The Crown, Olivia Colman, as Queen Elizabeth, uses queer to mean “odd” or “unusual.” So while queer is now an umbrella term that can include people across the spectrum, it can still feel insulting to some. That reaction tends to be stronger for native speakers, because words in your first language carry more emotional weight. This is a well-documented phenomenon in psycholinguistics known as the foreign language effect, where emotional responses are dampened in a second language due to reduced affective resonance.

That is to say, I’m “one of those letters” myself—but I don’t label myself. For me personally, and in my own opinion, adopting a specific term would reduce me to just one aspect of my overall identity. On top of that, straight people don’t introduce themselves as “heterosexual”; it’s treated as the implied norm, and I claim that same normalcy by not using a specific label for my sexuality. I’m just Uncle Sock.

This isn’t to say I’m opposed to labels in general. For some people, especially when they’re still figuring things out, labels can be important and provide a sense of belonging. But I don’t need external validation to know who I am (or at least I tell myself that), so I don’t feel the need to identify as just one thing. When someone asks, I usually respond with either “I’m just Uncle Sock,” or, if they keep pressing, “I’m queer.” But I have absolutely no emotional attachment to the word as a native speaker would, so that may make it easier for me.

I know you’re not directing this at me, but I have been using “queer” at lot in the past and I must again stress that I’m less interested in the word as a way of personal self-identification and more as a way to talk about the group of people facing discrimination because of their sexuality or gender identity. I totally understand how not everyone feels comfortable using any one word to identify themselves.

sadly no it would be inconsistent with the um...canon...there's that word.

In a universe where medical advances have resolved most issues and challenges (which was the point) ...putting someone in technology from centuries prior seems like regression...and to cast a para or quad in a series merely for the sake of inclusion, when it defies logic based on the lore that has been established, it's merely "present-ism"....

But therein lies the foundation of star trek wherein a para or quad could look at that universe and think "How amazing would it be if WE could clone a spinal column and give me my mobility back"

Maybe I misunderstood, but the question wasn’t for you to answer. I thought we were talking about how actual disabled people would feel about this. And I must say, I think it’s harsh to just straight up say: “No, disabled actors shouldn’t get a job on Star Trek, because it’s inconsistent with the canon”. Don't you realize just how that sounds?

 

[flyerdog]

FWIW, I have early-onset arthritis in my right knee which has hampered my mobility, and I think I prefer the idea that it's easily curable in Star Trek, and that if I lived in the Star Trek universe then they could just wave a medical tricorder over it and fix it instantly.

It seems like using aliens might be a good way to incorporate it, since they're often just stand-ins for human experiences in Star Trek anyway. Have someone from the Species of Permanently Fucked Knees showing up who uses a special device to aid mobility, like Melora.

The presence of the presumably-human cadet in a wheelchair didn't bother me at all, I'm just thinking out loud about possibilities to include real-life conditions in ways that simultaneously feel specific to the fictional universe but also allow people to identify their own experience with that of a character.

You touched on a point that seems to be the crux of the matter...ST in general should have metaphors for current times, but that has always been done figuratively, not so obviously and not so directly. This is where things get wonky, whether its wheelchairs, contemporary language, plot threads etc...maybe have a species that organically has no legs, and illustrate the challenges they might have in the ST world? (I don't know, I'm not a writer so...)

profanity, silly jokes and humor and teen angst, are fine on a contemporary show that incorporates all those things. for the most part, the point of SCI-FI/ ST is to get away from that stuff into a different universe...and I suppose that universe encapsulates everything: governments, society, technology, entertainment, and language...if you only incorporate one aspect of this universe and rely on the present for the rest, that universe becomes hollow in a sense.

It would be kind of like hearing Gandalf saying "Dude, WTF???" to Merry after he drops the armor down the well in The Mines of Moria and wakes the Orcs. :-)

 

[Uncle Sock]

I know you’re not directing this at me, but I have been using “queer” at lot in the past and I must again stress that I’m less interested in the word as a way of personal self-identification and more as a way to talk about the group of people facing discrimination because of their sexuality or gender identity. I totally understand how not everyone feels comfortable using any one word to identify themselves.

I totally get you—we’re good. I’ve used the term “queer” in my PhD dissertation in exactly the same umbrella sense you’re describing. I included a brief disclaimer upfront explaining how I was using it, and it was completely fine. No one raised an eyebrow.

I just wanted to add a bit more context to what I meant in my earlier post. Like you said, it absolutely wasn’t directed at you.

 

[ToddCam]

sadly no it would be inconsistent with the um...canon...there's that word.

In a universe where medical advances have resolved most issues and challenges (which was the point) ...putting someone in technology from centuries prior seems like regression...and to cast a para or quad in a series merely for the sake of inclusion, when it defies logic based on the lore that has been established, it's merely "present-ism"....

But therein lies the foundation of star trek wherein a para or quad could look at that universe and think "How amazing would it be if WE could clone a spinal column and give me my mobility back"

There is a technological regression.

 

[Michael]

You touched on a point that seems to be the crux of the matter...ST in general should have metaphors for current times, but that has always been done figuratively, not so obviously and not so directly. This is where things get wonky, whether its wheelchairs, contemporary language, plot threads etc...maybe have a species that organically has no legs, and illustrate the challenges they might have in the ST world? (I don't know, I'm not a writer so...)

The only thing that achieves is blatantly othering people with disabilities. If you’re only allowing for disabled people to be included in Trek when you make their disability an alien or fantastical aspect, you are effectively saying their disability and way of existing is somehow not “normal”. I don’t mind using metaphor and allegory to talk about important subjects, taking advantage of the fact that the viewer might be able to see the subject in a new light, from another perspective. But actual lived experiences and identities like just being a person with a disability? No, forcing yourself to only included them by way of an allegory is the wrong way, IMHO.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Have you ever felt there was a Trek episode or story that dealt with epilepsy, even if just in an allegorical way?

I've never even thought about connecting the two.

(I've had it since I was 12-13 or so, was only diagnosed in 2010 due to an ER visit post-seizure and subsequent follow-up (MRI, EEG).)

 

[flyerdog]

Maybe I misunderstood, but the question wasn’t for you to answer. I thought we were talking about how actual disabled people would feel about this. And I must say, I think it’s harsh to just straight up say: “No, disabled actors shouldn’t get a job on Star Trek, because it’s inconsistent with the canon”. Don't you realize just how that sounds?

no they could, they could do the B'Lanna trick where they showed them on camera but avoided the pregnant belly...maybe show them seated in every scene...No one is saying disabled actors shouldn't get roles, if you had an amputee for example...but then you still have to answer the 'canon' question: when they can clone organs, and make fully functional prosthetics why would they choose to remain amputees?

I'm not buying the "Their choice" argument, seems a "protectionary" from us that cannot relate
I think their 'choice' would be to have a new limb, or resolve their disability...i have YET to meet a quad or para who says "You know what? I'm happy being completely immobile and dependent on others"

many have come to accept their lives and their situation, but they are far from "content".