TREK future anti-gay?

[Alidar Jarok]

Guys, keep in mind that this thread is about Star Trek's depiction of gay people. This isn't really the place to discuss whether or not it is appropriate to be gay nor is it the place to attack other posters for a possibly controversial opinion. We have the Neutral Zone for that. This topic comes up often enough and I've seen them go bad each time. I will close this if it turns ugly, so stay civil please.

 

[Wowbagger]

BBC: Autism link to 'geek genes'
Wired: The Geek Syndrome

so if someone came up to you with an injection which would "cure" you of your nerdy attributes, including your love of Trek, would you take it?

fuck conformist intolerance, it's a hellava lot easier to change a mind than to rewrite a genetic code.

Would I take it? Heck, no. I love being a nerd. It's a vital part of who I am.

Would my parents have done so prenatally, if they could have? Probably not, but they're geeks, too. Would many other parents have done so prenatally to their nerd children, if they could have? I think it is at least a strong possibility. Does that mean the nerd population could be at risk? Frankly, yes. Is geekiness more accepted by society than non-hetero sexual orientation? I think so. Does this mean that LGBT are at more risk of genetic screening than nerds? I also think so.

Are most of the posters in this thread apparently incapable of making a distinction between a prediction and an endorsement? Evidently.

Let's try this: I think Barack Obama is going to win the November election (prediction). However, I want John McCain to win (endorsement). Similiarly, regardless of my wishes (endorsement), I believe that there is a modest and possibly strong chance that homosexual orientation will not survive the next hundred years, due to prenatal techniques that I predict will become available during the twenty-first century (prediction).

This prediction does not make me intolerant, a hater, a gay-basher, a homophobe, a conformist, a fucker, a bigot, or a Nazi. It may make me a pessimist. As all of you who have graduated high school ought to know, predictions, by definition, cannot indict the predictor. Indeed, some very prominent gay-interest advocates have raised the same concern as I have:

"Many gays fear that if gay genes are identified, it could result in discrimination, prenatal testing and even abortions to eliminate homosexuals. However, if we confirm that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, we are much more likely to get the courts to rule against discrimination." said Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. (Link)

By the logic of some of the posters in here, Mr. Ginsberg and the "many gays" he cites are no better than Adolf Hitler for suggesting this possibility--even though they raise it only as a warning.

Hopefully that lesson in basic logical distinction was clear enough for all of you. If not, my confidence in the public education system just took a big hit.

 

[Wowbagger]

Guys, keep in mind that this thread is about Star Trek's depiction of gay people. This isn't really the place to discuss whether or not it is appropriate to be gay nor is it the place to attack other posters for a possibly controversial opinion. We have the Neutral Zone for that. This topic comes up often enough and I've seen them go bad each time. I will close this if it turns ugly, so stay civil please.

Sorry. I must have been working on my post when you put this up. I'll cut it out now.

Sadly, I don't have much to say on the topic of Gays in Trek, because it's a topic that's been pretty well tapped-out. Seems pretty clear to me that Robert Scorpio hit the nail on the head: the producers from Roddenberry on paid lip-service, but were either thwarted by the studios or chickened out themselves.

 

[Meredith]

I think it is a different than we think, I think by then they would have a medicine that would make you straight if you wanted to and a lot of people wanting to conform to societal norms find it easier to visit Dr. McCoy and get a hypo spray of "gay-away" than to deal with being gay. Probably also the attitudes towards gays are more like far east cultures where they don't make a big deal out of being gay and being gay is okay, but again there aren't very many gay people around because it is easier to "hypo spray" the "gay-away". With a lot of the people who are gay by medical tests removing their gayness by hypo there are less repressed gay homophobes so tolerance for gay folks is much better and less of a big deal as it is these days.

^Take that homophobic bullshit and GTFO.

Homophobic? Hardly. Meredith is making a simple, rather obvious observation about the human condition: human beings will do almost anything to conform to social norms. Assuming that, at some point in the future, sexual orientation will become a trait that can be medically detected and subsequently altered--and, yes, this is a very big assumption, and relies on the idea that sexual orientation is something immutable you are "born with"--it stands very much to reason that parents of gay children will do anything in their power to "correct" that "imperfection" because "our child doesn't need that hardship." Note the 80-90% decrease in the incidence of Down Syndrome among infants in the past generation, because the vast majority of parents abort any child who shows signs of being Downs-positive. Parents just don't want to deal with kids who are in any way "unusual" (or, to use the word in the archaic sense, "queer").

It's a tragic commentary on humanity that we are so controlled by social norms... but it seems to be the truth. Unless societal acceptance of homosexuality wildly outpaces advances in medical science and genetic engineering, I would be very much surprised if homosexuality as a trait survived into the 24th Century. (Again, assuming that sexual orientation is a biological fact, rather than a lifestyle choice.)

Indeed, seeing the captain of the next Enterprise be confronted with and have to come to terms with the fact that humanity essentially "bred out" an entire subset of its population sometime in the 21st or early 22nd Century could make for a great hour of Trek.

For Meredith to observe this and make such a projection--without any endorsement either way, mind you--is no more bigoted than for her to point out that rascism is not likely to end anytime soon. Your knee-jerk reaction, Chemahkuu, is indicative of a far stronger prejudice.

Interesting insightful analysis of my post, I guess the main part of post they forgot was the fact that the minority who were gay in the 24th century were accepted because those people who were bigots (most bigots we know these days are closeted cases), in the 24th century are given the "choice" to fix their sexual orientation via the amazing 24th century medicine. With the bigots out of the way because a truly straight person has no need to be angry about gay people. Reasoning being because it is not like the gay folk are going to steal away their love interests.

With fewer closet case extremist bigots around more rational minds will prevail and those who choose to stay the way their genes and development made them will be able to live their lives free of hate. I would say int he time of trek it won't be a choice for a person to choose if they want to be gay, it will be a choice for them to decide if they want to remain gay. Of course there will be a small number of folks who may even opt to become gay by choice because they have made a conscious decision to take genetic treatment to become that way. In a way it is enlightening because today having tendencies towards homosexuality is not a choice, but something you are born with.

But this could backfire spectacularly, because as Q mentioned that Starfleet is not much different than the Borg when it comes to social conformity. With the pressure to conform and the way to conform being as simple as taking a once in a lifetime hypo-spray it would be easier for people who find out that they have homosexual feelings to simply take a shot when they first realize they have these feeling early on. They would not be making a balanced judgment about their own orientation, but it would still be their choice.

I know several people who are gay and at some point in their life they have said they if they could have taken a "magic pill" to cure them selves (and some have even gone to Jesus camp, like brainwashing really is all that effective..... sarc...) they would have taken the pill with no hesitation. So in a way being gay may very well be virtually extinct in the 24th century, partly by their own choice, partly by the conformity pressure, and partly by easy effective gene therapy / neuro medicine.

Is it right? Not sure about that one, ask a philosopher, i am wearing the rationalist hat right now, ask me when i have had a few drinks in me and have put on my philosopher's hat.

To all those people who were militantly disagreeing with me please re-read my original post, I didn't say that being gay was wrong, i was trying to analyze based on how humans act and how humans would act when confronted with the tech to actually change their own behavior/attractions at will. I didn't say starfleet would have gay hunting task forces they would pin people down and "hypo-spray away the gay", I said that the ease of treatment may lead people to take the easy way "out" (pun intended) and conform. Be honest and ask any gay person you know if they would have taken a magic pill to make themselves straight at some point in their past and 9 times out of 10 they would recount one or two instances in their past where they would have done so without hesitation.

 

[Meredith]

I think it is a different than we think, I think by then they would have a medicine that would make you straight if you wanted to and a lot of people wanting to conform to societal norms find it easier to visit Dr. McCoy and get a hypo spray of "gay-away" than to deal with being gay. Probably also the attitudes towards gays are more like far east cultures where they don't make a big deal out of being gay and being gay is okay, but again there aren't very many gay people around because it is easier to "hypo spray" the "gay-away". With a lot of the people who are gay by medical tests removing their gayness by hypo there are less repressed gay homophobes so tolerance for gay folks is much better and less of a big deal as it is these days.

Amen, glad someone else has thought of it, ive also just assumed homosexuallity was cured by the 24th century, why wouldnt it be? its a chemical inballance? just always been 2 afraid to say it, glad you had the courage to say so.

Before someone says it im not homophobic I was best man at a gay wedding.

You may be misunderstanding just because a chemical imbalance is responsible for making someone behave differently doesn't mean they have to be cured of it. What about some of the smart geniuses that exist today, sure a chemical imbalance of the brain may make them geniuses, but what if they wanted to take a drug when they were kids to make them normal so they would feel comfortable playing with kids on the playground? I bet a lot of them would take the drug if given the choice to lead a "normal" life, or their parents would administer the drug to their children to "help them out". There is currently a battle right now starting about autistic children and "autistic rights of children vs. parents" as some drugs are now being rolled out to treat autism. Is this right or wrong, would it prevent our society from having any more Einsteins or Hawkings? Maybe it would. Would it improve quality of life for the children, that is debatable. Stay tuned this battle could have some interesting segways into Homosexuality before it is all said and done.

 

[Meredith]

I think it is a different than we think, I think by then they would have a medicine that would make you straight if you wanted to and a lot of people wanting to conform to societal norms find it easier to visit Dr. McCoy and get a hypo spray of "gay-away" than to deal with being gay. Probably also the attitudes towards gays are more like far east cultures where they don't make a big deal out of being gay and being gay is okay, but again there aren't very many gay people around because it is easier to "hypo spray" the "gay-away". With a lot of the people who are gay by medical tests removing their gayness by hypo there are less repressed gay homophobes so tolerance for gay folks is much better and less of a big deal as it is these days.

Psycho much???
These posters really should watch the referenced Riker episode. The whole show was a lesson in tolerance of a person's sexual orientation.
- Those who were sexually different were treated as mentally ill
- They were driven underground (read: in the closet)
- It was called a subversive lifestyle and anti-societal and anti-family (geez, sounds familiar)
- Riker and the alien break the rules by having contact and (gods forbid) caring for each other

Perhaps the above posters should be placed in a few photon torpedo shells and fired toward the planet in the episode.
Over the years I've noticed how bigots talk trash, then claim they were just being logical. Hitler and others used this same trick.
So my suggestion is for the haters to GTFO.

Thanks for bringing up Hitler, because I clearly advocate starfleet killing people who don't take the gay-away injections.........

Yeah.....right!!!! I am using sarcasm in case you didn't notice.


Lemme use some pictures since they are sometimes more efficient that typed linguistic communication.

Conformity seemed to be the norm in starfleet culture, kinda like the . Q even mentioned this. However the federation is known for tolerance, so there is some hope. Choosing to remain gay or choosing to become straight will become a choice in the 24th century. Today you are pretty much hard wired either way. A fair number of those who are gay may not allow themselves to experince their born into lifestyle because there is a human need to be accepted and to conform and they will be like this: Well kinda like cardassians, even though they are humans. The human needs for conformity is very and very . Some will be proud of who they are will be gay, in a way they will be loud and proud gender/sex warriors: .


Will this lead to more tolerance of those remaining gay rebels: ?

Will the Federation be tolerant and logical about it: ?

Will the forces of conformity and the need to be accepted prevail ?

I don't have a flippin' crystal ball ....


You mention the Riker episode...

The J'nail were more of this when is came to sex and gender, but we saw how easy it was for them as a society to do this because according to the episode they didn't do much contact outside of their own race.

Maybe their developmental path led them to "cure" their own people before they encounter other races. Maybe having main one gender created such an overwhelming force of conformity that it became taboo and illegal to do otherwise. Maybe this is a lesson about how being tolerant of other races and cultures like the Federation can be a double edged sword. Maybe it was just lazy non-risk taking writing.

OK, quote my "trash talk"!! where is it?

I posited a scenario based off my own understanding of human nature, do I think I would want to live in that world? Probably not, what would i like to see, well I wouldn't want parents giving their children "gay away" hypo-spray anytime soon, but what about a fully grown adult that has the right to make any change they want to within starfleet medicine's grasp? Would you outlaw "gay away hypo spray"? If you did that would you be violating a person's right to do what they want to their own body because their brain and mind are also covered under their rights to their own body?



Oh and thanks a frelling trillion for lumping me in with all the intolerant bigots that if they had it their way they would spray paint "No Homos Allowed" on the saucer section of the Enterprise. I really enjoy getting shot of a photon torpedo tube with all other bigots just because I want to make a critical analysis.

 

[Meredith]

I think it is a different than we think, I think by then they would have a medicine that would make you straight if you wanted to and a lot of people wanting to conform to societal norms find it easier to visit Dr. McCoy and get a hypo spray of "gay-away" than to deal with being gay. Probably also the attitudes towards gays are more like far east cultures where they don't make a big deal out of being gay and being gay is okay, but again there aren't very many gay people around because it is easier to "hypo spray" the "gay-away". With a lot of the people who are gay by medical tests removing their gayness by hypo there are less repressed gay homophobes so tolerance for gay folks is much better and less of a big deal as it is these days.

Yeah great, that's what society needs, a cure for being gay. I think I'd be much happier with a cure for intolerance of others, or perhaps a cure for people having an interest in the way other people that have nothing remotely to do with themselves live their lives. At the heart of Star Trek, people are accepted for who they are, not what they do in their private lives. 'Curing' people for something that isn't even a medical problem, but just a minority way of living life? Sorry, but bullshit. I wouldn't want to be fucking cured for being gay.

Yeah but what is likely to happen when the genie gets out of the bottle and cannot be crammed back into it. I would like to think that nobody would dare touch the stuff, but human nature being what it is some would take an easy "out" and not want to go "out". Advances in genetics change what it is to be human and open a veritable pandora's box of ethical questions. You mention a cure for intolerance, would it be right to go around and give people tolerance tests and if they were intolerant you would hold them down and inject them a genetic virus that makes them tolerant? No, it most certainly wouldn't be right. If a person want to improve their feelings and felt they had too many prejudices and made a conscious choice to take the injection is that right? What if someone took a tolerance test and found out they are intolerant of different people subconsciously, would it be right for them to make a decision to fix that via a drug?

If being who you are is at odds of who you consciously want to be is it wrong to want to change that? Is it ethical? Is it moral?

If you were born human and you wanted to become a vulcan, with 24th century tech you could change your species. Is that wrong, ethical, or even moral? We know it is easy, but what about it?

 

[number6]

 

[Steve Roby]

Anyhow, point is, Steve, you may very well be right. In four hundred years, yes, it is possible that the LGBT community will have been wiped from the spectrum of human diversity. But, as you argue, there is every other reason, unfolding right here in the present day, for us to envision a future in which the gay community will be thriving beyond the dreams of today's rainbow movement--and far beyond the very limited scope of Star Trek's sexual vision. Please don't think me a pessimist for being uncertain which future we will achieve.

Keeping this in the Star Trek context... in the Star Trek universe, shagging intelligent beings that aren't even human (and may not necessarily have human style private bits) is no big deal. Shagging things that aren't alive or even real is no big deal (e.g., the sex programs in Quark's holosuites). I doubt homesexuality will be genetically engineered out of humanity any more than lefthandedness will be. (And there are people alive today who can attest to the fact that being lefthanded used to be seen as something that had to be eliminated, who remember being forced to use their right hand for writing, etc in school and were physically punished if they reverted to using their left hand.)

DS9 established in at least a couple of episodes already mentioned that the Trek future is not anti-gay. The only thing we can be sure of is that, as someone else mentioned, some of Trek's writers and producers have been afraid to deal with the idea.

Hey, Russell T. Davies is going to be looking for something new to do soon. If he could bring Doctor Who back from the dead and make it a huge hit, I wonder what he could do for Star Trek...

 

[pookha]

." Note the 80-90% decrease in the incidence of Down Syndrome among infants in the past generation, because the vast majority of parents abort any child who shows signs of being Downs-positive. .

can you cite a source for this.
actually some studies have seen a rise in downs birth due to the more middle age parents giving birth.

and i suspect just how serious is the outcome has a pretty big impact on whether abortion is considered.

abortion may be considered for child that may not be able to live very long and would be in constant pain ect but not considered for those who have milder case of downs.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022534705635835

From 1983 to 1997 a dramatic increase in the number of infants born to parents 35 years or older was observed. During the 15-year study period there was an increase of 111% and 60% in the number of mothers and fathers 35 years old or older, respectively

i dont see any where near 90 percent reduction in most of the studies i looked at.

the highest figure in one country was 67 percent and that seemed to unusally high with about 20 to 40 percent more the norm.
and once again with factors like the quality of life ect taken into consideration.

also many researcher cite other factors in the decline of down such as many women having less children and they stop having children before 35.

 

[Sean Aaron]

We have the Neutral Zone for that.

Where is the Neutral Zone? I don't seem to see that area on the board any more...

 

[Goliath]

Star Trek isn't anti-gay, it's just chicken.

QFT.

Meredith and Wowbagger, for what it's worth, I understand what you're getting at.

One thing you might have mentioned is that, if I understand the course of Star Trek's future history correctly, things get a lot worse on Earth before they get better.

In the Star Trek universe, the 21st century seems to be a very dark time for humanity. What's more, TOS seems to have projected that genetic-engineering technology would advance more quickly than it actually has, in the real world.

Thus, it would seem that parents would have had the chance to extensively redesign their offspring long before people developed the enlightened attitudes of the 24th century. In a society like ours, where anti-gay prejudice is still rampant, this might indeed have led to extensive efforts to eliminate homosexuality at the genetic level, among the unborn.

The sad fact might simply be that, as a result, there just aren't many gay people in the 24th century.

Now: once we do arrive at the 24th century, when people's attitudes have changed completely, and non-therapeutic genetic engineering has been outlawed, this would no longer be happening. And I would imagine that 24th-century humans would look back on that earlier period with shame and amazement: how could people be so bigoted and stupid, they would wonder.

The parallel I would draw would be with 19th and early-20th-century attempts to forcibly assimilate indigenous peoples--residential schools here in Canada, Indian boarding schools in the USA, and the "stolen generations" of aborigines in Australia.

 

[Deks]

When it comes to Trek itself, I don't consider it anti-gay.
If anything, Trek has made effort to push for tolerance towards diversities.
However, we also can't ignore the problem of the show being created in the present, in a country where homosexuality is not viewed in a particularly favorable manner.
I agree that Trek could have ignored certain rulings from the networks and suits ... but the sad truth is it did not (at least not in the manner of dealing with homosexuality openly).

On another note ... I personally don't conform to cultural norms and reject them rather wildly as do many people.
You have to understand that if humanity finds so called 'cures' for anything that is considered to be 'deviant from the norm' (which is essentially speaking a matter of personal perspective), then we will weed out so many diversities out of ourselves which might present a problem in the future.

Yes, I agree that if someone comes up with a way of turning us homosexuals into heterosexuals, or geeks into non-geeks, then it's possible that numerous parents (if they aren't educated properly on the subject of embracing diversities instead of destroying it because it's 'easier' or because they think their child shouldn't go through that ... well to be precise, the decision is not theirs but the child's to make for when it grows up) will make a decision for turning their kids into what is considered 'culturally acceptable' ... which is in my opinion extremely idiotic and repulsive at the same time.
Those kinds of people are not really deemed in my opinion to be called 'parents'.
'Unconditional love' ?
That concept falls apart when people jump at chances like this and of course behave in a hypocritical manner.
I don't like society and about 80% of the worlds population due it's hypocritical tendencies among other things.
They don't even live by the rules they set out for themselves, and prefer to lie on every turn, not to mention pretend.

Like I said ... if these so called 'cures' start seeing the light of day, then there is a good possibility that people will weed out numerous diversities in a very short amount of time.
But that's just speculation at this point.
Such a scenario may not occur necessarily.

Diversities are part of human nature.
Embracing them is much better in my opinion (even though at times it can be tougher) instead of pretending to know what's 'best' for unborn/living people (because we don't) or pretending that people have the right to change an unborn/living individuals simply because they don't fit into the category of what is 'acceptable' or 'normal' (terms which I personally detest among other things).

Living in a world deprived of diversities would be no life for me.
It's essentially living in a stupid illusion created out of fear and lack of knowledge.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Meredith, do NOT post so many times in a row, it's considered bad form and may even be considered spamming. Use the multiquote feature instead.

We have the Neutral Zone for that.

Where is the Neutral Zone? I don't seem to see that area on the board any more...

You have to request access. See this thread

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=22828

 

[PhoenixIreland]

I really don't see why 4 pages was nesssicary for this discussion.
It's really quite simple, if they wanted to show a gay character they would have, there were plenty of romance stories, they didn't do it because they were thinking with the ratings and nothing else, they clearly figured it would turn off more people than it would attract new ones or energise existing fans to be thirlled at it going back to it's controversial routes.
Alot of shows that have done is since have proved it doens't turn many people off, if any, but I suppose when a huge chunk of your audience is America it's always risky with the US tending to be behind the times with alot of social progression generally.

Don't make me laugh with the DS9 trill stuff, two women making out on tv is not a risk, it's a ratings boost.

I've noticed alot of shows like soaps here in Europe like Hollyoaks and Skins have a gay character in a group of otherwise straght friends, in those shows they're shown as average joes with the gay thing being an aterthought, no big thing, they could have done it that way, they didn't.
Not that big a deal.

 

[PopBoy]

Its certainly a shame. You look at British sci-fi shows like Dr.Who and Torchwood which are really strong on the issue. In some cases its treated completely equally which is great. The ratings of such shows are gigantic.

 

[number6]

Its certainly a shame. You look at British sci-fi shows like Dr.Who and Torchwood which are really strong on the issue. In some cases its treated completely equally which is great. The ratings of such shows are gigantic.

No, they're not.. At least not in the US. Don't get me wrong. Both are respected highly in the genre, but are only available on Cable. If either of these were on a "real" network, they would not survive.

Joe Bagodonuts has probably never heard of Dr. Who and would never sit through an episode but is vaguely aware of Star Trek. There is a huge difference.

Gays are largely used in US to provide comic relief, and they are shown in true stereotypical form. US audiences are not intelligent enough to be comfortable with it any other way.

Going back to the OP, it is not necessary to have a gay character as a regular as there are only a finite number of plots that could be handled for American television. What Trek has done with sexuality as a serious subject (and no I am NOT talking about the T&A jokes in all five series) has nearly always been done in a thought provoking way. Getting offended because there isn't a openly gay character is a ludicrous a notion as having an openly gay character in the first place. It only opens the door for the stupid stereotypes which I really do find offensive. If I were gay, I would be more offended by the mincing limp wristed emotionally stunted examples of homosexuality we are already exposed to in primetime network television.

 

[Green Shirt]

I really don't see why 4 pages was nesssicary for this discussion.

Yeah, another example of Shatner being right on SNL in '86.

 

[Stardate]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wowbagger
." Note the 80-90% decrease in the incidence of Down Syndrome among infants in the past generation, because the vast majority of parents abort any child who shows signs of being Downs-positive. .

pookha; can you cite a source for this.
actually some studies have seen a rise in downs birth due to the more middle age parents giving birth.

and i suspect just how serious is the outcome has a pretty big impact on whether abortion is considered.

abortion may be considered for child that may not be able to live very long and would be in constant pain ect but not considered for those who have milder case of downs.

I think Wowbagger is correct about the precntage. A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated. I have seen smillier numbers elsewhere confirming this. Physicians and ethicists are of course concerned about the ethical ramifications of this. My 2 cent is that i can understand why parents dosent want a child with Downs syndrom.. All parents wants a healthy child.

 

[robjkay]

Unless Human nature has changed between modern times and the era of Star Trek, there are probably many homosexual individuals throughout the Human culture of the future, but they are rarely specified as such in any canon sense. Federation culture does not seem very sexually repressive, so it is likely that all heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual or transgender members of their society are regarded as equals, and as such, none of the people seen on Star Trek have had any need to present or justify any of their sexual preferences unless it occurred in the course of an episode or movie; therefore, we have very little information about their sexual culture. However, behind-the-scenes information suggests the lack of homosexual relationships on Star Trek is more plausibly explained by prevalent Western social taboos, as the television series and films tend to avoid addressing what it is like to be gay in the future. The production team over the years has stated that they do not want to create a "token" homosexual character for the express purpose of the issue, anymore than they want to create a black character purely to address racial issues. This explanation may be misleading. Star Trek did of course depict black characters, as would be expected simply because its vision of the future did not exclude black humans; whereas of its numerous depictions of sexual attraction, none happened to be truly same-sex.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Sexuality