Cogenitor

[borgboy]

I'm perplexed by the message of this episode. Was Trip wrong to try to help the Cogenitor? She was treated horribly, not given any rights or even a name. Archer comes off like a jerk for chewing Trip out for trying to help her/it. That seems out of character for Archer to me, he seems willing to help others even when it's inconvieninet normally.
This is pretty obviously a metaphor for gays, and while I appreciate the effort, I don't think it was very well done, given the tragic ending for the third sexed being and Trip's attempts to help being condemned.
This episode is pretty similar to TNG episode with the genderless alien that falls for Riker. That story had a real downer of an ending too. Can the next gay metaphor ST story please have a real gay character and a happy ending please?

 

[SFRabid]

I never considered the episode to be about gay issues. On the surface it seemed to be about the basis of the prime directive. Underneath it seemed to convey a message that being halfway involved with something you don't understand can cause more damage than good. Either way, both Archer and Trip were so out of character in their actions with each other that I find the episode to be almost unwatchable.

 

[borgboy]

I'm glad to see somebody else sees the out of character problems.
The aliens in Cogenitor were very advanced so I don't see it as a Prime Directive issue.
An oppressed "third gender" seems like a gay symbolism to me. Anything dealing with oppression and discrimination of a minority, especially with a focus on gender being an issue can be read that way, but that doesn't prevent a different interpretation from being equally valid. The fact that the Cogenitor wasn't allowed to learn how to read was similar to the way slaves were treated in pre-Civil War USA.

 

[JiNX-01]

I'm perplexed by the message of this episode. Was Trip wrong to try to help the Cogenitor? She was treated horribly, not given any rights or even a name. Archer comes off like a jerk for chewing Trip out for trying to help her/it. That seems out of character for Archer to me, he seems willing to help others even when it's inconvieninet normally.

I think the greatness of this episode is in the ambiguity in its conclusion -- not in the cogenitor's suicide -- but in the lingering question as to who was right: Trip or Archer?

This is pretty obviously a metaphor for gays, and while I appreciate the effort, I don't think it was very well done, given the tragic ending for the third sexed being and Trip's attempts to help being condemned.

I disagree on the connection to gays -- the parallel is more akin to the historical treatment of women -- nor do I see it as a "prime directive" story. Interference on such a small scale could hardly be seen as a violation of a species' right to self-determination, especially in light of the Vissians' vastly more advanced technology.

This episode is pretty similar to TNG episode with the genderless alien that falls for Riker. That story had a real downer of an ending too. Can the next gay metaphor ST story please have a real gay character and a happy ending please?

I did view TNG's "The Outcast" as an obvious nod to gay rights.

I never considered the episode to be about gay issues. On the surface it seemed to be about the basis of the prime directive. Underneath it seemed to convey a message that being halfway involved with something you don't understand can cause more damage than good. Either way, both Archer and Trip were so out of character in their actions with each other that I find the episode to be almost unwatchable.

I agree that Archer seems out of character here -- to a point -- but Trip is entirely in character. All the way back to Broken Bow, Trip reacts to situations around him on Rigel in which he believes helpless people are being harmed -- the mother weaning her child off one kind of "air" so it can breathe another; the female shrieking behind a steel door.

And Trip is our Everyman so of course he's going to be curious about this third sex. And the more he learns, the more troubling he finds the cogenitor's situation. His sense of morality is grounded in human history --and so he will judge the species he meets on that basis. Relativism is not part of his makeup.

Archer's situation here is more complicated. He has in fact set the example that Trip claims as his justification (cases in point: Civilization, Marauders, Rogue Planet). But Archer has also befriended the captain of the Vissian ship. He is responsible for cementing the relationship on behalf of Earth with this advanced -- and friendly -- species. He also must consider the issue of the cogenitor's role in perpetuation of the Vissian race.

I would so like to have had a scene with Archer weighing the question of what to do with the cogenitor within the larger question of what humanity's role should be "out here" and the relationship humans should have with the species Enterprise encounters.

 

[SFRabid]

What I find out of character for Trip is his ignoring of Archer's orders and disregard of authority. He did this early in the episode, before he discovered the cogenitor to be as intelligent as the others.

 

[Lady Conqueror]

^I don't remember him ignoring Archer's orders (in fact I often wonder how differently things might have turned out if Archer or Malcolm hadn't been off doing their own things and weren't able to see the path Trip was on, would either of them have been able to stop him) - he definitely ignored T'Pol & Phlox who told him to drop it.

As to who was right or wrong, I don't think either Archer or Trip were right. Trip had good intentions but went about it entirely the wrong way, basically forcing Archer into a no right answer decision. Does he grant asylum and therefore ruin the relationship with the Vissians and at the same time deny the Vissian couple (and who knows how many more in the future) their chance at a children and a family OR deny the wants of the Cogenitor to be someone more than just a breeding machine. Maybe he thought that was the lesser of the two choices since the Cogenitor may have been an agent for change in it's own and other Cogenitors determination with persistance and time. Instead it took it's own life, an unfortunate but not predetermined option that Archer could have reliably forseen

 

[JiNX-01]

Archer hadn't given any orders concerning the crew's interactions with the Vissians -- and the cogenitor was a Vissian (admittedly, a Vissian he didn't know existed until he returned to the ship). T'Pol told Trip this first contact was important to Archer.

And Trip, who was still in his Hero Worship of Archer phase, honestly believed that the captain would approve of his actions.

 

[borgboy]

I can see the Cogenitor story as symbolic of oppression of women. A story about oppression can mirror different groups of oppressed minorities. I don't really see where only one onterpretation has to be right.

 

[The Borg Queen]

You'd have thought an intelligent species would have more respect for those who are vital to their survival.

But they didn't, so it serves them right that the Cogenitor killed themself. That'll teach 'em.

 

[Pensive]

Agreed with JiNX on the ambiguity issue. The fact that we still have so many discussions about this ep show how well it did in that department. I find myself sometimes vacillating between the two points of view. *tears at hair* Archer was between a rock and a hard place!

 

[Bosch571]

Trip kinda forced Archer into the decision he made. I'm sure that Archer could at least talk to the Vissian captain about it. It might not give immediate result but it’s probably more constructive. You can’t just go around and force your ways onto everyone especially if your outgunned by 80% of alien races.

 

[commodore64]

Trip didn't ignore Archer's orders, but he did ignore T'Pol's who was reduced to "wait til your father gets home" threats. Both Phlox and T'Pol tried to steer Trip away from this one, and as an audience member I think it helped me make a decision that Trip was doing the wrong thing.

Borgboy, in some respects I think you're right. I think it's very much about the prime directive. T'Pol and Archer agree on this one -- don't interfere. And they do on the grounds of they don't understand the culture, but "honor it." Even Phlox does, as he tries to explain the sexual reproduction of the aliens, while telling Trip to look beyond his provincial attitudes. Very prime directive and I think its a watershed moment: Archer believes non-interference is best. This is hardly the same guy who wanted to haul a Klingon back to Qo'nos and meddle in various affairs.

I think this is also pointing out how far Archer has come and where he used to be. He used to be where Trip is now, which is where the engineer learned the behavior.

I also think, Borgboy, you're right in it dealing with taboos. Charlie is androgynous (although I think s/he has feminine features) and bears the name "Charlie" (a man's name). This episode reminded me of the TNG episode about the same ideas -- a "female" character who was from a planet of adrogynous people and yet found a sexual identity. Riker helped rescue "her," with some hints that there was something romantic between them, only for her to be captured and re-programmed to be adrogynous. I'm not sure if I ever thought Trip was sexually interested in Charlie or vice versa though, and I'm glad they steered clear of that. It made the dilemma more interesting: Trip had nothing to gain by helping Charlie, other than thinking he was doing the right thing.

I also agree with Jinx -- the reason this is a fun one to come back to and discuss is the ambiguity. I see both sides of the equation -- why Trip would do this and why others think it's wrong -- and believe in this episode everyone "lost." Charlie lost his/her life, Archer lost his esteem in a friend, the couple lost chances for a child, Trip lost some innocence and friendship, and the humans lost a potential ally.

 

[bluedana]

Interesting the different analogies people draw from this episode - gays, women. As a black person and a lawyer, I automatically equated Cogenitor with Dred Scott, case about a runaway slave in 19th century America.

You'd have thought an intelligent species would have more respect for those who are vital to their survival.

We fought a civil war, in part, about this.

I love this episode precisely because it is so painful. Do I sympathize with Trip? Yes. Do I think Archer made the right decision given the circumstances? Also yes. I think that Trip's actions cost Archer the moral high ground and left him no winnable position. Trip's reaction to Charles was natural and right, but his actions were wrong. By the time it got to the conference with the Vissians over Charles' asylum request, the battle was already lost.

 

[borgboy]

I think Trip made the right decision given the circumstances, even if the consequences were high. How could it be wrong to try to help someone in need? Would the better choice have been for him to turn a blind eye to the grave injustices done to Charlie?

 

[Triskelion]

I thought it was a statement about Trek fans being marginalized by society.

Just kidding. I must be a little slow-witted, because I didn't associate it with any contemporary subcultures.

Trip showed the Cogenitor her potential, something her own society would not do. Clearly the Vissian attitudes were that the Cogenitors were "naturally" balanced to be marginalized; a value which is absolutely going to be questioned, especially by a race that values equality - something the Vissians probably needed to learn about Humans.

The fact that the Cogenitor, once empowered, revealed her desire to be more, only shows that her society had indeed kept her kind intentionally subserviant. Racial subserviance.

The debate is an interesting one; from the pragmatic viewpoint, Archer wanted to develop relations with the species. From the ideological viewpoint, Trip advocated the Cogenitor's innate rights - admittedly without understanding their socioculture, but nevertheless - the Cogenitor obviously had no limitations on potential save social ones.

In my personal opinion, Trip was courageous, and the Vissians perhaps could use a kick in the ass. Is such a culture, that systematically deprives 7% (?) of its populace of reading, let alone citizen rights, above questioning? Sorry, I disagree. I go with Trip on this one.

The Cogenitor took her own life. It was the only individual right left to her, and she took it. Both she and Trip were courageous. Though I think she should have talked to other Cogenitors about it first. Since obviously it had never occurred to them to change. In real life, I'm not so sure people are so blind to being screwed over - even when they lack education.

 

[borgboy]

I think the Cogenitors made up 3% of the population. I do agree that is unlikely someone could be oppressed to that level and not even question it.

 

[JiNX-01]

I think the Cogenitors made up 3% of the population. I do agree that is unlikely someone could be oppressed to that level and not even question it.

I would so love to have seen the show revisit the Vissians. I would like to know more about what becomes of the cogenitors from birth. Are they turned over to the state to be raised in isolation so they don't aspire to be more? Is their small share of the population a result of abortions by parents who want a child who can grow up to be more than a cogenitor? Might it have been genetic engineering from another time to limit population growth?
I'd also like to know more about the society and how such an advanced civilization can blindly discriminate against even a tiny minority of its people.

 

[borgboy]

I watche Rejin today and found it interesting Archer rescues Rajin from her pimp without a second thought. How was that so different from helping Charlie? Archer knew next to nothing about the culture he was interfering in there, yet he decided Rajin should be helped while Charlie shouldn't . Seems kind of hypocritical.

 

[JiNX-01]

Rajiin asked Archer to help her.
Charles didn't ask Trip to teach it to read and aspire to do more than it was relegated to do.

 

[Lady Conqueror]

I think Trip made the right decision given the circumstances, even if the consequences were high. How could it be wrong to try to help someone in need? Would the better choice have been for him to turn a blind eye to the grave injustices done to Charlie?

It's more that he went about it the wrong way rather than his decision to help being wrong. He gave Charles a very naive view of how things would turn out, and Charles (being even more naive) bought into it. Societies that live on subjugation of a minority don't change because someone from that minority stands up and says "Hey look, i've discovered my potential". It takes a long time to change those attitudes and laws as our planets own history shows time and again - but Trip didn't let Charles in on that side of things and when the pressure was on, Charles couldn't handle it and took it's own life.