The very last thing I'd want with a tolerant Trek is to have an LGBTQ character simply because they're LGBTQ. Make it part of their character, but don't make it the primary focus of that character (like Worf with honor, Neelix with his pluckiness, Quark with his greediness, etc etc).
I think on some level putting an LGBTQ character in deliberately and blatantly is warranted since trek has pretended these folks don't exist for five series now. I agree it shouldn't be the primary focus of that character.
Truth be told...
I think on some level putting an LGBTQ character in deliberately and blatantly is warranted since trek has pretended these folks don't exist for five series now. I agree it shouldn't be the primary focus of that character.
...These two sentences are on some level in direct contradiction to each other (it can't be the primary focus, but it should be blatant?), which only further illustrates my point about how it's going to be tricky to include someone without making it seem forced or as if it were catering, as opposed to being an actual out-and-out worthy character trait. If it comes across as blatant and deliberate, then you add in condescension and preachiness, and that
never goes well; it actually increases the divide in dialogue.
I'm not going to say that Trek hasn't been classically biased against the LGBTQ population, but on the other hand, who's to say that Ensign So-and-So in the back there
isn't at least bi/queer/fluid? I've always liked that thought, that on a starship, maybe a tenth of any given crew were LGBTQ, it's just that work/duty/Starfleet came first, just as it would in real life (a gay-activist CEO is a CEO first, activist second, gay man third, for example). Sure, that doesn't explain the discrepancy amongst the senior staffs of any one show, but it doesn't preclude any possibilities, either; just because we haven't seen Riker romantically involved with a man doesn't mean that he's never
been with a man, it could very well be that we just assume so. If a gay angle is pursued that way, I would think that would be the best way to do it for two reasons: 1. It sends a message that people who you think you know aren't exactly what you expect them to be in positive ways (a mindset which is creeping more and more into the modern public discussion thanks to recent LGBTQ advancements) and 2. new adventures always means finding out new things about the characters you love.
I was one of those who was very much looking forward to those rumors of Malcolm Reed being gay. The character was tough enough and skilled enough and too much of a soldier to allow any insipid gay jokes anyway -- but those rumors never came true (or were they even intended in the first place?). Yet, with Trek's record of showing diversity, I'm almost thankful that there hadn't been many non-hetero showings, or else it really would have been the elephant in the room as opposed to just another character trait like Troi's love of chocolate. Hell, with Trek's habit of showing aliens to an almost stereotypical level, there's a chance that Trek having more prominent LGBTQ people would actually set those advancements back.
Lastly, I'm pretty sure there are quite a few people (including academics) who don't think Trek XI caters to the lowest common denominator. But then, if you want argue that something should be inclusive, you don't talk down to people in the process, either. Trek should always been about access, not superiority.
