Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek

[stj]

david g, the use of "queer" in academia is a vain decree that the negative connotations do not apply. I'm sorry but when you use it you're calling people names.

Andy Mangels, I don't have a horse in this race. I thought you were extremely hostile. As for the general notion that interviewing people is necessary? It was Kirk and Spock that led to the creation of "slash." Interviewing backstage people would shed zero light.

In general, the importance of intentions is overrated. The genre, i.e., what kind of story was meant to be told, tells us the most important thing about intentions. Indeed, deliberate ambiguity, which intends nothing, is a popular stratagem, but renders interviews moot. Lastly, interviews have two difficulties. First, does the interviewee actually know? Second, why would the interviewee tell us the truth?

Christopher, ST-One, LaBarre, Pauln6 et al. seem to forget that heterosexuality is always a big issue, so much so that anything other than blatant heterosexuality is by default an issue. A character without a love life is either a minor character, or one that is meant to be seen as emotionally stunted.

Dumbledore's gayness was alluded to in the Rowling books when a journalist insinuated Dumbledore had a different interest in Harry than alleged, and when Harry met an old lover of Dumbledore's, of sufficient standing to qualify as chief mourner at Dumbledore's funeral.

The Wrath of Khan is not Ahab and Moby Dick in any rational sense, inasmuch as Kirk is a person. Anyone can feel free to explain why Khan is the only character whose chest is on display, pretty much constantly. He really is dressed funny.

 

[david g]

STJ, I sincerely mean no disrespect to anyone by using the term "queer." In academic circles, the term is absolutely so ubiquitous as to be a commonplace. But I am under the impression that queer is also common parlance today, e.g. "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"...?

In any event, for me what is useful about queer is that it can be used to describe a range of sexual affiliations, identities, attitudes, behaviors, ways of feeling and acting and being that do not fall under the limiting rubric of heterosexual, or, for that matter, of homosexual, gay, lesbian, et al. I'm an old-fashioned red-blooded gay man ... but I also know that my students rarely seem to use the term "gay" to describe themselves, thinking it puts too much of a limitation on their emotional as well as sexual identities. I dont have an answer to these debates--I do, however, recognize their complexity (which includes an awareness that some really do chafe at the term queer).

Queer is also a term that implies political resistance--using a word that was used to hurt us as one that signifies pride and resilience. I dont offer this reading as a justification to those who dont like the term--only more clarification as to why I find it a useful description.

In any event, I am glad that the topic generally is of interest to so many of us Trek fans, even if we often quite disagree.

 

[stj]

^^^Yes, you did not mean to be denigrating people.

People are kidding themselves if they think "queer" somehow implies something more complex, less stereotyped. Polygamists are nonnormative but aren't "queer." Sadists or masochists are nonnormative but aren't "queer." Fetishists are nonnormative but aren't "queer." A compulsive philanderer might be normative, but officially he or she isn't, but neither is "queer." "Queer" always and only means someone sexually responsive to someone of the same sex. More complex variations can be briefly hinted at with the term bi.

Branding yourself with an insulting term is self-deprecation, not political resistance. Not being Humpty Dumpty, words don't mean what we want. Academics may imagine otherwise. If they could dictate the language, they should probably work on the word "straight." There's a set of weird and self contradictory connotations!

 

[david g]

STJ, a heck of a lot more people can get traction out of identifying themselves as "queer" than can people who identify as "fetishists" or "philanderers." Sorry, but while I can see why some chafe against the word queer, it has been reappropriated by enough people at this point to constitute a genuine identity in culture, unlike fetishism or adultery...!

 

[JD]

Pauln6 is talking about the BSG prequel, Caprica.

Gaeta was shown to be bisexual in "The Face of the Enemy," a series of webisodes set after "Sometimes a Great Notion." He is shown having a relationship with an 8 (in flashbacks to New Caprica) and with Hoshi.

Cain was probably a lesbian. In "Razor," as she was in a relationship with Gina.

Baltar, D'Anna, and Caprica had a threesome in "The Eye of Jupiter," if you want to count that (I believe that's the correct episode).

That's about it for gay text on the series that I can remember. Caprica, of course, features a prominent gay character (Sam Adama) as well as a character in a functioning group marriage.

I didn't realize Sam was gay.

I never realized before how much of that there was in BSG. Not that I have a probablem with it, I just never thought it over that much.

BSG and Caprica are actually two of my favorite shows, and I am now counting down the days to C1.5.

 

[stj]

STJ, a heck of a lot more people can get traction out of identifying themselves as "queer" than can people who identify as "fetishists" or "philanderers." Sorry, but while I can see why some chafe against the word queer, it has been reappropriated by enough people at this point to constitute a genuine identity in culture, unlike fetishism or adultery...!

It is not possible to "reappropriate" words, especially ones with such negative connotations. Thinking you can is where you and others go wrong. The attempt to reappropriate "gay" as a nonpejorative has failed. Worse, in addition to deceiving oneself that self-deprecation is in-your-face defiance (), the whole point to the "queer" label is that it is not an identity, which is read as "stereotype." Sorry, but while I can see why some people in small enough circles can deceive themselves, "queer" is a self-deprecating evasion.

I know you mean well, but you're wrong. Your intentions don't change the connotations and denotations of words.
Being gay or bi is like being left-handed: A perfectly normal variation, albeit one found in a minority. The underlying preference for "queer" in academia I suspect is due to the relegation of homosexuality implicit in "queer."

 

[Sci]

STJ, a heck of a lot more people can get traction out of identifying themselves as "queer" than can people who identify as "fetishists" or "philanderers." Sorry, but while I can see why some chafe against the word queer, it has been reappropriated by enough people at this point to constitute a genuine identity in culture, unlike fetishism or adultery...!

It is not possible to "reappropriate" words, especially ones with such negative connotations. Thinking you can is where you and others go wrong. The attempt to reappropriate "gay" as a nonpejorative has failed. Worse, in addition to deceiving oneself that self-deprecation is in-your-face defiance (), the whole point to the "queer" label is that it is not an identity, which is read as "stereotype." Sorry, but while I can see why some people in small enough circles can deceive themselves, "queer" is a self-deprecating evasion.

I know you mean well, but you're wrong. Your intentions don't change the connotations and denotations of words.
Being gay or bi is like being left-handed: A perfectly normal variation, albeit one found in a minority. The underlying preference for "queer" in academia I suspect is due to the relegation of homosexuality implicit in "queer."

I'm happy to see that you know better than numerous actual LGBT persons both in academia and in everyday life.

 

[ST-One]

STJ, a heck of a lot more people can get traction out of identifying themselves as "queer" than can people who identify as "fetishists" or "philanderers." Sorry, but while I can see why some chafe against the word queer, it has been reappropriated by enough people at this point to constitute a genuine identity in culture, unlike fetishism or adultery...!

It is not possible to "reappropriate" words, especially ones with such negative connotations. Thinking you can is where you and others go wrong. The attempt to reappropriate "gay" as a nonpejorative has failed. Worse, in addition to deceiving oneself that self-deprecation is in-your-face defiance (), the whole point to the "queer" label is that it is not an identity, which is read as "stereotype." Sorry, but while I can see why some people in small enough circles can deceive themselves, "queer" is a self-deprecating evasion.

I know you mean well, but you're wrong. Your intentions don't change the connotations and denotations of words.
Being gay or bi is like being left-handed: A perfectly normal variation, albeit one found in a minority. The underlying preference for "queer" in academia I suspect is due to the relegation of homosexuality implicit in "queer."

Take it from this gay guy: 'queer' is a perfectly fine word to describe homosexual people.

 

[Pauln6]

Take it from this gay guy: 'queer' is a perfectly fine word to describe homosexual people.

It's quite an American usage though. In the UK the term 'poof' is probably its equivalent. It doesn't offend me in any way but 'queer' has a slightly more offensive and less jokey connotation over here. These terms are often culture specific. No doubt poof is thought of as more offensive in other cultures.

 

[Sci]

Take it from this gay guy: 'queer' is a perfectly fine word to describe homosexual people.

It's quite an American usage though. In the UK the term 'poof' is probably its equivalent. It doesn't offend me in any way but 'queer' has a slightly more offensive and less jokey connotation over here. These terms are often culture specific. No doubt poof is thought of as more offensive in other cultures.

"Poof" is barely even recognized as a term for LGBT persons in the United States. Most Americans could figure out what it refers to from context, but it's a word that's almost entirely absent from American vocabulary, whether it be negative or positive connotations.

 

[Destructor]

I can enjoy Trek under Berman. I can even enjoy Trek created by Berman. But I can never divorce my enjoyment from the knowledge of what Berman did behind the scenes. It's quite similar to the idea that criticism of Roman Polanski projects (or for a while, Woody Allen projects) cannot be divorced from the knowledge of their actions behind the scenes. I suspect Mel Gibson will run into that same critical and interpretive wall when future critics look at his films.

Avoiding hotlinking of the image, I encourage everyone to click:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/29/billy-daresubtle.html

 

[ST-One]

Take it from this gay guy: 'queer' is a perfectly fine word to describe homosexual people.

It's quite an American usage though. In the UK the term 'poof' is probably its equivalent. It doesn't offend me in any way but 'queer' has a slightly more offensive and less jokey connotation over here.

Not here in Germany.

 

[UncleRogi]

I always thought "queer" meant odd or not normal. My bad.

Also, we are talking about a basically military organization in Starfleet. Folks over the decades of the shows creation have an ingrained view--many views as time passes-- as to how homosexuality is perceived by the military. It's not seen; the militarys' job is war.

I just don't see the relevence. I don't care if a character is gay or not. Even knowing doesn' interest me.

 

[Michael]

If sexuality is not relevant, why so many stories about heterosexual relationships?

 

[David cgc]

I always thought "queer" meant odd or not normal. My bad.

Well, it means that, too. Which is how it came to refer to homosexuals many years ago and, now, seems to have become a generally accepted piece of academic jargon. But it can still be used to mean "strange." It hasn't been completely overridden like "gay" in the sense of "happy."

 

[Count Zero]

Avoiding hotlinking of the image, I encourage everyone to click:

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/29/billy-daresubtle.html

That's great.

 

[stj]

The issue is not how a few academics use "queer," but how the majority of the US English speakers use it.

It is derogatory, almost as derogatory, specifically against homosexuality, as "faggot." Practically no one would call a simple eccentric "queer."

So far as reappropriating words go, do white people reappropriate "honky" and declare it isn't derogatory, or do academics write about "redneck" theory and no poor whites are offended, or do rich people answer to "snob?"
There's a reason some groups feel a need for a diplomatically self deprecating label, whereas other groups don't.

 

[david g]

Fascinatingly enough, when you put "queer Star Trek" into the Amazon search engine, my book doesnt come up. But when you put in "gay Star Trek," it comes up right away. I guess my readers, then, must be gay, not "queer" ...!

 

[Myasishchev]

I always thought "queer" meant odd or not normal. My bad.

Well, it means that, too. Which is how it came to refer to homosexuals many years ago and, now, seems to have become a generally accepted piece of academic jargon. But it can still be used to mean "strange." It hasn't been completely overridden like "gay" in the sense of "happy."

In what century? The last person I ever knew to use "queer" in such a fashion was my grandmother, who was born in about 1918. I've never seen it written except on the occasion that the writer was either using it for historical verisimilitude or trying to sound like Lovecraft.

It's a bit of shame, like "intercourse" being entirely eaten by "sexual intercourse." It's also kind of incongruous: in a language where one word can often mean a whole host of things, depending on context, why are words associated--often tangentially--with sexuality consumed by one meaning alone?

See also "dick," "pussy," "labia," and so forth, which, although they technically have other meanings, such barely exist outside of a dictionary. And compare "missile," "satellite," "vessel," and about a billion other words which have two or more meanings, which comfortably exist side by side.

Edit: ironic exception--"fuck" is about as desexualized as a word can get, when that word's priority definition is "sexual intercourse."

Baltar, D'Anna, and Caprica had a threesome in "The Eye of Jupiter," if you want to count that (I believe that's the correct episode).

It would really depend on the nature of the activities (an objective test) and the intentions of the parties engaging in them (subjective test). The substance of the latter is best illustrated by the old Corrs Challenge: would you fuck the brother to get at the sisters? Means-to-an-end reasoning occasionally comes up in the threesome/x-some situation, and that sort of thing has a very low rating on the PK meter.

 

[Sci]

The issue is not how a few academics use "queer," but how the majority of the US English speakers use it.

Why do you ignore the third relevant group of political actors -- the vast numbers of LGBT persons who are not academics, but who are also not part of your supposed "vast majority" of US English speakers, who do approve of the word "queer" and use it for themselves?

Queer Theory exists for a reason, and it's not because of a few academics living in the Ivory Tower.