Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek

[Count Zero]

Well, ST-One, you're not a native speaker, so how can you really know?
It seems to be the word that's en vogue right now in Germany because it's more encompassing than just gay, but outside of the community that's using it and academic circles, hardly anyone knows what it means. Since it's also used in academic circles ('queer studies') and it's from the English-speaking world, it stands to reason that there's a large chunk of people who don't find it offensive but one can't rule out that there are people (native speakers) who find it vulgar or appalling. There's no general rule how people react to words. Just think about how different in vulgarity words like ficken and Wichser are perceived here by different people.
So, while it's likely that a majority of people don't have a problem with the word, some people do as evidenced in this thread.

 

[Steve Roby]

So, while it's likely that a majority of people don't have a problem with the word, some people do as evidenced in this thread.

But those people probably don't read a lot of pop culture critiques coming from a queer theory perspective, so does it really matter? I don't either, but at least I'm familiar with the concept and I own a copy of the book nominally under discussion.

I mean, really... I have no idea why certain people started reading this thread in the first place, much less why they're contributing to it regularly.

 

[ST-One]

Well, ST-One, you're not a native speaker, so how can you really know?

Have the homosexuals here displayed 'outrage' because of the use of the word?
I think not.
If that word is meant to be an insult towards homosexuals, but homosexuals don't have a problem with the word and use it themselves... then, where is the problem.

Why should homosexuals care if some heterosexuals don't get that the word has lost its intended insulting 'quality'?

 

[Pauln6]

It's not a black and white call though. I was chatting to a guy from Pakistan who identified his ethnicity when asked as 'I am Paki'. Now In the UK, tradtionally calling someone of south asian descent a 'Paki' was an insult akin to n****r. When somebody else later asked me where the guy was from in an msn chat window, I said, 'he is Paki' - meaning it as a contraction of Pakistani and this guy, who is actually Indian, laid into me for 10 minutes about how nobody should use that term!

So just because a word ceases to be insulting to some people that it applies to does not automatically give it a fresh, universal status!

 

[ST-One]

It's not a black and white call though. I was chatting to a guy from Pakistan who identified his ethnicity when asked as 'I am Paki'. Now In the UK, tradtionally calling someone of south asian descent a 'Paki' was an insult akin to n****r. When somebody else later asked me where the guy was from in an msn chat window, I said, 'he is Paki' - meaning it as a contraction of Pakistani and this guy, who is actually Indian, laid into me for 10 minutes about how nobody should use that term!

So just because a word ceases to be insulting to some people that it applies to does not automatically give it a fresh, universal status!

I understand what you mean (and Dr. Mabuse), but I doubt "queer" falls, for homosexuals, into the same category as "paki" and "nigger" do when used by someone outside of these particular groups.

 

[Pauln6]

It's not a black and white call though. I was chatting to a guy from Pakistan who identified his ethnicity when asked as 'I am Paki'. Now In the UK, tradtionally calling someone of south asian descent a 'Paki' was an insult akin to n****r. When somebody else later asked me where the guy was from in an msn chat window, I said, 'he is Paki' - meaning it as a contraction of Pakistani and this guy, who is actually Indian, laid into me for 10 minutes about how nobody should use that term!

So just because a word ceases to be insulting to some people that it applies to does not automatically give it a fresh, universal status!

I understand what you mean (and Dr. Mabuse), but I doubt "queer" falls, for homosexuals, into the same category as "paki" and "nigger" do when used by someone outside of these particular groups.

I agree, although having said that, that poor kiddie just chucked himself off a bridge after his room mate secretly filmed him, so we shouldn't get too complacent.

Personally, I'm in favour of all insults being adopted by the groups they're aimed at. It's the best way to desensitise them.

 

[DevilEyes]

And a so-called community that includes bondage heterosexuals isn't a community which makes the claim the queer "community" can call itself what it wants blatant drivel.

In your recent posts I haven't been able to understand your point but I've at least been able to understand your sentences. This one defeated me.

Some comments in this thread are really baffling and hilarious. stj obviously knows better than everyone else, including the actual LGBT people and the actual academics in the field of Queer theory, we should all bow down to his wisdom.

AFAIK, contemporary definition of queer is not limited to gay people, or even non-heterosexual people.

Queer theory, unlike most feminist theory and lesbian and gay studies, includes a wide array of previously considered non-normative sexualities and sexual practices in its list of identities. Not all of these are non-heterosexual. Sadism and masochism, prostitution, inversion, transgender, bisexuality, asexuality, intersexuality and many other things are seen by queer theorists as opportunities for more involved investigations into class difference and racial, ethnic and regional particulars allow for a wide ranging field of investigation using non-normative analysis as a tool in reconfiguring the way we understand pleasure and desire.

http://wiki.susans.org/index.php/Queer_theory#Prostitution.2C_pornography_and_S_.26_M

For the record, I hate the term "straight" and I find it offensive. How about that? Just because I'm predominantly attracted to, and pretty much exclusively interested in sexual relations with people of the opposite sex, doesn't mean that I have to accept being categorized as conventional, conformist, living-by-society's-norms, sex-for-reproduction box, which the term "straight" seems to suggest, to me at least.

As for the subject of the thread, I can see how, while Star Trek has, for the most part, sadly shied away from showing homosexual relationships, it is possible to read "queer" meanings into various situations and storylines. I have to say I find the homoerotic reading of Khan/Kirk rather far-fetched... But I can see how, for instance, questions of identity that various 'outsider' Trek characters face may be related to "queer" experience, just as it can be related to the experience of being a "racial" or ethnic "other" - or any other kind of "other" (ha, that sounded funny ). Or how relationships between different species may be seen as "queer", non-normative (in addition to the more obvious metaphor of 'mixed', 'interracial' relationships - once also considered transgressive and 'wrong' by the mainstream society) - in the way that shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or True Blood have, at times quite blatantly, portrayed heterosexual relationships between humans and vampires/demons as instances of transgressive, "queer" sexuality loaded with shame and social stigma. And then of course, Trek has characters like joined Trills or Changelings that could be described as transgender, even though none of the shows ever fully explored those connotations: the former have a biological sex but a far more complicated gender identity, while the latter have no sex to begin with, but are capable of forming a clear gender identity nevertheless (and shaping their physical, biological sex accordingly in the process). Odo's masculine gender identity is never doubted on the show, despite the fact that it's a gender identity he chose, rather than one defined by his biology.

 

[Myasishchev]

As for the subject of the thread, I can see how, while Star Trek has, for the most part, sadly shied away from showing homosexual relationships, it is possible to read "queer" meanings into various situations and storylines. I have to say I find the homoerotic reading of Khan/Kirk rather far-fetched... But I can see how, for instance, questions of identity that various 'outsider' Trek characters face may be related to "queer" experience, just as it can be related to the experience of being a "racial" or ethnic "other" - or any other kind of "other" (ha, that sounded funny ). Or how relationships between different species may be seen as "queer", non-normative (in addition to the more obvious metaphor of 'mixed', 'interracial' relationships - once also considered transgressive and 'wrong' by the mainstream society) - in the way that shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or True Blood have, at times quite blatantly, portrayed heterosexual relationships between humans and vampires/demons as instances of transgressive, "queer" sexuality loaded with shame and social stigma. And then of course, Trek has characters like joined Trills or Changelings that could be described as transgender, even though none of the shows ever fully explored those connotations: the former have a biological sex but a far more complicated gender identity, while the latter have no sex to begin with, but are capable of forming a clear gender identity nevertheless (and shaping their physical, biological sex accordingly in the process). Odo's masculine gender identity is never doubted on the show, despite the fact that it's a gender identity he chose, rather than one defined by his biology.

Hear, hear.

Although iirc Salome Jens did get on Odo's back about being a cisgendered dweeb; and, hell, what else was "Chimera" about, if not how Odo is basically betraying the Changelings' analogue to heteronormativity?

Thanks for that link, btw. Long story short, I found some bits about the dozens of attempts to graft gender-neutral pronouns onto the English language, which I had no idea of--I thought "singular they" was the only one. (It is, of course, the only one with a hope in hell of succeeding.) Turns out I didn't actually invent "zhe," which is weirdly cool.

 

[stj]

And a so-called community that includes bondage heterosexuals isn't a community which makes the claim the queer "community" can call itself what it wants blatant drivel.

In your recent posts I haven't been able to understand your point but I've at least been able to understand your sentences. This one defeated me.

I'm sorry that subordinate clauses pose such a difficulty. Just divide it into two sentences. "And a so-called community that includes bondage heterosexuals isn't a community." I've specifically noted that "queer" is partly intended to avoid admitting one is gay but might be an asexual. So much more convenient than saying outright, no? Also, so much more tactful to be self-deprecatory.

Then, there's the second clause redone as a sentence: "This makes the claim that the queer 'community' can call itself what it wants blatant drivel." Of course, "this" refers to the fact that there is no community of heterosexual bdsm practitioners, gender dysphorics, celibates, etc. An arbitrary category has no rights.

There is something seriously wrong with the thinking of the majority of posters on this issue. This is particularly true in the absurd contention that a community, even a real one, as opposed to shame-faced subterfuges like the "queer" community, somehow have the right to dictate the language. People have a right to be respected, which means others should heed their objections to epithets. But they can not decree that queer is no longer insulting. And, by the way, our German friends missed my reference to Urban dictionary website specifically noting that queer would still be offensive when used "as an epithet."


Every usage I have heard in life has been pejorative. One time was in defense of queerbashing. Homosexuals could not decree that gay should not become a pejorative, could they? Yes, I do know better than all of you, and queer studies academia too, when I tell you that words mean how they're used, and no group of people can change meanings by fiat.

The really sad part is that most posters, especially Devil Eyes, hold to a broader definition of "queer," which might even include heterosexuals merely too liberal minded to call straight. (Straight means uptight about language and drugs, ooh, how limiting and insulting!) They then proceed, with extraordinary arrogance, to speak for all those people, ignoring my testimony on the subject. Truly, malice makes you stupid.

You might even suspect the broader definitions of "queer" would include the majority. Including myself. To which I say, don't call me queer.

 

[ST-One]

And a so-called community that includes bondage heterosexuals isn't a community which makes the claim the queer "community" can call itself what it wants blatant drivel.

In your recent posts I haven't been able to understand your point but I've at least been able to understand your sentences. This one defeated me.

I'm sorry that subordinate clauses pose such a difficulty. Just divide it into two sentences. "And a so-called community that includes bondage heterosexuals isn't a community." I've specifically noted that "queer" is partly intended to avoid admitting one is gay but might be an asexual. So much more convenient than saying outright, no? Also, so much more tactful to be self-deprecatory.

Then, there's the second clause redone as a sentence: "This makes the claim that the queer 'community' can call itself what it wants blatant drivel." Of course, "this" refers to the fact that there is no community of heterosexual bdsm practitioners, gender dysphorics, celibates, etc. An arbitrary category has no rights.

There is something seriously wrong with the thinking of the majority of posters on this issue. This is particularly true in the absurd contention that a community, even a real one, as opposed to shame-faced subterfuges like the "queer" community, somehow have the right to dictate the language. People have a right to be respected, which means others should heed their objections to epithets. But they can not decree that queer is no longer insulting. And, by the way, our German friends missed my reference to Urban dictionary website specifically noting that queer would still be offensive when used "as an epithet."


Every usage I have heard in life has been pejorative. One time was in defense of queerbashing. Homosexuals could not decree that gay should not become a pejorative, could they? Yes, I do know better than all of you, and queer studies academia too, when I tell you that words mean how they're used, and no group of people can change meanings by fiat.

The really sad part is that most posters, especially Devil Eyes, hold to a broader definition of "queer," which might even include heterosexuals merely too liberal minded to call straight. (Straight means uptight about language and drugs, ooh, how limiting and insulting!) They then proceed, with extraordinary arrogance, to speak for all those people, ignoring my testimony on the subject. Truly, malice makes you stupid.

You might even suspect the broader definitions of "queer" would include the majority. Including myself. To which I say, don't call me queer.

 

[Sci]

And a so-called community that includes bondage heterosexuals isn't a community which makes the claim the queer "community" can call itself what it wants blatant drivel.

In your recent posts I haven't been able to understand your point but I've at least been able to understand your sentences. This one defeated me.

I'm sorry that subordinate clauses pose such a difficulty.

Your sentence was missing a comma. That, of course, rendered it unintelligible. The proper response is to say, "Oh, hey, sorry, there was a typo and that sentence is missing a comma. Sorry about that. Here's what I meant..."

 

[David cgc]

Wait, so people who are into bondage aren't allowed to associate? Does someone have a copy of the complete and unabridged first amendment that I don't or something?

 

[Steve Roby]

Your sentence was missing a comma. That, of course, rendered it unintelligible. The proper response is to say, "Oh, hey, sorry, there was a typo and that sentence is missing a comma. Sorry about that. Here's what I meant..."

Yep. The structure is clearer now. I think I'm done trying to follow the reasoning, though.

 

[stj]

^^^Since the reasoning isn't difficult to follow, this is just as foolish as needing a comma to notice that "which" is acting to separate a subordinate clause. There are empirical questions, such as whether "queer" is used as a pejorative or whether "queer" is the preferred self-identification of large numbers of homosexuals. But there are no difficulties in the reasoning. Calling people queer is calling them names.

On the contrary, the reasoning that is hard to follow is the one that starts with a group's right not to be called names to end in the conclusion that certain words mean only what a specific group (even one that hasn't been scientifically surveyed or democratically balloted) can determine what certain select words mean when used by other people.

In other words, this hypothetical community of "queers" whoever they may be can declare that people can say something but not say what they meant to say. This is only true when the people in question are thoroughly confused. It would be interesting to see any reasoning at all justifying the anger displayed at being told "queer" is a pejorative. There isn't any! How does this shoe pinch? Are you upset you'll be missing one of your favorite words?

It was Humpty Dumpty who declared that words meant what he wanted, as I recall. It's merely a question of who is to be master.

 

[ST-One]

^^^Since the reasoning isn't difficult to follow, this is just as foolish as needing a comma to notice that "which" is acting to separate a subordinate clause. There are empirical questions, such as whether "queer" is used as a pejorative or whether "queer" is the preferred self-identification of large numbers of homosexuals. But there are no difficulties in the reasoning. Calling people queer is calling them names.

On the contrary, the reasoning that is hard to follow is the one that starts with a group's right not to be called names to end in the conclusion that certain words mean only what a specific group (even one that hasn't been scientifically surveyed or democratically balloted) can determine what certain select words mean when used by other people.

In other words, this hypothetical community of "queers" whoever they may be can declare that people can say something but not say what they meant to say. This is only true when the people in question are thoroughly confused. It would be interesting to see any reasoning at all justifying the anger displayed at being told "queer" is a pejorative. There isn't any! How does this shoe pinch? Are you upset you'll be missing one of your favorite words?

It was Humpty Dumpty who declared that words meant what he wanted, as I recall. It's merely a question of who is to be master.

Are you gay yourself?

 

[LaBarre]

stj, I think you're in danger of missing the wood for the trees.

A fair number of people here who identify with the LGBT community have told you in polite and fairly patient terms that the word "queer" is not necessarily considered pejorative by them.

Others engaged in queer theory (whether as lecturers, authors or readers) have attempted to draw some distinctions for you about its use and validity.

Regardless, you insist otherwise.

I don't wish to misstate your position, but as far as I can gather what that position is, you appear to regard any use of the term "queer" in whatever context it arises as always and only ever constituting a disparagement.

You have a point but only insofar as when that term is used by a person or persons intent upon hurting/humiliating an LGBT person (or someone suspected of being LGBT). In THAT context, "queer" is a term of abuse, a short cut means of tagging the "other," where the victim becomes responsible for the attacker's you-are-outside-the-mainstream-and-that's-why-I-hate-you animus.

No one would disagree with you on this.

However, there is a distinction to be drawn between the use of the term as a weapon and other, valid usages. You seem most reluctant to accept this distinction as even being possible.

"It is not possible to 'reappropriate' words, especially ones with such negative connotations," you stated in your post of October 3 (please forgive my inability to block quote, my computer is playing up), but in fact the meaning and connotations of words in the English language are not immutable and they never have been.

This is because, among other reasons, that context plays such a crucial role in this mongrel language we share between several continents.

And many people, whether LGBT or something else outside the accepted norm of the moment, actually take pride on being considered the "other."

 

[stj]

Those members of this nebulous "community" validate queer as a name when they use it. It is therefore acceptable by their own lights even when used as an epithet. After all, a synonym for "epithet" is a synonym for "name." They do not get to draw distinctions between context and usage for other people. Nobody gets to play Humpty Dumpty, not even Humpty Dumpty, which was the joke.

When the Virginian said "Smile when you call me that," it was not because he thought smiling made it better. It was always an insult. It was only context that made it acceptable. The problem is, this kind of context only works in private! (By the way, the word in question was "bastard." Bastard like queer has an inoffensive meaning but as an epithet is always faintly insulting. "Lucky bastard" carries an overtone of envy because of that insult contained.)

The heterosexuality/bisexuality/homsexuality continuum is in fact normal. Conceding otherwise by dubbing yourself queer tacitly surrenders any claim to be a rightful part of the normal arrangements in society. Queers, whether genuine sexual minorities or eccentrics, merely ask for tolerance.

Again, if Q is so inclusive, wherefore LBGTQ?

 

[Thrawn]

Those members of this nebulous "community" validate queer as a name when they use it. It is therefore acceptable by their own lights even when used as an epithet. After all, a synonym for "epithet" is a synonym for "name." They do not get to draw distinctions between context and usage for other people. Nobody gets to play Humpty Dumpty, not even Humpty Dumpty, which was the joke.

Wait, so you're saying that if I call a friend of mine "you motherfucker!" as an affectionate jibe when he randomly has good fortune, then I'm saying it's ok for anyone to call him "motherfucker" as an insult whenever they want?

 

[david g]

If I could steer the discussion back to the original post, what I try to do in this book is to explore what it is about Star Trek that has spoken to LGBT audiences over the years. As DevilEyes puts it, the experience of difference, loneliness, and being cut off from society--all so profoundly explored in Trek--are, I think, allegorical of sexual outsiderness. Something I am particularly intrigued by here is the experience of so many Trek characters of being cut off from their own race or group--Spock from both humans and Vulcans, Seven of Nine from humanity but also the Borg, Odo from other shapeshifters, and so on. Characters who aspire to be like a different group--holograms, androids, and so on--are also interesting in this regard.

So, if I were to say what particularly interests me in this book is the way a franchise that has rarely ever *explicitly* addressed its LGBT fanbase has nevertheless spoken to these fans in other ways.

To say a little more about my reading of Kirk/Khan, I am arguing that Khan symbolizes both a kind of racial and sexual threat to the traditional male power that Kirk represents. I also talk about the characters of David and Savvik as gay-themed figures, one element of which is that they are not shown to be romantically involved, which one would expect of the younger, attractive male and female secondary leads in a mainstream film.

 

[Daddy Todd]

If I could steer the discussion back to the original post...

Good luck with that around here.

You seem to be trying to formulate a thesis that Trek appeals to LGBTQ folks because we pick up "coded" queer characters. How much of that is just audience projection, and how much is intentional on the part of the writers? Does it even matter if its intentional or just wish fulfillment from the audience?

I've been a Trek fan since I was six -- only because there wasn't any Star Trek before that year (1966) for me to be a fan of. I didn't recognize I was gay for another decade. I have a hard time accepting the thesis that I was drawn to Trek because I was seeing gay themes long before I had any notion of what gay meant. Does that make any sense?

Frankly, I think I like Star Trek because, at its best, it's a fun space opera that touches on universal themes. I'm deeply disappointed that it so maladroitly dealt with themes of surpassing interest to me personally -- those of sexual orientation and gender identity. On that front, Trek has always been a complete disappointment, and I'm kind of surprised you seem to be framing a thesis that it was a lot better on these issues than a devoted viewer like myself -- who was actively seeking them out -- ever saw.

It feels a little like you're giving them a "pass" for the blatant homoinvisibility Trek has promulgated over the decades.

I've got a copy of your book, but haven't had a chance to read it yet, so I apologize if you cover this.