Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

[PhoenixClass]

Gays in the 24th century not facing the kind of negative social pressure that produces a 'coming out' experience.

If gays are still ostracized and considered "abnormal" in the Trek future, this could explain why we see no evidence of us in the show.

There is no evidence of gays on the show because the people who made the show chose not to show it. I honestly do not understand why people argue that the lack of gay characters proves that gays are still ostracized. That is completely incompatible with the whole underlying theme of the franchise! And the lessons of Star Trek to be supportive and understanding of one another are infinitely more important than whatever short-sighted decision a producer or suit at Paramount made.

I mean, by the logic of your statement, there are no Inuit starship captains because we've never seen one, so therefore Inuits must be outsiders in the Federation. Or the Federation president has never been female, because we've never seen one, because women still are not evenly integrated into the workplace.

It's trite but true: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[JarodRussell]

They also never go on the toilet because we've never seen it.

 

[PhoenixClass]

Exactly!

 

[JirinPanthosa]

There are different kinds of love, erotic love is only one and they can be interrelated. But you can't expect a person to want to make love to somebody they don't find attractive even if they love them.

I don't think homosexuality is an abnormality but you have to think even in an enlightened world some who are gay would prefer to be straight. And I must pose the question, can a culture where embracing one's gender identity is sacrosanct, could you judge a person for wanting to do this any more than you can judge a person who surgically changes their gender?

It's also possible in the 24th century would want to become homosexual so they can be attracted to a person of the same gender they love as a person.

Whoa, Nelly. You cannot expect to make love to someone you don't find attractive, even if you love them? What about a person that is horribly disfigured in a car accident or has a mastectomy? Do you dump your wife if she becomes too fat? How about too old? That's not very strong love.

There are transwomen who are married to a woman as a man, and then transition where they stay with the partner. In fact, one of my favorite movies is about exactly that--Normal.

It's different if you've already formed a family with the person and made them part of your life. If you meet a person for the first time who you really get along with but don't find attractive they become your best friend, not your partner.

Our culture has family and sex very tightly coiled but that's not necessarily the case in the 24th century. Loving somebody and finding sex with them to be a pleasurable experience are two different things.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

As long as society itself does not tolerate such assholes, as the Federation clearly should not ...

Switching intolerance to a different group of people is not the answer.

,Gays in the 24th century not facing the kind of negative social pressure that produces a 'coming out' experience.

If gays are still ostracized and considered "abnormal" in the Trek future, this could explain why we see no evidence of us in the show.

It could, but it would also fly directly in the face of every canonical statement we've ever had about what the Federation's values are.

 

[Amaris]

That's fair enough, but if we're talking about assholes making fun of people for who they are, then all that means is that in the 24th century, gay people are still in exactly the same position as everyone else - where the occassional asshole may go after them for being gay/physically handicapped/less intelligent/more intelligent/foreign/alien/red headed/fat/skinny/big nosed/idealistic/cynical/etc, etc, etc.

As long as society itself does not tolerate such assholes, as the Federation clearly should not, they should be relatively few and far between, especially in comparison to our time. Which still adds up to Gays in the 24th century not facing the kind of negative social pressure that produces a 'coming out' experience.

Oh, certainly, though I can still see the coming out experience as not always celebratory. Imagine if your mother wanted grandchildren.

Surprise.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

In the 24th century I doubt being gay would prevent your mother from getting grandchildren.

I wrote a scifi comedy webcomic for several years that ended just a year ago. One of the characters was a lesbian, and another was a guy who was in love with an alien he wasn't genetically compatible with. But they were best friends and both wanted children so they decided to produce a family together. I imagine that kind of thing as pretty common in the Star Trek 24th century, with sexual attraction decoupled from the act of reproduction.

Also I wonder if in the Star Trek universe if there's some kind of operation to allow a female to produce sperm or a male to grow a uterus and ovaries. I would not be surprised.

 

[T'Girl]

There is no evidence of gays on the show because the people who made the show chose not to show it.

That doesn't work as a in-universe explanation.

That is completely incompatible with the whole underlying theme of the franchise!

Themes like Humans can pretend to be superior and more "evolved? Vulcans get to be arrogant assholes? Klingon have a different type of society, and can be looked down on? Ferengi have capitalism and that makes them jokes?

TOS got it right, people are people, but with more tech.

I mean, by the logic of your statement, there are no Inuit starship captains because ...

Today there are about a hundred thousand Inuits, in comparison to several hundred million gays.

Or the Federation president has never been female, because we've never seen one, because women still are not evenly integrated into the workplace.

Compare the number of female captains to the number of male captains
in the TNG/DS9/VOY era, the numbers are no-where close to equal.

Maybe that is the reason we've never seen (nor heard) of a female president.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But as the saying goes, the absence of evidence is the absence of proof.

 

[MacLeod]

And why would they mention a President unless they had to? Just because we haven't seen a female Federation President doesn't mean there hasn't been one.

As for the present day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_female_heads_of_government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state

Looking at it today female heads of government/state whilst not uncommon are still somewhat the exception, so when a nation elects it's first head of government/state it's news. Would the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc... garner as much interest? Or would we think she's just another head of government/state?

 

[PhoenixClass]

There is no evidence of gays on the show because the people who made the show chose not to show it.

That doesn't work as a in-universe explanation.

That is completely incompatible with the whole underlying theme of the franchise!

Themes like Humans can pretend to be superior and more "evolved? Vulcans get to be arrogant assholes? Klingon have a different type of society, and can be looked down on? Ferengi have capitalism and that makes them jokes?

TOS got it right, people are people, but with more tech.

Today there are about a hundred thousand Inuits, in comparison to several hundred million gays.

Or the Federation president has never been female, because we've never seen one, because women still are not evenly integrated into the workplace.

Compare the number of female captains to the number of male captains
in the TNG/DS9/VOY era, the numbers are no-where close to equal.

Maybe that is the reason we've never seen (nor heard) of a female president.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But as the saying goes, the absence of evidence is the absence of proof.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it your position that you assume that homosexuals are either oppressed or simply do not exist in the Star Trek universe because we have never seen such a character?

 

[T'Girl]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it your position that you assume that homosexuals are either oppressed or simply do not exist in the Star Trek universe because we have never seen such a character?

My sole position on the absence? No, not at all, but I have considered it as one possibility. While we don't of course find out the sexual orientation of every visible crewmember on the show, when we are shown a character's orientation, it's hetero. All marriages are hetero. Given the number of characters where this aspect is made clear, some of them would have been gay, but none are.

One possibility (not the only one) is that gays are in fact missing for some reason from the population that we're seeing. In any given random group above a certain size, statistically there will be gays in the group. If Starfleet admissions policy is to exclude gays that would be one explanation.

Out-universe we all know the reason, but in-universe the reason is harder to find.

 

[PhoenixClass]

Well, I am surprised you would consider it all. You argue that there is no proof of there existence but that cuts both ways. There is also no proof of their eradication or oppression. There is simply nothing definitive about it at all.

Given that, why not use the "inconclusiveness" to imagine that homosexuality is a non-issue and people are treated fairly without regard to orientation. That a much more pleasant way to use our imaginations to fill in this particular void.

Indeed, it is consistent with the open-minded society portrayed in the show.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Agreed, that from what we know and seen, the Federation and Earth has no form of oppression of homosexuality whatsoever. It is completely accepted and treated as a non issue.

It wouldn't be the Federation we know without it.

Trek has spent a lot of years and speeches building the idea that humans are more evolved when it comes to ethics and character. That's generally how we assume most Trek humans are.

That's where the catch 22 keeps coming in.

Fans and viewers keep getting thrown for a loop when they see the opposite. (or they might feel that way)

What about all that stuff about prejudice against the outward appearence being the last prejudice humans eliminated?

Or humans no longer being bothered by words? Or sexism being eliminated.

The characters (especially the main ones) have to be very careful not to cross that line or risk damaging the concept.

That's maybe why Riker fell in love Soren (storywise)--even though she doesn't seem to be his type--because he must show how future humans are so open minded when it comes to appearance.

Beverly, however, when dealing with with her own gender, is allowed to reject Odan, obviously because she's not attracted to other females, but she has to do it without sounding like a narrow minded person.

Beverly had something of an escape clause, because the same sex thing was too much of a hot potato-- but she still had to be careful about how she did it.

 

[JarodRussell]

You sure love the term "catch 22".

 

[PhoenixClass]

Nightdiamond, we might have to agree to disagree here. I really don't see this catch-22. Star Trek doesn't expect gay people to be straight, and it doesn't expect straight people to be gay.

I think you are reading way too much into what Beverly told the new host. Really all she said boils down to "It's not you, it's me."

 

[T'Girl]

And why would they mention a President unless they had to? Just because we haven't seen a female Federation President doesn't mean there hasn't been one.

It kind of does mean that, look at it this way, if America was a fiction place from a book or play, and there was never any mention of President John Kennedy, then in the fictional story of America he wouldn't exist, because he was never established in the storyline.

And can you really imagine Gene Roddenberry inserting a female President in to Star Trek? This is the guy who wrote the stories for Mudd"s Women and Turnabout Intruder, unless the President was going to be played by his girlfriend it wasn't going to happen. The other writers on the shows and movies apparently had a similar viewpoint.

Well, I am surprised you would consider it all.

Don't be. I believe in the concept that all options are on the table, even ones I personally don't agree with and would argue against.

There is simply nothing definitive about it at all.

That's not quite true, again of the dozens of characters with established sexual orientations all are hetero, none are gay. With that large a group, a few would be gay.

Given that, why not use the "inconclusiveness" to imagine that homosexuality is a non-issue and people are treated fairly without regard to orientation.

I would have no problem with that at all, and I wish that was what the show had on display, but there's no evidence on the show that what you propose exists.

It's not a case of no characters sexualities are mentioned, we hear and see of characters with hetero relationships regularly.

Indeed, it is consistent with the open-minded society portrayed in the show.

Except it isn't, there's the example of Picard and the businessman Offenhouse, because Offenhouse believes in things that Picard doesn't, Picard treats Offenhouse with dismissal and disgust, he is hardly open minded of people with "non-Picard" views.

Riker is insulting of the entire group; "Well, from what I've seen of our guests, there's not much to redeem them. " It isn't being open minded if everyone has to agree with your own mindset.

Many of the Human (and in the greater Federation) people on the show are in fact quite close minded, which reflect upon their overall society.

It is completely accepted and treated as a non issue.

Okay, then whydo we see heterosexuals in Starfleet (and lot's of them), but no gays at all in Starfleet. At a certain point the "oh they're there, but we (wink wink) just don't see them" just doesn't work anymore.

Or the ever popular "it's a private thing."

It wouldn't be the Federation we know without it.

It is the Federation that we see, the one that's on display.

Trek has spent a lot of years and speeches building the idea that humans are more evolved when it comes to ethics and character. That's generally how we assume most Trek humans are.

Which only some fans see and embrace. This social evolution that you speak of isn't apparent to everyone, there are many examples of the main characters on the show not being particularly evolved. It's just something they claim, but don't live up to.

Some were, imho Pulaski was nicely "evolved."

Or sexism being eliminated.

While there is the occasional woman in a position of authority, there are far more men than women authority figures.

 

[Misfit Toy]

You sure love the term "catch 22".

And you appear to love snarky remarks. Stop it.

 

[Nightdiamond]

One question out of curiosity for T'Girl-- would you say that an episode like Rejoined finally addressed homosexuality while making it a non issue and actually showed intimacy and affection?

Was this THE episode that everyone (or a lot of fans at least) were waiting for?

 

[Amaris]

In the 24th century I doubt being gay would prevent your mother from getting grandchildren.

I wrote a scifi comedy webcomic for several years that ended just a year ago. One of the characters was a lesbian, and another was a guy who was in love with an alien he wasn't genetically compatible with. But they were best friends and both wanted children so they decided to produce a family together. I imagine that kind of thing as pretty common in the Star Trek 24th century, with sexual attraction decoupled from the act of reproduction.

Also I wonder if in the Star Trek universe if there's some kind of operation to allow a female to produce sperm or a male to grow a uterus and ovaries. I would not be surprised.

That's a fair point, and something I hadn't considered. It would be interesting, though, to find out that men could become pregnant and have children as well.

 

[T'Girl]

One question out of curiosity for T'Girl-- would you say that an episode like Rejoined finally addressed homosexuality while making it a non issue and actually showed intimacy and affection?

The former Dax joining was Torias Dax , Torias was male.

The former Khan joining was Nilani Kahn, Nilani was female.

They (the four of them?) were married to each other and presumably had lots of heterosexual sex.

Jadzia Dax and Lenara Kahn (two female hosts) did have some kind of attraction for each other, but was it because of their current sexual orientations, or owing to their previous heterosexual relationship?

They did exchanged in a "for old times sake" kiss, but did not engage in sex.

I kiss my friends, I have kissed old lovers who are girls who I had a relationship with during the time period when I was a still a boy. Today there could be no sexual attraction because they are hetero, and I no long physically correspond to their sexual orientation.

I (my opinion) think what passed between Jadzia and Lenara was a "memory of times gone past." And if there had been no previous relationship, there would have been no connection what so ever between the two women.

Was this THE episode that everyone (or a lot of fans at least) were waiting for?

While the episode did have a incredible hot same sex kiss, the marriage spoken of was hetero, and there was an ambiguity that prevent it from being the anticipated "gay episode." Outcast was closer, and even that fell short.