Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe

[Kemaiku]

Andorian sexuality is starting to give me a headache.

 

[1001001]

Regardless of the Trek Universe, the public's reaction needs to be taken in consideration as to the success or failure of such a film. Too much of a risk to take I would think with hundreds of millions at stake. I for one would have a very huge problem with it but that is just my opinion, everyone has one.

Given that we live in an era in which every other sitcom has a gay character or two, and only the usual suspects ever object, I can't see this being much of a risk nowadays . . . and it's becoming even less so at an accelerating rate. Demographically, the vast majority of young people couldn't care less . . . and that's where the real box office is.

And Star Trek, properly, should be out ahead of the curve, not dragging behind.

Agreed.

The only risk is doing it badly, which is the same risk as every other part of every film.



Should they not have made To Kill a Mockingbird because it was "too much of a risk"?

 

[JarodRussell]

As long as Paramount thinks Star Trek needs to be a blockbuster action movie franchise, there won't be any risks. Star Trek should be a TV show or smaller movies that can tell better stories.

 

[PhoenixClass]

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.

OK but I still don't understand what your conclusion is.

In other words, when you visit the world of Star Trek in your imagination, what explanation do you, for yourself, use?

 

[DS9Continuing]

... where the Andorian was attracted to the 3 opposite (opposing?) genders, plus was attracted to members of their own gender.

They're gay.

what?

You say yourself it's the equivalent of a human bisexual, so right there that's not 'gay.' It's bisexual.

They're not the same thing. It's bisexual erasure to say they are, and I would have thought a transgender person was against that. Bisexual is not the same as gay, and you even say that yourself, so what the hell are you talking about?

.

 

[Nightdiamond]

.....
Given that we live in an era in which every other sitcom has a gay character or two, and only the usual suspects ever object, I can't see this being much of a risk nowadays . . . and it's becoming even less so at an accelerating rate. Demographically, the vast majority of young people couldn't care less . . . and that's where the real box office is.

And Star Trek, properly, should be out ahead of the curve, not dragging behind.

Which is ironic. Today's 21st century TV now often show openly gay couples, in even a society that may still have problems accepting it.

This is in contrast to T'Girl's (and other fan's) feeling that Trek is suspiciously hiding homosexuality, or at worse it might even still be ostracized in 24th century society.

But that clashes with the image of 24th century society being accepting and open minded and eradicating all prejudices.

But if homophobia is extinct, then homosexuality is not an issue, so we have to assume that it is accepted--

But as the counter argument goes--

Unless you see a normal same sex couple in broad daylight, in a regular basis, the conclusion some fans are going to draw is that it is suppressed.

Is that too far out an idea?

Tt sounds extreme, but maybe not entirely. In TOS, it was said women were barred from becoming Starfleet captains. Even the Romulans were ahead of them.

 

[DS9Continuing]

In TOS, it was said women were barred from becoming Starfleet captains.

Assuming you're talking about Dr Janice Lester's comment from 'Turnabout Intruder', that was not stated outright. Many have chosen to read it that way, but there are numerous other possible readings that are far more palatable and in line with the general Star Trek ethos.

Here's a brief conversation between myself, Christopher and borgboy in the old "LGBT Characters in TrekLit" thread:

On a similar subject, the body/gender switch ep in TOS, which was based around female officers not being allowed to captain a ship, that continues to be very jarring. Have any of the books ever touched on that subject, or contradicted it? I'm pretty sure we see female captains in TOS follow up movies, maybe as early as TMP. I'd be interested to see a book do something with that, explain why that aspect of sexism survived to the 23rd century.

Fortunately the line in "Turnabout Intruder" about how "your world of starship captains doesn't admit women" is ambiguous enough that it allows for multiple readings. The preferred reading is that Janice Lester was a paranoid schizophrenic who held the delusional belief that she was rejected as a command candidate because of her sex rather than because she was unstable and incompetent.

My chosen interpretation was neither of those, but rather that she was talking specifically about Kirk's world of starship captains - to wit, that being a starship captain precluded for him the possibility of letting a woman into his life. I don't know how that fits in with the rest of the episode, though. I'm not that familiar with TOS.

Either way, as Christopher says, there's no reason to give that one line any credence whatsoever, not when it's massively outweighed by endless numbers of other references that contradict it, and it was spoken by a madwoman.

Plus, if we hold all Trek TV equally canonical then that is already contradicted earlier in the chronology by the presence of Erika Hernandez.

My point being, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Why choose the more depressing interpretation when a more optimistic interpretation is available and fits better with the general ethos of the series? That applies to LGBTs just the same as it does to 'minorities' of all other kinds. ('Minorities' in scare quotes because when everybody is equal, the concept of a minority becomes meaningless. Everyone is a minority and no-one is a minority.)

.

 

[DonIago]

I think what this comes down to is that there's insufficient data to draw a hard conclusion either way.

 

[T'Girl]

... where the Andorian was attracted to the 3 opposite (opposing?) genders, plus was attracted to members of their own gender.

They're gay.

Bisexual is not the same as gay

Actually it is, gay is an umbrella term, male and female homosexuals are gay, male and female bisexuals are gay, transsexuals are gay. There are others who are outside of what I just listed who are also gay.

It's a big umbrella.

You say yourself it's the equivalent of a human bisexual, so right there that's not 'gay.' It's bisexual.

I said it was the equilent to bisexual and therefor gay.

They're not the same thing.

Yes they are.

... and I would have thought a transgender person was against that.

As a transsexual that makes me gay, separately as a bisexual that also make me gay.

... so what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about what I've learned living as part of the gay community for over a decade.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Assuming you're talking about Dr Janice Lester's comment from 'Turnabout Intruder', that was not stated outright. Many have chosen to read it that way, but there are numerous other possible readings that are far more palatable and in line with the general Star Trek ethos.

....My chosen interpretation was neither of those, but rather that she was talking specifically about Kirk's world of starship captains - to wit, that being a starship captain precluded for him the possibility of letting a woman into his life. I don't know how that fits in with the rest of the episode, though. I'm not that familiar with TOS.

Either way, as Christopher says, there's no reason to give that one line any credence whatsoever, not when it's massively outweighed by endless numbers of other references that contradict it, and it was spoken by a madwoman.

I consider the idea that in Trek earth society, if homosexuals are not seen, then they must be somehow still be ostracized to be pretty extreme.

Just based on what we know what the Federation represents.

At the same time it doesn't surprise me that some fans will draw those types of conclusions. Extreme, maybe, but sometimes ideas like that aren't always far fetched.

That's where Turnabout Intruder comes in. At first I thought the same way too.

The problem is there are other things that the characters say and do in the episode that supports the idea that Starfleet didn't allow women to be captain.

Now Janice Lester takes the place of Captain Kirk.
...... Now you know the indignity of being a woman. For you this agony will soon pass, as it has for me.......Believe me, it's better to be dead than to live alone in the body of a woman.

KIRK: Can you, can you tell me why Doctor Janice Lester would agree to this ludicrous exchange?

JANICE: Yes. To get the power she craved, to attain a position she doesn't merit by temperament or training..... But her intense hatred of her own womanhood made life with her impossible.

If Janice was simply angry that Kirk couldn't include her in his life, why did she switch bodies with him to take command of the Enterprise?

Taken all together, it does look like pretty daming evidence. Starfleet didn't oppress women, but it did bar them from becoming captains.

So is it possible to have a free and open society that doesn't opress homosexuality, but yet ostrasizes it?

I still think that idea is extreme, but.. hey, there's Turnabout Intruder

 

[geneo]

Regardless of the Trek Universe, the public's reaction needs to be taken in consideration as to the success or failure of such a film. Too much of a risk to take I would think with hundreds of millions at stake. I for one would have a very huge problem with it but that is just my opinion, everyone has one.

I don't see it as a risk at all. The sexuality of fictional characters doesn't seem to have any impact on the success or failure of a film.

Given your history in topics such as this, I suggest you tread carefully in this thread.

Which is why I said it is just my opinion If someone comes out and starts name calling then I hope the same thing that was dealt to me would also be dealt to them.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Regardless of the Trek Universe, the public's reaction needs to be taken in consideration as to the success or failure of such a film. Too much of a risk to take I would think with hundreds of millions at stake. I for one would have a very huge problem with it but that is just my opinion, everyone has one.

I don't see it as a risk at all. The sexuality of fictional characters doesn't seem to have any impact on the success or failure of a film.

Given your history in topics such as this, I suggest you tread carefully in this thread.

Which is why I said it is just my opinion If someone comes out and starts name calling then I hope the same thing that was dealt to me would also be dealt to them.

If you have a problem with the way you've been treated, feel free to take it up with the admin, T'Bonz. Otherwise, play nice or play elsewhere.

 

[geneo]

And one does not compromise the principles of the franchise because it makes some of the audience most of which doesn't like Trek anyway a little uncomfortable.

But if it makes them a little uncomfortable, they may not come watch it. Paramount would just have to weigh the pros and cons of only a section of the audience watching it or something good for all audiences - or at least make that the goal for a team of writers. The more who watch it, the more money they make thus they may not want to take the risk of establishing a precedent that may affect every Trek film thereafter.

 

[1001001]

And one does not compromise the principles of the franchise because it makes some of the audience most of which doesn't like Trek anyway a little uncomfortable.

But if it makes them a little uncomfortable, they may not come watch it. Paramount would just have to weigh the pros and cons of only a section of the audience watching it or something good for all audiences - or at least make that the goal for a team of writers. The more who watch it, the more money they make thus they may not want to take the risk of establishing a precedent that may affect every Trek film thereafter.

Like the first interracial kiss on television?

 

[geneo]

And one does not compromise the principles of the franchise because it makes some of the audience most of which doesn't like Trek anyway a little uncomfortable.

But if it makes them a little uncomfortable, they may not come watch it. Paramount would just have to weigh the pros and cons of only a section of the audience watching it or something good for all audiences - or at least make that the goal for a team of writers. The more who watch it, the more money they make thus they may not want to take the risk of establishing a precedent that may affect every Trek film thereafter.

Like the first interracial kiss on television?

Well, you do have me there. Touche'

 

[Sindatur]

And one does not compromise the principles of the franchise because it makes some of the audience most of which doesn't like Trek anyway a little uncomfortable.

But if it makes them a little uncomfortable, they may not come watch it. Paramount would just have to weigh the pros and cons of only a section of the audience watching it or something good for all audiences - or at least make that the goal for a team of writers. The more who watch it, the more money they make thus they may not want to take the risk of establishing a precedent that may affect every Trek film thereafter.

Like the first interracial kiss on television?

What do Nancy Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr* have to do with Star Trek?

*Above Kiss occurred on A variety Special Movin' With Nancy on NBC Dec 11, 1967

Plato's Stepchildren is credited as the first Interracial Kiss (Between a White and Black Actor/Actress) on a Network Drama and occurred almost a year later on Nov 22, 1968

I believe there was also an Asian Involved with an Interracial Kiss before Plato's Stepchildren aired, as well, wasn't there?

 

[T'Girl]

But if it makes them a little uncomfortable, they may not come watch it.

But what of the opposite reaction? If it became known (say through the entertainment press) that CBS considered and then rejected inclusion of a gay character in the lead cast, would a portion of the potential viewing audience deliberately not watch the show, solely because of CBS's decision on that one character?

Which decision would lose the show more viewers?

The more who watch it, the more money they make ...

It isn't just a game of raw numbers, there is also the consideration of the demographics of the audience. Advertisers want the 18 - 35 age group, and will pay more to advertise on shows that draw them.

Increasingly younger viewers expect the inclusion of gay characters in a generally diverse cast.

 

[PhoenixClass]

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.

OK but I still don't understand what your conclusion is.

In other words, when you visit the world of Star Trek in your imagination, what explanation do you, for yourself, use?

Sorry for the self-quote, but I'd really like to hear T'Girl's response to my question. Don't know if you actually saw it or if it got lost in the shuffle.

 

[DS9Continuing]

Actually it is, gay is an umbrella term, male and female homosexuals are gay, male and female bisexuals are gay, transsexuals are gay. There are others who are outside of what I just listed who are also gay.

It's a big umbrella.

I said it was the equilent to bisexual and therefor gay.

As a transsexual that makes me gay, separately as a bisexual that also make me gay.

I'm talking about what I've learned living as part of the gay community for over a decade.

Don't try to tell me what being gay means. I've been a part of the gay community too - for over 20 years - so don't make this into a contest of 'I'm more gay than you are so I know better.'

No, gay is not the same as bisexual and transgender. If you're trying to lump everyone under one banner title then that's why we have queer or LGBT, and even that isn't sufficient for many, which is why we have things like LGBTQI+ and ever more unwieldy acronyms.

Yes, 'gay' is often used as a generic term for anyone who isn't 150% hetero Kinsey 0, but always with the knowledge that it is generic and inaccurate and nuance-free. And usually by people who don't particularly care about the ways we may or may not define ourselves and just want to throw us all in one pile and forget about us.

Factually and scientifically, homosexual and bisexual and transgender are not the same things, and we only bond together because we suffer similarly from the hetero majority. Label yourself whatever you want, that's your right and privilege, but don't try to say that bisexuals are really just gay.

.

 

[T'Girl]

Sorry for the self-quote, but I'd really like to hear T'Girl's response to my question.

In a lot of polls, Seattle often ranks second behind San Francisco as the city in America with the highest percentage of LGBT in the general population. I'm very used to seeing people out in public who are same sex interacting in a "relationship fashion." Everyday stuff. In parks with children. Dancing together in clubs, and not just gay clubs, just regular clubs. In the life I live this is business as usual.

As I stated before I don't have just one explanation for what I'm picking up from the show, but I do perceive a general wrongness about the the future that's depicted in Trek when it comes to the gay segment of the population.

Don't try to tell me what being gay means.

I can only relate what I've learned from the gay society community I'm surrounded by.

so don't make this into a contest of 'I'm more gay than you are so I know better.'

I make no claim to being either more or less gay than you.

No, gay is not the same as bisexual and transgender.

YMMV.

If you're trying to lump everyone under one banner

With respect, it isn't just me.

Yes, 'gay' is often used as a generic term for anyone who isn't 150% hetero Kinsey 0, but always with the knowledge that it is generic and inaccurate and nuance-free.

I would agree that it is a generic term, but not to the rest of your statement.

And usually by people who don't particularly care about the ways we may or may not define ourselves and just want to throw us all in one pile and forget about us.

I do not feel this is a accurate description.

homosexual and bisexual and transgender are not the same things

I agree.

but don't try to say that bisexuals are really just gay.

Of the people who are gay, some of the them are bisexual.