• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Any pansexuals here?

Really? I knew about XXY (which can lead to hermaphrodism, and part of the novel idea I mentioned earlier), but didn't know about X_, what does that result in?

X_ normally results in a female form. If there is a Y chromosome in the mix, the result will be a masculine form.

Testicles and ovaries start out as the same thing. As a fetus develops, the presence of a Y chromosome determines what those gonadal cells grow into. If there's a Y chromosome, they'll become testicles, and they'll produce testosterone. The presence of testosterone (not DNA) then determines everything else, such as if the gonads move down through the abdomen, and what the genitals will look like.

As an aside: If there is insufficient testosterone to fully masculinise the fetus, you then get intersex conditions. Similarly, hormone-mimicking chemicals have a confusing effect on a fetus. Many mothers exposed to the pesticide DDT gave birth to intersexed children, for example.

I'd heard of people being a chimaera, completely different sets of DNA in the same body, but not of mosaicism. Fascinating. What would that do to you?

In sex terms, it depends on which cells have XX and which have XY chromosomes. If the gonadal cells have XY chromosomes, they'll become testicles, produce testosterone, and masculinise the fetus.

In other areas of the body, it may show as patchy skin pigmentation, or mixed eye/hair colour, or it may not show at all. :)
 
Last edited:
I guess my issue with Outcast episode isn't because Paramount want to play it safe with the demos but rather they tried at all because the episode fails IMHO on many levels - notably the Riker is attracted to the "he-she" because it skews towards being a female.

edited to add: You now what was disappointing though about Trek is by the time Enterprise aired they lacked the balls much later than 1992 to address the issue but did not again but could have without a negative fan reaction.

Only saw Outcast recently for first time, and even with almost twenty year gap, thought it was brave (as far as anything in TNG can be called that :)) though ultimately a cop-out. Much more amused by episode that had Picard & Q in bed together :)

Agree on ENT (apart from Reed rumours) - though they did at least have a pregnant Trip...some progress...
 
Only saw Outcast recently for first time, and even with almost twenty year gap, thought it was brave (as far as anything in TNG can be called that :)) though ultimately a cop-out. Much more amused by episode that had Picard & Q in bed together :)

Agree on ENT (apart from Reed rumours) - though they did at least have a pregnant Trip...some progress...

At the risk of derailing the thread into a Trek conversation - Roddenberry had three big failures of his vision of the future:

1. The absence of gay people as noted above

2. That religion would be dead by the 23rd and 24th centuries.

3. Capitalism would be dead by the 23rd and 24th centuries - essentially wiping out our natural human instincts to have what we cannot.

All are not plausible visions of the human species - past, present nor future.
 
Says the immature boy posting on a Star Trek board?!

You are aware that people who have strict definitions of sexuality do so because they are very insecure in their own sexuality... aren't you?

As RJ said upthread, there are a lot better responses than ones like this.
 
He's right. There are so many pictures on the net of fat blokes with nice tits. Hell we might even have some posting in this very thread. But they're still blokes.
Okay, I've counted at least six posts in this Thread with insulting and degrading comments. You have cumulatively earned a Warning for Trolling. Comments to PM.
 
At the risk of derailing the thread into a Trek conversation - Roddenberry had three big failures of his vision of the future:

1. The absence of gay people as noted above

2. That religion would be dead by the 23rd and 24th centuries.

3. Capitalism would be dead by the 23rd and 24th centuries - essentially wiping out our natural human instincts to have what we cannot.

All are not plausible visions of the human species - past, present nor future.

1. Was that a stated philosophy or are you just assuming that was his philosophy?
2. There is no reason to assume religions will not be forgotten by then, any more than to assume the opposite.
3. The same goes for 2, with the added observation that people living on ship would have no need of money, in the same way that sailors today have no need of it. Barter on the other hand, could well be a healthy and thriving method of exchanging skills and products.
 
At the risk of derailing the thread into a Trek conversation - Roddenberry had three big failures of his vision of the future:

1. The absence of gay people as noted above

2. That religion would be dead by the 23rd and 24th centuries.

3. Capitalism would be dead by the 23rd and 24th centuries - essentially wiping out our natural human instincts to have what we cannot.

All are not plausible visions of the human species - past, present nor future.

1) It's been a while since I've discussed Trek in any depth, so I might be wrong about some of this, but...

A positive onscreen depiction of gays would not have flown on 60s TV where they gave him a hard time about women in command positions and even aliens, nor do I think he would have done it voluntarily then anyway. With the exception of TMP, I believe Roddenberry had very little day-to-day involvement with the TOS films and was dead for the TNG ones. He was only heavily involved in the first two seasons of TNG, IIRC. So, while he could have done something in the first two seasons of TNG I suppose, the bulk of that failure rests on his successors, especially with them running the shows in an era where positive depictions of gays on TV were becoming much more commonplace.

That being said, a lack of clear depiction of gays doesn't mean a lack of gays in the universe, and there were occasional subtle references made to it. There was the episode with the Ferengi female dressed as a male to succeed in business whose crush on Quark Dax encouraged while she believed the Ferengi was male, for one example.

2) There are several instances of religious practices and numerous references to religion in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT, so that's not factually correct. The lack of people being in your face about religion does not necessarily imply its absence. The stated positions on religion of prominent characters like Picard does not imply that everyone agrees with him any more than my atheist opinions imply that everyone agrees with me.

However, if Roddenberry as a secular humanist wishes for his show to imply that religion is dead, why does that represent a failure on his part? It's speculative science fiction. He's creating the world he believes people should aspire to, not the one that's supposed to be the most realistic. Trek isn't known for its hyper-realism.

3) Again, not factually accurate since there were numerous examples of and references to capitalism in Trek. There are as many references favoring capitalism as there are opposing it. Trek was never really consistent on the issue. Humans seemed to have eliminated capitalism in their own society but it's still needed when dealing with many other species who haven't.

That being said, again it's not a failure if that was what Roddenberry wanted human society to become. There's no requirement for being enslaved by realism if your goal is to create a utopia for people to aspire to.

On top of that, while I agree that neither religion or capitalism are likely to go away in the next few hundred years in reality, the human species in Trek has gone through a lot of things we haven't that would vastly change our worldview. Genetically engineered humans, artificial intelligence, global nuclear war, faster-than-light travel, finding thousands of habitable planets, finding thousands of alien species, cryostasis giving you the opportunity to live well into the future, time travel, post-scarcity economics and replicators... To say that those things would not fundamentally alter human society is a bit short-sighted, don't you think?

I wish we had this discussion a few years ago when I still discussed Trek regularly. Now I feel ill-equipped since I don't remember most of the references I would have used in a debate like this.
 
<sigh> I hope religion and capitalism do disappear, to be replaced with something more sharing and humane.
 
* Hugs back HARDER. *

[HUGS Even HARDERER]

It's a start. :) Give us a manly hug, big guy!

[[HUG]] :D

Of course, if I rule, then I must appoint Yeoman Randi as my Viceroy of Squishee Hugs. :D

Lose the hugs and I'm in.

[Gives Kestra a nod and a firm handshake]

This is how I plan on taking over the Britain phase of my plan. :ouch:

We're not all repressed and uptight, I'll have you know! :) Much...

[HUG]

[SQUEEZE SQUEEZE] :ouch:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top