News Discovery New Character Breakdowns

[eschaton]

Ok, but again that isn't representing the experiences of disabled people, the stigma, the social exclusion, the necessity to adapt in a world which is slow to reciprocate on that adaptation. Why is the idea of a person in a wheelchair so offensive that people (and I'm not pointing the finger at you here) will jump through such ridiculous hoops to avoid having them on television? What is so wrong with the idea we could do so much good with this portrayal?

But as I just said in my last post, if you treat disability in the Trekverse like race, gender, etc are treated, that basically means everyone's wonderful and accepting and it's never remarked upon at all. That certainly doesn't represent the current experience of the disabled. Of course, we could do so (that's what Melora tried to do on DS9, but it failed due to making the guest character too much of an unsympathetic jerk) but why are we treating ability with a late 21st century lens, when we act like we've moved beyond racism, sexism, and now heterosexism finally in Trek?

 

[Spot261]

But as I just said in my last post, if you treat disability in the Trekverse like race, gender, etc are treated, that basically means everyone's wonderful and accepting and it's never remarked upon at all. That certainly doesn't represent the current experience of the disabled. Of course, we could do so (that's what Melora tried to do on DS9, but it failed due to making the guest character too much of an unsympathetic jerk) but why are we treating ability with a late 21st century lens, when we act like we've moved beyond racism, sexism, and now heterosexism finally in Trek?

You're right in a sense, but exclusion (and stigma) don't just boil down to people being wantonly cruel and yes I do have direct experience of it. They happen in thousands of ways large and small even with the best intentioned people surrounding the individual. They can even come about as a result of those good intentions being misguided. The media is such a powerful tool to open people's eyes to those things and how subtle the stigma can be, subtle to the point the stigmatising party frequently doesn't even realise what they are doing. We shouldn't waste the potential of that tool.

That exclusion is the experience of a world which isn't set up for your needs, the experience of having to learn to adapt to that world, the experience of learning together how to adapt that world to you, the experience of feeling it might be easier just to give up than try to fit in at all, of embarassment, despair, depression, failure, inadequacy, of no longer mattering or being of any consequence except as a burden. This is about the process of coming to terms with a new set of parameters, of new limitations and hopefully realising how they might even be a source of strength.

This is about a world full of people who will treat you that little bit differently, who will view you that little bit differently, who will mistake sympathy for empathy, who will patronise and embarrass you whilst seeing it as charity. These are all sources of exclusion in their own ways, all familiar to people suffering every kind of disability, visible or otherwise, despite being rooted in the sorts of kindness we are used to seeing in Trek.

This is about the experience of people doing exactly what I have pointed out to you, treating the individual as an issue, defined by their disability, of seeking to "fix" that which cannot be fixed, of seeing you in terms of what you can't do and not what you can. There's a reason so many people choose terms such as "differently abled" rather than carry a label which characterises them by inate failure.

None of that can be shown onscreen if we simply choose to wipe the disability away and leave nothing but the notional concept that someone has a limitation which we fixed because sci fi.

 

[fireproof78]

But as I just said in my last post, if you treat disability in the Trekverse like race, gender, etc are treated, that basically means everyone's wonderful and accepting and it's never remarked upon at all. That certainly doesn't represent the current experience of the disabled. Of course, we could do so (that's what Melora tried to do on DS9, but it failed due to making the guest character too much of an unsympathetic jerk) but why are we treating ability with a late 21st century lens, when we act like we've moved beyond racism, sexism, and now heterosexism finally in Trek?

Because it doesn't need to be remarked upon. It is simply apart of the mileau and fabric of the world.

And, if the objection is less around the disability and more around the tech (wheelchairs, for some reason) then what tech can give the same level of inclusion and be a visual shorthand? Maybe the exoskeleton, like the VISOR, cause pain in some way and they just want a break?

 

[eschaton]

That exclusion is the experience of a world which isn't set up for your needs, the experience of having to learn to adapt to that world, the experience of learning together how to adapt that world to you, the experience of feeling it might be easier just to give up than try to fit in at all, of embarrassment, despair, depression, failure, inadequacy, of no longer mattering or being of any consequence except as a burden. This is about the process of coming to terms with a new set of parameters, of new limitations and hopefully realising how they might even be a source of strength.

90% of that describes my general experience growing up, and although I am not entirely neurotypical, I don't think I'm far enough along the spectrum to be ASD or anything. Just a normal geek child who had to learn how to socialize (and eventually date, though not successfully till my early 20s) via trial and error rather than just having things come naturally.

Still, a lot of these things are indeed not universal to the disabled community. We should in no way try to compete in terms of oppression or anything, but fundamentally speaking, we're all human beings who are often scarred by the experience of life. We all tend to have natural variation in terms of our personality as well. Maybe the person who is angry and resentful would have been regardless of the station they were born into in life, due to just being a naturally less agreeable person? Maybe it was about how they were treated. It's not like it's easy to disentangle unless they had an identical twin separated from birth or something. Still, I don't think there's much you're talking about - on an intellectual level - that most people cannot identify with at times in their life. And if they can't right now, chances are fairly high that as they age, they will.

 

[Spot261]

90% of that describes my general experience growing up, and although I am not entirely neurotypical, I don't think I'm far enough along the spectrum to be ASD or anything. Just a normal geek child who had to learn how to socialize (and eventually date, though not successfully till my early 20s) via trial and error rather than just having things come naturally.

It's the experience of many people with ASD, my son tells me day to day about social situations that have left him hurt and mystified, where lessons I taught him in the abstract become counterproductive when applied literally, when people just don't get him, even if they don't mean to be cruel (although frankly often they do).

Still, a lot of these things are indeed not universal to the disabled community. We should in no way try to compete in terms of oppression or anything, but fundamentally speaking, we're all human beings who are often scarred by the experience of life. We all tend to have natural variation in terms of our personality as well. Maybe the person who is angry and resentful would have been regardless of the station they were born into in life, due to just being a naturally less agreeable person? Maybe it was about how they were treated. It's not like it's easy to disentangle unless they had an identical twin separated from birth or something. Still, I don't think there's much you're talking about - on an intellectual level - that most people cannot identify with at times in their life. And if they can't right now, chances are fairly high that as they age, they will.

All true, but that life experience has overlaps doesn't alter the fact each group will have a unique signature to the way those things are expressed, that each group will in many ways have to fight that battle on their own terms.

This thread was the first time I've publicly mentioned being bi polar on this forum, although a couple of close friends in here already knew. I've mostly experienced little but kindness from real life friends and colleagues but some of that has been stigmatising, embarrassing or ostracising in it's own way. Nonetheless I wouldn't dream of transposing that experience onto a gay person's experience of homophobia, a woman's experience of sexism, a black person'e experience of racism, a transgender person's experience of transphobia. They may be related experiences but they are also unique.

Nonetheless the common theme that all those groups and disabled people in the specific almost unanimously will tell you is they simply want to be treated as people, they want to be shown and seen as fundamentally no different to anyone else and the media has a massive role to play in that for better or worse. Star Trek would be doing disabled people a massive disservice by brushing that aside simply because the sci fi setting allowed for technology which made the idea of disability obsolete. They would still be there, watching the show and wondering why everyone else can be shown but they can't, why everyone else can be given that chance to shine in the public eye but for some reason an excuse has to be made why they should be left out.

 

[eschaton]

It's the experience of many people with ASD, my son tells me day to day about social situations that have left him hurt and mystified, where lessons I taught him in the abstract become counterproductive when applied literally, when people just don't get him, even if they don't mean to be cruel (although frankly often they do).

One of the hardest things for me was learning how to flirt. The whole thing had me mystified as a teenager. I had enough social sense by that point not to say anything inappropriate, but that just meant that I clammed up and was scared to say anything remotely sexual for fear of offending a girl. Thus when I eventually told my female friends or I was interested in them it seemed to them like it came out of left field. It wasn't until I literally sat down and read a book on how to flirt that I got anywhere with it at all.

Nonetheless the common theme that all those groups and disabled people in the specific almost unanimously will tell you is they simply want to be treated as people, they want to be shown and seen as fundamentally no different to anyone else and the media has a massive role to play in that for better or worse. Star Trek would be doing disabled people a massive disservice by brushing that aside simply because the sci fi setting allowed for technology which made the idea of disability obsolete. They would still be there, watching the show and wondering why everyone else can be shown but they can't, why everyone else can be given that chance to shine in the public eye but for some reason an excuse has to be made why they should be left out.

Again, this just seems like a foreign language to me. I don't know if it's my straight white maleness or what, but I've never felt akin to anyone or part of any group. Even when my son was going through cancer treatment a few years ago, I didn't really feel anything from the support groups - any closeness to the other parents going through it. I presume feeling like you're part of some greater community of people who have shared experiences must be good, but the part of my brain which makes me identify with other people just doesn't seem to work right.

Regardless, you seem to be getting half of your wish with the "hoverchair" thing. But given how DIS didn't really give Stamet's any focus beyond initially establishing his same-sex relationship, I don't have high hopes on how seriously this will be treated.

 

[Spot261]

One of the hardest things for me was learning how to flirt. The whole thing had me mystified as a teenager. I had enough social sense by that point not to say anything inappropriate, but that just meant that I clammed up and was scared to say anything remotely sexual for fear of offending a girl. Thus when I eventually told my female friends or I was interested in them it seemed to them like it came out of left field. It wasn't until I literally sat down and read a book on how to flirt that I got anywhere with it at all.



Again, this just seems like a foreign language to me. I don't know if it's my straight white maleness or what, but I've never felt akin to anyone or part of any group. Even when my son was going through cancer treatment a few years ago, I didn't really feel anything from the support groups - any closeness to the other parents going through it. I presume feeling like you're part of some greater community of people who have shared experiences must be good, but the part of my brain which makes me identify with other people just doesn't seem to work right.

I really don't want this post to be patronising, especially in light of the argument I've just been hammering away on, but to be honest everything you are saying could literally be taken from a textbook on the experiences of people on the ASD spectrum. My son says almost exactly the same things albeit in the language of a twelve year old.

That sense of never fitting in, of failing to understand or relate to the underlying social dynamics, the requirement to "learn" skills which seem to just flow naturally as part of the developmental process for others. It may amuse you to know my MSc thesis was on exactly that sort of process, albeit from an academic perspective, how (proposed) evolutionarily driven mental modularity (and social cognition in particular) varies between autistic people and the wider population as controls, the outcome being much as you say, that those skills can indeed be learnt as a compensatory mechanism to some extent, but not with the instinctive fluency which characterises inate behaviour patterns. That background really hasn't equipped me to help him in practise, nor frankly has my subsequent mental health training.

Suffice though to say you are far from alone and we are living in a world where awareness is slowly shifting in the right direction. All I'm arguing for here is for the mainstream media which claims a sense of social responsibility to play it's part wisely and not frivolously throw away chances to make a real difference which isn't tokenistic.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Nonsense. Envisioning a future where the disabled have the opportunities for a better life is not being absurd, it is hoping for something better.

It’s just erasing them because you think you know what they want and ignoring that they may prefer representation since Star Trek was never meant to be accurate depiction of the future.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I think it’s far better that the show have actual representation rather than strive for some attempt at being futuristic if it’s going to conflict with that. Because I tend to notice this coming up a lot. We can’t have such and such minority because it’s future and they no longer exist. It’s erasure and it almost always tends to be by people who definitely aren’t going to be affected by it. I find it deeply insulting and dehumanizing, both for me and for anyone else affected by it.

It completely ignores what that group may actually want to see and forces a choice on them. Even hiding it behind sympathy is disgusting and condescending. You’re telling them to shut up and let you decide for them. Do you honestly understand how demeaning it is to be told that you’re life is a problem that won’t exist in the future? You aren’t seeing them as a person with hopes and dreams, just a present day mistake. It’s also saying that Star Trek isn’t meant for us, just us. We’re perfect, don’t you want to be perfect centuries from? Because if you were there, then the future can’t be perfect.

 

[CorporalClegg]

One of the fundamental pretenses of Star Trek is it's really not about the future.

 

[UssGlenn]

and not frivolously throw away chances to make a real difference which isn't tokenistic.

Now that you've brought up tokenism, I'm curious how you define it and what you think should be done to avoid it.

 

[Refuge]

Geordi was, for all intents and purposes, not blind - at least not in the sense of today. Yes, his VISOR gave him different vision than normal signed humans, but in many ways it was superior (I'd consider swapping my eyes out for it if given the chance). He took it off, and was truly blind, when sleeping and at the doctor's office, and occasionally there were mishaps which left him truly unsighted as the plot required. But he basically led the same life as a sighted person. He had no issue navigating either the ship or new environments. He didn't use a cane or a seeing eye dog. He could read normal lettering, and didn't need braille. His experience was nothing like a blind person of today. This had very little to do with other people being accepting of his difference, and was almost entirely due to a whiz-bang technobabble invention. This is exactly analogous to an exoskeleton, which doesn't "cure" the disability, but provides for a lot more freedom - and in the future, might have some advantages over just having normal use of your legs.

Exactly. Geordi was using a technology of the times the visor. Later he had ocular implants. He's the perfect example of a character able to use what the writers invented for him to fit the role he had on board.

 

[Spot261]

Now that you've brought up tokenism, I'm curious how you define it and what you think should be done to avoid it.

We should represent people in terms that have meaning in the context of their real life experience. We should make the representation be about the reality of who and what disabled people are, not losing that reality to match up details and trivialities written into a setting whose only real purpose was ever as a backdrop for exactly that sort of representation.

Make that representation matter, make it show exactly what it means to be disabled, to experience stigma. Make it challenge preconceptions about what those words mean.

But please don't make it about how technology can solve all our problems two hundred years from now. That's just crass, it's doing disabled people, the fans in general, the show and it's legacy a disservice.

 

[Awesome Possum]

One of the fundamental pretenses of Star Trek is it's really not about the future.

It’s more of an ideal. A sort of “wouldn’t it be great if we dropped our petty differences and just got along and explored the universe” thing. Part of that requires showing everyone and I do mean everyone. Erasing people because you just don’t like them or think we’re better off without them is missing the point.

Even religion, I find it odd that it’s supposed to be gone in the future. It would have to adapt, but would still exist in some form.

 

[Spot261]

Exactly. Geordi was using a technology of the times the visor. Later he had ocular implants. He's the perfect example of a character able to use what the writers invented for him to fit the role he had on board.

But never gave him normal vision, never allowed him to see as others do, never took away the pain.

He stayed disabled and became an iconic figure precisely for that reason, not because of some notion that we could or should patronise people with hope for an imaginary future in two hundred years time.

 

[Refuge]

I am not opposed to a disabled person being onboard Discovery, as should be very clear from this discussion. Our only difference is you seem to think that showing any significant onscreen advance in technology to make the life of a disabled person easier invalidates their existence. I do not.

I see this too. I don't see anyone trying to invalidate this new character, who I think is only a guest character at this stage. I'm forced to think about my Dad. Military man now so marginalised with age and Parkinson's. He's been in a wheelchair for over three years. We used to watch Star Trek, probably one of the more normal memories I have. He would be delighted to see new technology. Though just to add as an army man he would expect the characters to meet a standard of competency for their rank and role, if an exoskeleton achieves that then that is a good thing.

 

[Spot261]

I see this too. I don't see anyone trying to invalidate this new character,

They don't need to try, that's the point. Society does it every day to millions of real people, often unintentionally.

Star Trek has a chance to challenge that, to influence the way society sees those people.

Don't make this a story about how we should all have hope for how fictional technology can fix people in the future, that's cheap, crass and offensive.

 

[Refuge]

No one is expecting a fix. Just fitting into the advancements of this fictional future.

 

[Refuge]

Because it doesn't need to be remarked upon. It is simply apart of the mileau and fabric of the world.

And, if the objection is less around the disability and more around the tech (wheelchairs, for some reason) then what tech can give the same level of inclusion and be a visual shorthand? Maybe the exoskeleton, like the VISOR, cause pain in some way and they just want a break?

I don't suppose it will be hugely remarked on in show. That's the aim of diversity to have an equality of acceptance.

I agree with your last paragraph.

 

[Spot261]

No one is expecting a fix. Just fitting into the advancements of this fictional future.

Which is unbelievably crass and a waste of an opportunity if it isn't done properly. This matters too much to too many people to get it wrong. The setting is completely inconsistent anyway, precisely because it was never about the future or the technology, it was about the commentary on our world.

How is that so difficult to understand?

Of course we all know what you are doing here is being vindictive to get a rise.