Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?

[borgboy]

The Clone Race from Up The Long Ladder were post-sexual.

Given the trouble with incest that would have shown up immediately when anyone younger or older or the same age as you might be genetically identical to your children, your parents, your siblings or yourself, if there is a Gene that promotes sexual appetite in magic Star Trek fakescience, it would have been turned inside out or snipped off for the safety of the community.

"Genetically forced" homosexuality, or mass sterilization would have been the only safe options left to a massive non-diverse clone stock if they didn't want to be overrun by simpletons and mutants.

So when Picard said that every 3 unlike clones had to together marry some savage who still thought it was 1740 AD, that was not taking into account existing marriages or sexual orientation, or even in this case the very absence of sexual orientation/inclination.

A little brutal.

Yeah, I always had a problem with Pulaski dictating how those people should arrange their personal lives.
It didn't show a grain of respect for how those people lived or wanted to live, especially since despite what's shown on screen all of those people wouldn't be heterosexual. Not only would there probably be gays who didn't want one opposite sex spouse, let alone three, the clones seemed to be living as asexual. It was also pretty naive to presume that marriage, heterosexuality, polygamy, etc were all the best way to further their species. Surely artificial insemination would be a simple alternative to begin with.
The whole thing just shows the Federation not respecting the way all of those people were living, surely a violation of the Prime Directive in spirit if not the actual letter of the law.
The state mandating who you sleep with, how many children you have and by whom...that's invasion to a really creepy level if you think it through. I don't think it's an exaggeration to see that as potentially resulting in state mandated rape.

 

[ihno]

I haven't followed the discussion and I don't think that it's a suggestion.

I must say: Hear me, Kurtzman, none of those stupid "gay as a metaphore" people/races please. Riker with the sexless being might have worked for the early 1990s, but not any more. That would be insulting and would make me stop watching.

 

[CorporalClegg]

^
It didn't work in the earily 1990s either.

 

[ihno]

You're right. I found it cozy though.

And don't forget, it was forbidden in the UK to talk about homosexuality in a nice matter back at that time. Clause 28. They could not have sold that episode if it was "uncloaked". (kidding).

 

[Guy Gardener]

The whole thing just shows the Federation not respecting the way all of those people were living, surely a violation of the Prime Directive in spirit if not the actual letter of the law.
The state mandating who you sleep with, how many children you have and by whom...that's invasion to a really creepy level if you think it through. I don't think it's an exaggeration to see that as potentially resulting in state mandated rape.

Both colonies were allotments of Human Beings.

From TNG Masterpiece Society.

PICARD: If we ever needed reminding of the importance of the Prime Directive, it is now.
RIKER: The Prime Directive doesn't apply. They're human.
PICARD: Doesn't it? Our very presence may have damaged, even destroyed, their way of life. Whether or not we agree with that way of life or whether they're human or not is irrelevant, Number One. We are responsible.

Did Picard forget how the Prime Directive works here, or is he such an ass that he thinks that the Prime Directive is too small and callow?

 

[hux]

You're right. I found it cozy though.

And don't forget, it was forbidden in the UK to talk about homosexuality in a nice matter back at that time. Clause 28. They could not have sold that episode if it was "uncloaked". (kidding).

What!?

Are you talking about the 1890's?

 

[ihno]

It was forbidden to talk about homosexuality in public in a positive way between 1988 and 2003. It was the so called clause 28. Listen to the songs of Jimmy Somerville. Enough is Enough.

Again: till 2003! I was there in 1997 and it was not a joke. I have been in a totally normal gay bar in Cardiff during a police raid.

 

[hux]

No, it wasn't. It was limited to local authorities and schools.

Not the public at large (see gay characters on TV etc).

Even the people who voted for it, now acknowledge that it was populist, offensive gibberish (including Cameron).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

 

[ihno]

Yes, I know that I wasn't totally forbidden otherwise Jimmy Somerville could not have done his music. Sorry. But there is always a law and there is a reality (and consequent the law is used/enforced) and those two influence each other and create a climate. I did not imagine a police raid.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Some times strippers dress up as cops.

Is it possible that you didn't wait long enough to watch SWAT take their bodyarmour off and start dancing?

 

[hux]

Clause 28 galvanised the British LGBT movement. It was the thing that even made little Englanders think... This is bullishit. Ian McKellan came out because of it and established Stonewall. It was a cynical attempt by Thatcher to appeal to the family values crowd that totally backfired.

Cameron went from supporting it to criticising Blair for trying to repeal it to admitting it was offensive crap to eventually... championing gay marriage.

It was the most ineffectual bullshit and as Tony Bernn pointed out, it couldn't even be upheld. How do you define "promote?" Do war films promote war? Do crime films promote crime?

Clause 28 was the beginning of the end.

 

[suarezguy]

Representation matters a lot, and I would like to see an LGBT character (or god forbid two) in the new show. And not used for titillation either - ideally male gay characters as TV seems far more comfortable with Lesbianism. I'd also be keen on seeing a disabled character whose disability wasn't magically cured. LaForge for the modern age.

The latter idea was considered for DS9 and when they did the episode "Melora" (written in part by disabled person but rewritten, including by Piller) it was pretty badly received as suggesting the disability defined her. Trek message episodes in general are pretty controversial, accused of being too unsubtle, so it's difficult to find the right approach in an episode, let alone a series.

I must say: Hear me, Kurtzman, none of those stupid "gay as a metaphore" people/races please. Riker with the sexless being might have worked for the early 1990s, but not any more. That would be insulting and would make me stop watching.

Religious groups have also pretty much been excluded or relegated to alien metaphors (perhaps simultaneously Trek's most progressive and least liberal aspect) but it would be good for a new Trek show to take some risks and distinguish itself.

 

[cultcross]

The latter idea was considered for DS9 and when they did the episode "Melora" (written in part by disabled person but rewritten, including by Piller) it was pretty badly received as suggesting the disability defined her. Trek message episodes in general are pretty controversial, accused of being too unsubtle, so it's difficult to find the right approach in an episode, let alone a series.

I'd argue that a series is easier than an episode. When it's a guest star, for a 'message episode', yes it's unsubtle and preachy, and often poorly handled. But a character on a long running series, introduced straight away, has a chance of being more than their 'diversity score'.

 

[ihno]

And then they get scared by their own courage and make the character straight or kill him/her off.

 

[hux]

A gay character in the 24th century (assuming that's where it will be set) would be pretty regressive to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, we'll all just be fucking each other in an entirely non-give-a-shit manner in the future. For a modern audience, I guess that would be portrayed best with a bisexual character who doesn't analyse his sexuality in the slightest (and neither does anyone else).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ihno]

Not me. If people turn out gay in the heterocentral / centered world we live in, do you think they become bisexual after a "we give shit" socialisation? Gay people from today prove that sexuality is not fully dependent on socialisation.

edit: And I would not really approve it if they imply "there are no gay people anymore in the 24. century" because that's regressive.

 

[wildcolonialboy]

Yes, I know that I wasn't totally forbidden otherwise Jimmy Somerville could not have done his music. Sorry. But there is always a law and there is a reality (and consequent the law is used/enforced) and those two influence each other and create a climate. I did not imagine a police raid.

Sorry but that's pretty offensive. Not only was Saville a heterosexual child molester, but your comment pushes the old canard that child molestation and homosexuality are somehow linked.

As another user pointed out, Section 28 specifically related to prohibiting "promotion" of homosexuality by local authorities and schools. There were many depictions of homosexuality on British TV and in film in the late 80s and early 90s, there's nothing to suggest such an episode would not have been broadcast in the UK.

 

[wildcolonialboy]

I am really hopeful that the new show does have a gay character. As others have said, I will be really disappointed if they cop out with some kind of gay allegory, or in some way make the gay character related to some kind of AIDS metaphor. Can't we just have a gay character who is fit and healthy, and hopefully not the ship's barber but maybe a tactical officer.

Also, the networks are often happier to show female homosexuality ("Oh look, hot lesbians") than they are male homosexuality. If they do that again, I will be very disappointed. A possible upshot is that with the series being broadcast online it won't be subject to ludicrous FCC rules and thus will have the much broader creative freedoms of the sort you see on cable TV.

My fervent wish is that this new Star Trek show will be up there in quality with other Golden Age of Television shows (The Wire, the Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, The Americans etc)

 

[wildcolonialboy]

A gay character in the 24th century (assuming that's where it will be set) would be pretty regressive to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, we'll all just be fucking each other in an entirely non-give-a-shit manner in the future. For a modern audience, I guess that would be portrayed best with a bisexual character who doesn't analyse his sexuality in the slightest (and neither does anyone else).

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'm not so sure about that. Even if the idea of some kind of defined cultural identity of "gay" no longer exists in the 24th century, I'm sure there would still be people who are exclusively orientated towards the same-sex just as there will always be people exclusively orientated toward the opposite sex. It should be an optimistic vision of the future, but it also has to reflect current society in some ways and I think Star Trek has an unpaid debt in terms of representation of a male homosexual character who is part of the regular crew.

I do find it slightly ridiculous how some Star Trek fans can be quite conservative and say we should be content with assuming that there may have been gay characters we didn't know of, it's just they didn't announce their sexuality. It is ludicrous because there have been many heterosexual romances in Star Trek, either between regular characters or between a regular and an alien-of-the-week. Anyway, I suppose all I can do is wait and see, but I do think the CBS execs will be well aware of the expectations on them on this subject

 

[ihno]

@wildcolonialboy: When I said they would not buy that episode, it was a joke. And further, I have read about Clause 28 in the 90s and visited people there in GB and have spoken to them. They lived in those times. I lived in those times. The 90s were still the time of the AIDS catastrophe. But yes, wikipedia knows better always, I know.