Do you think LGBT characters will feature more prominently?

[Squiggy]

The issue today is not the acceptance of homosexuality. Rather, finding a way for pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT people to be able to be respectful of one another and work together.

That won't happen. It's like Hitler being cool with the Jews.

Pro-LGBT people aren't ever going to be cool with the anti-LGBT people saying they're going to go to hell.

Anti-LGBT people aren't ever going to be cool with a "people" who they think are biblically verboten.

We'll just need to a wait a generation or so for those bigots to die. Sorta like how the KKK has shrunk down to be just several thousand people.

Anyway, to the OP. Yes. Public opinion in the US, the target market for Trek, has swung decidedly towards favoring this in just a few years. Opinion polling favoring same-sex marriage (the best metric we have of accepting LGBT people) has gone from 27% in 1996 to 37% in 2005 to 50% in May of 2012 and last May it was at 60%.

The longer an angry and vengeful God doesn't rain fire and brimstone upon the Sodomites, the less people will care and it will become just another part of life.

 

[JoeZhang]

Look - we are discussing the wrong issue - it's not if the new series will feature a prompent LGBT character that's completely passé.

The actual issue is this - will they have hot man on man love on the bridge in Episode one or two?

 

[Jedi_Master]

Considering how "bold" Trek has been in previous iterations - if there is a gay character it will be a "hot" lesbian played by an actress who is NOT lesbian. If there is a "trans" character it will be an alien, probably one who is whatever the scientific term is for a being who can switch genders for procreation purposes.
If there is any gay or trans action it will be with the hot alien co-star of the week, most likely female and will go no further than smoldering looks and a few kisses before the cabin door slides shut.

Trek ain't HBO, and it certainly isn't all that "progressive."

 

[Mudd]

Look - we are discussing the wrong issue - it's not if the new series will feature a prompent LGBT character that's completely passé.

The actual issue is this - will they have hot man on man love on the bridge in Episode one or two?

KIRK: Bones, you got anything for a pain in the ass?
MCCOY: Let me guess -Barris. The Klingons?
KIRK: Spock. Pon Farr.

 

[Squiggy]

Yeah. Aside from "the kiss" I can't think of anything that progressive on Trek. Anything approaching same-sex was just two girls kissing to give some 14 year olds some fap material.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Yeah. Aside from "the kiss" I can't think of anything that progressive on Trek. Anything approaching same-sex was just two girls kissing to give some 14 year olds some fap material.

Yes. Having two amazingly hot straight women play-act with a few smooches is actually regressive.

 

[Squiggy]

Yeah. Aside from "the kiss" I can't think of anything that progressive on Trek. Anything approaching same-sex was just two girls kissing to give some 14 year olds some fap material.

Yes. Having two amazingly hot straight women play-act with a few smooches is actually regressive.

Like making a woman the smartest person on the ship, and then sticking her in a catsuit.

Or like like putting a woman second-in-command, and then sticking her in a catsuit.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Yeah. Aside from "the kiss" I can't think of anything that progressive on Trek. Anything approaching same-sex was just two girls kissing to give some 14 year olds some fap material.

Yes. Having two amazingly hot straight women play-act with a few smooches is actually regressive.

Like making a woman the smartest person on the ship, and then sticking her in a catsuit.

Or like like putting a woman second-in-command, and then sticking her in a catsuit.

Star Trek - going back to where every culture has been before.

 

[Curios_Gelatin]

I think it's important to note that what people relate to most in Star Trek are the humans. The aliens are used as a way to challenge human ideals.

Some examples of this:
TOS Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, where one alien is black on the left, but the other is black on the right. They hate each other because of it. Kirk's reaction isn't 'well we shouldn't judge them', he does judge them. The entire Enterprise does. Those aliens' intolerance for skin colour is a completely foreign concept to this idyllic human future. In the end, when they find out their entire race died in a race war, the enterprise leaves them to their intolerance and hate, because they know where it's headed.

On more than one occasion, Kirk has used offensive language towards Spock to inform him he is in a bad situation; because he realizes Spock knows him well enough that he would never earnestly mean any of it.

Kirk's own hate towards the Klingons is also challenged in The Undiscovered Country. In fact Gene Roddenbury didn't even WANT Kirk to be racist towards them in the first place, but it was done anyway because it added drama.

The Cardassians, in almost all of their depiction save for about two individuals, are depicted as xenophobes. They're are snake like, have no conscience and it is implied they enjoy torturing others. But these traits aren't glorified. They are always cast in a negative light. Bashir and Garak seem to get along for the most part, but when push comes to shove, Garak is willing o take actions Bashir reviles and abhors. We aren't supposed to think Garak's actions are good or honorable.

In The Outcast we are shown a society that is absolutely against individuals who identify as male or female, and use some form of hypnotherapy to 'normalize' those who do. This entire episode is an analogy towards how bigots against LGBT would go so far as to try and 'normalize' their children by sending them to camps and brainwashing therapy to try and 'get rid' of any homosexual tendencies.
This race of aliens is cast in a negative light. Riker wants to save Soren from her intolerant people, but he's too late. In the end, the Prime Directive means they cannot interfere with the J'nali's society.

Even Chief O'Brien, his intolerance of Cardassians is often challenged and he is called out on it. He doesn't want to work with them, he doesn't want to have to even interact with one. Even when they are the victims, he finds a way to vilify them. He's one of those 'I'm not racist BUT...' people. Keiko doesn't agree with his views, and on more than one occasion has challenged him on the subject. Few agree with him, save for the Bajorans who just came out of a 60-year occupation.

But the point is, Starfleet isn't supposed to tolerate intolerance. That's why they have so many rules surrounding why a planet can or cannot join the federation, the most important of which were:

'...values of benevolence, peaceful co-existence and co-operation, the rule of the law, and equal rights and justice'.

 

[Jedman67]

i have no problem with star trek having gay or transgendered characters, as long as the actors playing them have experience with LGBT acting and/or are LGBT themselves.
I do prefer my star trek to stay family friendly and cut the sex/nudity/romance across the board to a minimum.

 

[Awesome Possum]

How does a society where all forms of life and diversity are celebrated even produce a person who is intolerant of others?

On more than a few occasions, we've seen Vulcans exhibit intolerance towards Humans, being Human isn't a matter of choice, in The Neutral Zone we saw overt bigotry of one group of Humans toward a other group of Humans simply because they were different. With the exception of his immediate friends and co-works, there's a obviously a lack of acceptance of Commander Data.

Ferengi are different, let's all make fun of them.

Awesome Possum, the society you're describing doesn't exist in Star Trek. The intolerant person you spoke of would be produced through their own life experiences and perceptions.

All of those characters are the villain of the story and most of the time, not a member of the crew unless it is about some unknown Ensign learning to the error of his ways and changing. Star Trek represents the best of humanity, bigots are not the best of humanity and their only place on the show are as a contrast to how great the crewmembers are.

 

[JoeCabby]

Yeah. Aside from "the kiss" I can't think of anything that progressive on Trek. Anything approaching same-sex was just two girls kissing to give some 14 year olds some fap material.

Soren and Riker on TNG was pretty much a same-sex relationship episode. Cogenitor on Enterprise was kind of like Trans Gender, but probably more about Slavery than anything else.

But Dax and that other girl is probably the only one I want to remember.

 

[IndyMac]

I have no problem with a character who is also LGBT, but completely against a LGBT character that is just there to check the box so the show can be held up as "progressive". Seriously, Will & Grace is almost 20 years old, that starship warped away decades ago.

The most disliked episodes of Star Trek usually involve some contrived and cliche riddle romance or a nonsensical story that implies the future is very sexually liberal with a wink, wink, because kids also watch Star Trek. I would prefer if they just leave everyone's sexuality unsaid and don't do forced romances.

 

[Cinema Geekly]

I suppose I am in favor of it. But honestly (while it was used as a cop out in years prior or at least viewed as one) I'd be perfectly fine not giving a damn was sexual preferences the crew has. It doesn't matter to me.

I can't say I personally dislike sex myself but I find it (generally) a waste of space in stories. If you can write a sex scene that actually plays in a characters arc or is an important part of the plot then I am in. But I've found that sex scenes tend to be there just because "sex sells" and it saves them a few minutes of time in which they could otherwise be writing dialog that moves the story forward.

 

[CRM-114]

I have no problem with a character who is also LGBT, but completely against a LGBT character that is just there to check the box so the show can be held up as "progressive". Seriously, Will & Grace is almost 20 years old, that starship warped away decades ago.

The most disliked episodes of Star Trek usually involve some contrived and cliche riddle romance or a nonsensical story that implies the future is very sexually liberal with a wink, wink, because kids also watch Star Trek. I would prefer if they just leave everyone's sexuality unsaid and don't do forced romances.

Yes. Star Trek doesn't handle anything regarding personal intimate relationships well. I don't really care that much about characters' sexualities because so often it has been used purely for titillation.

 

[Richard Baker]

I don't mind at all having a LGBT character (or a number of them). Just treat them as any other character on the show- nothing special about it.

 

[Tim Walker]

Re:sex sells

If Trek is to be family friendly, then I think it would be fitting to have no explicit sexuality. Leave things unstated.

Just don't go there.

You can tell a good story without titillation. Though of course, I know that sex sells.

 

[Magellan]

Yeah, count me as another who prefers Trek not bother with relationships in general.

I'm sure there will be a gay character, I just hope it isn't cringe-worthy "Look at the gay guy!". I'm not sure how a transgender character would work. Wouldn't surgeons who make Darvin look like a human be able to make a man look exactly like a woman? How would the audience know unless the writers go and make a big deal about how Captain so-and-so was born in a mans body.

Curious Gelatin
"Even Chief O'Brien, his intolerance of Cardassians is often challenged and he is called out on it. He doesn't want to work with them, he doesn't want to have to even interact with one. Even when they are the victims, he finds a way to vilify them. He's one of those 'I'm not racist BUT...' people. Keiko doesn't agree with his views, and on more than one occasion has challenged him on the subject. Few agree with him, save for the Bajorans who just came out of a 60-year occupation."

He's a good example of how we can tolerate intolerance. Shutting him down, and basically saying "you're an idiot, and I'm glad people like you are going to die off" is not constructive. That's how so many people respond to ideas they don't like in the 21st century. Communicating with people you disagree with respectfully is just a whole lot more useful and tolerant. O'Briens go some unfortunate views but you know what? He is stil basically a good guy, just like so many people we disagree with.

 

[JoeZhang]

"I'm sure there will be a gay character, I just hope it isn't cringe-worthy "Look at the gay guy!"."

It's 2015, all you need is the male character x is married to another man, it's never mentioned or referred to in any way - we just see them together.

Other shows manage this all the time, I'm not sure why Trek would find it so difficult.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I think it's important to note that what people relate to most in Star Trek are the humans. The aliens are used as a way to challenge human ideals.

Some examples of this:
TOS Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, where one alien is black on the left, but the other is black on the right. They hate each other because of it. Kirk's reaction isn't 'well we shouldn't judge them', he does judge them. The entire Enterprise does. Those aliens' intolerance for skin colour is a completely foreign concept to this idyllic human future. In the end, when they find out their entire race died in a race war, the enterprise leaves them to their intolerance and hate, because they know where it's headed.

On more than one occasion, Kirk has used offensive language towards Spock to inform him he is in a bad situation; because he realizes Spock knows him well enough that he would never earnestly mean any of it.

Kirk's own hate towards the Klingons is also challenged in The Undiscovered Country. In fact Gene Roddenbury didn't even WANT Kirk to be racist towards them in the first place, but it was done anyway because it added drama.

The Cardassians, in almost all of their depiction save for about two individuals, are depicted as xenophobes. They're are snake like, have no conscience and it is implied they enjoy torturing others. But these traits aren't glorified. They are always cast in a negative light. Bashir and Garak seem to get along for the most part, but when push comes to shove, Garak is willing o take actions Bashir reviles and abhors. We aren't supposed to think Garak's actions are good or honorable.

In The Outcast we are shown a society that is absolutely against individuals who identify as male or female, and use some form of hypnotherapy to 'normalize' those who do. This entire episode is an analogy towards how bigots against LGBT would go so far as to try and 'normalize' their children by sending them to camps and brainwashing therapy to try and 'get rid' of any homosexual tendencies.
This race of aliens is cast in a negative light. Riker wants to save Soren from her intolerant people, but he's too late. In the end, the Prime Directive means they cannot interfere with the J'nali's society.

Even Chief O'Brien, his intolerance of Cardassians is often challenged and he is called out on it. He doesn't want to work with them, he doesn't want to have to even interact with one. Even when they are the victims, he finds a way to vilify them. He's one of those 'I'm not racist BUT...' people. Keiko doesn't agree with his views, and on more than one occasion has challenged him on the subject. Few agree with him, save for the Bajorans who just came out of a 60-year occupation.

But the point is, Starfleet isn't supposed to tolerate intolerance. That's why they have so many rules surrounding why a planet can or cannot join the federation, the most important of which were:

'...values of benevolence, peaceful co-existence and co-operation, the rule of the law, and equal rights and justice'.

I appreciate the analysis, but the fact that anyone has to work that hard to find what are arguably progressive social concepts in Trek is a statement in itself.