News Female Same-Sex Couple For Discovery?

[Mudd]

I don't get Trek fans being so devoted to the thing that when it occasionally plays catch-up with the rest of media and the world people celebrate it. On the contrary, Trek's "too little, too late" takes on contemporary culture are a sad thing.

I suppose that part of it is that for about ten minutes many decades ago, Star Trek seemed forward-thinking and progressive to a lot of us, and we're attached to that image of it in a nostalgic way...but the reality behind that is both that Trek's cultural and political commentary easily stood out against the very timid, conventional approach of traditional mass media in the 1960s, and that while Trek was not the sole exception to that timidity when it first aired the other shows like it have not endured for other reasons and thus are forgotten about now.

 

[Spot261]

One of them was dead. That’s pretty far off radar, and a level of inclusivity that I can’t imagine being a thing.

Mirror Giorgiou?

Kinda thought that was a given, lol

 

[Ceridwen]

Just, again to be clear... I'm just talking about my personal reaction. Politically, you're right, there's nothing to celebrate about it cuz it's nothing, it's a couple of nameless extras that most of the straight audience can completely ignore. But yeah, Star Trek means something to the teenager I used to be, that's why it stirs this reaction.

 

[Lord Garth]

I hope it's not Georgiou who's paired off in an ongoing same-sex relationship. Why? Because it'll be written off by too many people as "Oh, she's from the Mirror Universe, that's just how they are!"

They should do what they did with Stamets/Culber (no, I don't mean the killing off Culber part, smart-asses). Portray it as just another relationship. I love how in Star Trek Beyond, the media made a bigger deal out of Sulu's relationship with a man than anything we saw in the actual film itself.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I understand Airiam has some interesting attachments...

 

[lawman]

[Trek has gone] out of its way to not mention or even deny the existence of LGBT humans.

So obviously there is something that would stand out about it because it stood out to me.

Not trying to undermine your personal feelings or reactions. Just surprised, that's all, because the dancing literally wasn't a depiction of another same-sex relationship. It was just a depiction of ordinary social life.

 

[Ceridwen]

Look, you guys can say straight girls dance together all you want, I'm sure it's true but I wouldn't know cuz I don't go to those kinds of parties, all I'm offering is my reaction to it as a woman who likes to dance with women for non-straight reasons.

 

[skylark14]

Well, my reaction was in the middle. Like so many others here, I've seen straight women dancing with each other all my life, probably because so many men can't or won't dance. But my first thought on seeing the women dancing on Discovery was, "another gay couple - they're really trying to make it a routine part of life." That was probably because I'd never seen two straight women dancing on Star Trek before, and because the Stamets relationship was still fresh in my mind. Then I seconded-guessed myself, thinking there's really no reason for me to think it's a gay couple because women always dance with each other at parties. So maybe the scene was intended to be ambiguous, to get us used to the idea that it could easily be interpreted in two ways, and that it was no big deal either way.

 

[gblews]

I don't get Trek fans being so devoted to the thing that when it occasionally plays catch-up with the rest of media and the world people celebrate it. On the contrary, Trek's "too little, too late" takes on contemporary culture are a sad thing.

Yeah, I'm not seeing where people are giving DSC any particular credit for showing same sex romances. In fact, seems to me that most of the responses have been in the "about time" and "what took them so long" categories (with respect to the news about Stamets and Culber). Fans probably are more curious about news of possibly a new relationship between two women, but really, news of any new romance would spark some interest.

I suppose that part of it is that for about ten minutes many decades ago, Star Trek seemed forward-thinking and progressive to a lot of us, and we're attached to that image of it in a nostalgic way...but the reality behind that is both that Trek's cultural and political commentary easily stood out against the very timid, conventional approach of traditional mass media in the 1960s, and that while Trek was not the sole exception to that timidity when it first aired the other shows like it have not endured for other reasons and thus are forgotten about now.

Several decades ago Star Trek didn't seem progressive and forward thinking, it was progressive and forward thinking compared to what was on TV at the time, and nearly all that had come before it, period.

Trek's cultural and political ideals sure did "stick out easily", but that doesn't mean that what TOS did back then was easily done. It took guts for Desilu to produce the show and guts for NBC to air it. That there were no other one hour dramas back then that were doing what TOS was doing is only one of the reasons that show is not only remembered over 50 years later, but spawned the first American movie/TV "franchise".

Yes, Trek fell behind the curve in some areas like LGBT, but attempting to use that to trivialize what Rodenberry accomplished back in the day is just plain shortsighted and frankly, a bit ignorant. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here because I know you don't like DSC or the Trek franchise.

 

[Lord Garth]

The people putting out DSC are not the same people as who were putting out Star Trek in the '80s, '90s, and '00s. So it's not fair to blame the creators of DSC for finally doing something they didn't do on TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT. They're not the same creative team, they're not the same people.

It's not like the creators of DSC can go back in time and tell Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman they should do more to address the LGBT Community.

They didn't do enough to address social issues of the time in the Berman Era and I blame that on the people making Star Trek at that time. Not the people who are making it now. They're just the ones who have to pick up the slack.

 

[gblews]

Yes, in fact Trek's longevity as a franchise works against it when it comes to on screen depictions of non-mainstream lifestyles, cultures, and political views.

No one jumped Buffy for "finally" showing a same sex couple, but at the time, Buffy didn't have a more than 30 year history stretching back to a time when you could barely get away with putting one black woman and one Asian man in the regular cast, much less a same sex couple.

Trek is a very successful long running franchise, so I guess the tendency to see it as one long show run by the same people comes with the territory, but that doesn;t make the criticism fair or even perhaps, justified.

 

[Mudd]

...trivialize what Rodenberry accomplished back in the day is just plain shortsighted...

Uh huh...I was there. I remember those times pretty well.

 

[Uhura's Song]

Yeah, I'm not seeing where people are giving DSC any particular credit for showing same sex romances. In fact, seems to me that most of the responses have been in the "about time" and "what took them so long" categories (with respect to the news about Stamets and Culber). Fans probably are more curious about news of possibly a new relationship between two women, but really, news of any new romance would spark some interest.

Several decades ago Star Trek didn't seem progressive and forward thinking, it was progressive and forward thinking compared to what was on TV at the time, and nearly all that had come before it, period.

Trek's cultural and political ideals sure did "stick out easily", but that doesn't mean that what TOS did back then was easily done. It took guts for Desilu to produce the show and guts for NBC to air it. That there were no other one hour dramas back then that were doing what TOS was doing is only one of the reasons that show is not only remembered over 50 years later, but spawned the first American movie/TV "franchise".

Yes, Trek fell behind the curve in some areas like LGBT, but attempting to use that to trivialize what Rodenberry accomplished back in the day is just plain shortsighted and frankly, a bit ignorant. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here because I know you don't like DSC or the Trek franchise.

Amen.

Plus, remember a lot of the LGBT progress has been pretty recent.

Ellen was cancelled in 1998 one year after she came out as a lesbian. She got another show on CBS in 2001 but it only lasted two years. Daytime Ellen started in 2003 and really began to turn things around. Will & Grace was 1998.

By 1998 TNG had completed its run. DS9 was close to finished (and was before Ellen's daytime show aired. Voyager was mid run but the characters were already established. Even Seven. VOY wrapped before Ellen got her second show.

Enterprise was the only show that could have gone there easily and did not. Even then, that crew was smaller & they went to species level issues more often than gender.

Unless you count Malcolm. I mean, all the signs were there. British navy guy. Never married. Always hanging out with Trip to hit on girls but always striking out.

 

[Jesse1066]

Amen.

Plus, remember a lot of the LGBT progress has been pretty recent.

Ellen was cancelled in 1998 one year after she came out as a lesbian. She got another show on CBS in 2001 but it only lasted two years. Daytime Ellen started in 2003 and really began to turn things around. Will & Grace was 1998.

By 1998 TNG had completed its run. DS9 was close to finished (and was before Ellen's daytime show aired. Voyager was mid run but the characters were already established. Even Seven. VOY wrapped before Ellen got her second show.

Enterprise was the only show that could have gone there easily and did not. Even then, that crew was smaller & they went to species level issues more often than gender.

Unless you count Malcolm. I mean, all the signs were there. British navy guy. Never married. Always hanging out with Trip to hit on girls but always striking out.

From Memory Alpha: "Keating also stated, when asked about Reed's romantic life, that 'God knows I played him gay!'"

 

[Awesome Possum]

There were women dancing together at the crew party in "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad".

I cried. First Stamets/Culber, then this background couple. After 50 years of Star Trek going out of their way to avoid depicting same sex relationships, I didn't realize how much it was going to mean to me to know that LGBT people actually make it to the future.

It was a wonderful moment and I hope there is more to come in the future. In fact I hope we eventually get a trans person played by a trans actor at some point. (Cis people, especially cis men playing trans women needs to stop.) Given how rare that is, Star Trek could actually be groundbreaking again given its high profile. But it's about time that Star Trek start representing all of humanity and not a portion of it. I get that most fans don't understand how much representation matters to those who rarely get it, representation for them has been a given their whole lives. They take it for granted and even seem hostile to representation for others. But it really means a lot. Knowing that you have a place in the future really matters.

I found gifs.

Yeah, they're into each other.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

In fact I hope we eventually get a trans person played by a trans actor at some point.

Is it time to put Laverne Cox in Star Trek?

(apologies if this is reaching a bit; I think she's the most prominent trans actor at the moment)

 

[Awesome Possum]

Is it time to put Laverne Cox in Star Trek?

(apologies if this is reaching a bit; I think she's the most prominent trans actor at the moment)

There’s a few others. But the fact you can only think of one out of the entire population should speak volumes.

 

[Spot261]

Jamie Clayton? That would make my year

 

[BeatleJWOL]

the fact you can only think of one out of the entire population should speak volumes

Absolutely true.

 

[Butters]

In fact I hope we eventually get a trans person played by a trans actor at some point.

Would that be a trans actor portraying a person, or a trans actor portraying a trans person?

Excuse my ignorance, but considering it’s set in the future, wouldn’t showing a positive outcome for gender identity issues mean that a trans woman, for example, in the twenty third century, is a woman? Would there even be a distinction!

I found gifs.

Yeah, they're into each other.

Yeah, and I never even noticed that in the episode. Subtle.