News Female Same-Sex Couple For Discovery?

[GrathonTolar]

Uhura was on TOS at the height of the Civil Rights Era. Stations in the south refused to air the show. They should be proud to piss off bigots, they shouldn’t get a say anymore.

Well, they do have a say. The GOP has the majority of Governers, Congress, and the Presidency. The 35% of the country that don't bother to vote need to get out and get these types of people out of office; that is how laws change. It gets better with each generation; it certainly is better than when I grew up in the 80s.

Politics always play a part in television writing. Good or bad.

 

[thribs]

Why not focus on making an actual decent story rather than the sexuality of the characters.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Why not focus on making an actual decent story rather than the sexuality of the characters.

Non-straight characters can exist in every kind of decent story, so it's hardly a mutually exclusive proposition.

 

[thribs]

They just seem more focused on these stupid diversity issues rather than trying to deliver something worthwhile and interesting.

 

[Takeru]

They just seem more focused on these stupid diversity issues rather than trying to deliver something worthwhile and interesting.

Stupid diversity issues? That's probably the most dismissive, ignorant and honestly offensive thing you could have said. Why is people asking for representation stupid and why are you framing it as if people asking for more diversity are less interested in something worthwhile and interesting? Those things aren't mutually exclusive.

You seem to think being more inclusive would take away from interesting stories but that's not true, I'm reminded of the old "We would love to show gay characters but we have to find the right story" argument. That's BS of course, every story is the right story, you just change a random character mentioning his girlfriend to his boyfriend and you're done.
It's the same for transgender characters, you don't have to pluck out elements of the season's arc to make room for them, you just show them doing their job, they're just part of the crew just like all the straight cisgender characters have been for decades.

 

[Spot261]

Why not focus on making an actual decent story rather than the sexuality of the characters.

They just seem more focused on these stupid diversity issues rather than trying to deliver something worthwhile and interesting.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous these posts are?

This is Star Trek, it's a cultural icon for blazing the trail on inclusiveness onscreen, it's what it does.

If the transition wasn't so difficult, the social category we currently know as "transgender" wouldn't be all that relevant, if it even exists at all (kind of like we don't have a recognizable category for "people who have had tonsilectomies").

Dude, I'm not going to even try to address all of your comments, I just picked this one out to draw attention to the problem. You are literally telling a transgender person about a state of being which they have an experience of and you do not, a procedure she is undergoing and you are not, then repeatedly suggesting the questions and experiences which define a major part of her life simply don't exist for no obvious reason. Would you feel comfortable explaining periods to a cis female, or worse suggesting they don't really exist?

I know @Awesome Possum aside from publicly posting in here and can assure you she knows exactly what she is talking about. Rather than questioning the validity of her "opinions" why not show a little more respect for the effort and courage that goes into her sharing this for our benefit when she really doesn't have to? I'm sure life would be much easier for her to simply not discuss this at all but what she is bringing to the table is a valuable opportunity to actually learn from experiences she has offered for no other reason than to give us that opportunity?

 

[Jinn]

While the subject matter is currently in it's infancy so far studies suggest there are in fact detectable biological, though not genetic, differences. And the Federation is medically speaking over 200 years ahead of us and can map a body's structure down to at least the subatomic level.

Even if that is the case, it's still kinda rude to basically force someone to transition with no regards of how they feel. Sure, most people will want to transition, but at least give them the choice. In my mind you then have a couple of years before transitioning to which you can flash back.

In a society/culture where it's completely accepted that a person is the sex they want to be why would any of the rare family who would know what they were born as go around mentioning it or calling the person in question anything other then their preferred pronoun?

Similarly without the societal/cultural pressures and discrimination's that exist in the modern day in concerns to how a person should look and dress, how would you tell whether the child wearing a dress was genetically a boy or a girl?

For example it could be mentioned along with other medical history of a character, something along the lines of what AP said, an old friend only remembers that the trans character's father had a child that assigned female at birth and is told that he is actually trans. And as I said flashbacks. Maybe the character remembers when he first met an alien and he is portrayed by a female child, around age five or so. That's what I'd think would be the standard case but you could also always go for the "his or her parents are transphonic dickheads" route, even thou there are hopefully a loooooot less of those in the future. Since the Federation wouldn't allow genetic manipulation with maybe the exception of treating lethal deseases I highly doubt that trans characters would get gene therapy or something, so maybe a landing party on a planet with two rivalling factions gets hurt and go to the infirmary of the side the Federation is on and one of the medics sees that the trans character has a chromosone combination that differs from his gender.

But really, those are just suggestions. I think the larger points should be that A) trans repreesentation is good for trans people so B) we will find some way of mentioning it and that it really isn't that hard. I'm not saying that the character has to say all the time that they're trans but it should definitely be mentioned multiple times so that it doesn't feel like a total throwaway line.

A refinement of current techniques, at worst, is likely. OTOH, something more radical -- say, retro-viral gene re-sequencing that turns Y-chromosomes into copied X chromosomes -- wouldn't be that unusual either

Wouldn't this already fall under genetic manipulation which is a no-no in the Federation?

I'm not sure what you find scary about quotes or hyphens, exactly, but as even you point out there is a difference between gender and sex and that what Americans call transgender people would more accurately be referred to as transsexual people. Changing genders and/or gender roles doesn't necessarily have anything to do with changing sex.

Transgender people have a sex that differs from their gender, they don't change gender.

They just seem more focused on these stupid diversity issues rather than trying to deliver something worthwhile and interesting.

The way you frame this implies that you can't have a good story with diversity, while in truth pretty much nothing story-related will change when the gay characters are hetero-sexual and of different genders.

 

[Longinus]

Uhura was on TOS at the height of the Civil Rights Era. Stations in the south refused to air the show. They should be proud to piss off bigots, they shouldn’t get a say anymore.

Yep. If you're pissing off bigots, it is usually a sign that you're doing at least something right.

 

[Longinus]

And one more thing about that whole medical/sciencey side of the things. Sure, we really do not understand the whole gender identity thing well at all at this point; how it is formed or what exactly it even means. Learning that Laverne Cox has an identical cis twin brother was kind of a WTF moment for me personally. Gender thing probably is not anything so simple as some doodah in the brain being in one way or another, as identity in general, it is something really complex and interwoven with many other things. In any case, as interesting as the science behind such thing is, it ultimately really doesn't matter. It only matters what the people in question feel, not why they feel that way. Trans people have existed throughout human history and will undoubtedly continue to exist in the future as well.

 

[Mudd]

They just seem more focused on these stupid diversity issues rather than trying to deliver something worthwhile and interesting.

No.

It's a fair point that they don't have much to say for themselves in terms of the quality of the show overall, specifically the narrative, but that failure doesn't have anything to do with diversity in the cast and characters.

It's possible that fans and the press would discuss the show's content more if it were more interesting.

 

[Awesome Possum]

They just seem more focused on these stupid diversity issues rather than trying to deliver something worthwhile and interesting.

I want something worthwhile and interesting with a trans character. Assuming that it's impossible with diversity is a sign of ignorance and bigotry. If anything showing a more diverse depiction of humanity can only lead to a more diverse range of stories and ideas. So far we've had fifty years of cishet people and 15 episodes with a gay character, we can do more and take Star Trek into new and exciting areas, you know where no one has gone before.

Except others have gone there before, so they're really just catching up. But it can expand and enhance Trek.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you have ideas of how cis men are supposed to be represented, I'll be happy to hear it. I don't want you to explain my identity to me.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were every transgender person in the known universe. I'll remember that in the future.

Thanks for educating me about me.

I wasn't talking about you.

I never said that.

I never suggested you did.

I'm not sure why you brought it up other than an attempt to dismiss trans people and act like people are being forced to be something they aren't.

"Forced" no, but the fundamental fact of BEING transgender is an attempt to be something you (currently) are not. As another analogy: a medical student is in the process of becoming a doctor, a cadet is in the process of becoming an officer, a child is in the process of becoming an adult, etc. In the same way, a transwoman is in the process of becoming a woman. That's a process that requires a certain amount of commitment and, more importantly, a GREAT deal of certainty that transitioning to a new gender is actually the right move. Even medical school and officer training are pretty easy by comparison.

My point, actually, is that with advances in medical technology, it may not be that difficult in the future. Basically this: in a world where you could implant knowledge with a syringe, there would be no such thing as a "medical student." In a world where you could change genders with a trek-style retrovirus or a transporter setting at any community hospital, there would be no such thing as "transgender person."

Gender roles are a social concept, roles like men having short hair, taking on the dominant position in a relation or how women are supposed to have long hair and be submissive. We made that up. Gender itself seems to be hardwired into the species.

That's debatable, but gender identity fluctuates with age and time for many people and varies dramatically from person to person. I doubt it's actually "hard wired" as much as it is an emergent property of human personalities, and then there's a question of how much of our personalities are innate and how much of those behaviors are learned. But that's the whole "nature vs. nurture" can of worms again...

No it's not, its just more common.

Well, the "most common" is basically "the norm" so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.

I don't even know where to start. I guess you don't understand reality.

I'm not talking about reality, unfortunately. I'm talking about the "better world" Star Trek aspires to show us.

And if you had ever read a single post I had made, you'd see that we agree.

I have, and I do. You seem to be taking the extra effort to FIND disagreement, though.

 

[Vger23]

This discussion seems to be going on for longer than necessary.

Just a friendly observation.

 

[Spot261]

In the same way, a transwoman is in the process of becoming a woman

A transwoman IS a woman, the process of transitioning is merely about bringing the anatomy into line.

That's debatable, but gender identity fluctuates with age and time for many people and varies dramatically from person to person. I doubt it's actually "hard wired" as much as it is an emergent property of human personalities, and then there's a question of how much of our personalities are innate and how much of those behaviors are learned. But that's the whole "nature vs. nurture" can of worms again...

Actually the evidence is pretty strong that gender identity is innate, whereas gender roles are social constructs. Nature v nurture as an intractable dead end is the cop out of undergraduates wanting a passable but ultimately non commital throwaway assignment conclusion.

Well, the "most common" is basically "the norm" so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.

But "norm" is inherently value loaded in our society, it is associated with "correct" as in "normative medicine", the idea that there is some ideal end goal where people are brought closer to some statistically "correct" state of being..

 

[AlanC9]

My point, actually, is that with advances in medical technology, it may not be that difficult in the future. Basically this: in a world where you could implant knowledge with a syringe, there would be no such thing as a "medical student." In a world where you could change genders with a trek-style retrovirus or a transporter setting at any community hospital, there would be no such thing as "transgender person."

Samuel Delany's Triton comes to mind. The main character decides to go from being a straight cis male to being a straight cis female. There's no problem except for a bit of bureaucratic confusion; the sexual orientation alteration and gender alteration medical practices are both in the same building, but don't actually work together because nobody ever comes in for both procedures at once. Everyone at the office loves her new look when she shows up on Monday.

For a book published in 1976, this was pretty far out there.

But yeah, being transgender would be irrelevant in such a world. Or rather, it'd be a background detail.

 

[Jinn]

"Forced" no, but the fundamental fact of BEING transgender is an attempt to be something you (currently) are not. As another analogy: a medical student is in the process of becoming a doctor, a cadet is in the process of becoming an officer, a child is in the process of becoming an adult, etc. In the same way, a transwoman is in the process of becoming a woman. That's a process that requires a certain amount of commitment and, more importantly, a GREAT deal of certainty that transitioning to a new gender is actually the right move. Even medical school and officer training are pretty easy by comparison.

You don't change gender. Why is that so hard to understand?

My point, actually, is that with advances in medical technology, it may not be that difficult in the future. Basically this: in a world where you could implant knowledge with a syringe, there would be no such thing as a "medical student." In a world where you could change genders with a trek-style retrovirus or a transporter setting at any community hospital, there would be no such thing as "transgender person."

A transgender person is a person whose gender does not match their sex. Wether or not they got their sex reassigned or when that happened or how long that happened does not matter, they are still a trans person.

Well, the "most common" is basically "the norm" so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here.

The problem is that "norm" is derived from "normal" the opposite of which is "abnormal", which isn't something that people like being called or implied to be, wether intended or not.

I'm not talking about reality, unfortunately. I'm talking about the "better world" Star Trek aspires to show us.

Star Trek could positively impact trans people by showing trans characters and giving them a role model or someone to identify with, not by saying that maybe in three houndred years transitioning will be totally easy.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A transwoman IS a woman, the process of transitioning is merely about bringing the anatomy into line.

Eh... we're fumbling over terms again, but that's basically what I'm saying. Biological sex and gender do not always match up, but the whole reason this situation happens is because some people NEED them to match up. It's the second factor -- the biological aspect -- that takes time.

Actually the evidence is pretty strong that gender identity is innate, whereas gender roles are social constructs. Nature v nurture as an intractable dead end is the cop out of undergraduates wanting a passable but ultimately non commital throwaway assignment conclusion.

It's not a dead end, it's a huge can of worms. Self-identity among humans is a very complicated thing, as is development of personality traits. Twin studies and developmental research isn't nearly as conclusive on this as a lot of people think, but I'd prefer not to go down that rabbit hole again...

But "norm" is inherently value loaded in our society, it is associated with "correct" as in "normative medicine", the idea that there is some ideal end goal where people are brought closer to some statistically "correct" state of being..

In OUR society, yes. I cited those other examples for a reason. There are still schools in America that try to force left handed children to use their right hand, for example.

On the whole, the basic problem with our society is that too many of us have a low tolerance for ambiguity. The world makes more sense when you can categorize everything and assume that this thing you're encountering is understandable because it's similar to all the other things you also understand. But individual people and concepts mean different things under different circumstances and don't neatly fall into categories about which we can make safe assumptions. That's frightening and confusing for a lot of people.

OTOH, the Star Trek universe is a very confusing and contradictory place where ALOT more variation between individuals in the same species -- let alone across multiple species -- is to be expected. Starfleet officers learn not to rush to judgement about what's going on because they might be dealing with someone with a very different idea of "normal" or they might be dealing with someone who is very abnormal for their species, or they might be dealing with something that deviates dramatically from "normal" even in their own species without realizing it. They don't have the luxury of relying on categories, they have to critically examine everything they see and test everything to be sure.

We're not there yet.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Samuel Delany's Triton comes to mind. The main character decides to go from being a straight cis male to being a straight cis female. There's no problem except for a bit of bureaucratic confusion; the sexual orientation alteration and gender alteration medical practices are both in the same building, but don't actually work together because nobody ever comes in for both procedures at once. Everyone at the office loves her new look when she shows up on Monday.

For a book published in 1976, this was pretty far out there.

But yeah, being transgender would be irrelevant in such a world. Or rather, it'd be a background detail.

They dabbled with this in The Culture novels too. One of the agents from Special Circumstances spent a couple of decades as a man before deciding to have her genes altered and switch back to being a woman (I think it was "Surface Matter" but it's been a while since I read them).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You don't change gender. Why is that so hard to understand?

I don't misunderstand, I just disagree. I believe that gender identity is something very complicated that evolves over time and I DON'T believe it's something that people are simply born with. I believe -- at the current time, based on what I've read -- that it is MOSTLY governed by genetics and hormones and partially (marginally?) by psychological development and life experiences that help shape self identity.

A transgender person is a person whose gender does not match their sex. Wether or not they got their sex reassigned or when that happened or how long that happened does not matter, they are still a trans person.

I disagree, mainly because I don't believe gender is a strictly binary concept or nearly as simple as "male and female." Sex is, strictly speaking, binary and determined by genes. Gender is more complicated, and doesn't always develop in a way that is consistent with standard sexual dimorphism.

Some people need it to be consistent, and take steps to make that transition. But it is a transition and not a one-stop-shop transformation.

Star Trek could positively impact trans people by showing trans characters and giving them a role model or someone to identify with, not by saying that maybe in three houndred years transitioning will be totally easy.

I doubt they would get into the details all that much... it's not like anyone ever had a conversation with Uhura about the lack of "whites only" bathrooms on the Enterprise. It's just that the recurring theme in Star Trek is that as humanity evolves, the solutions to our problems become easier.

 

[Nyotarules]

I think if they go down the "two women couple" path, it now becomes a political statement and more of a gimmick because they have done it twice.

Nothing more gimmicky than a franchise where white males dominate even though they are frigging minority on the planet..carry on. The foundation of US society is steeped in bigotry, until that mess is culturally and collectively owned, then its going to always be a fight to get representation of people reflected in its motion pictures.

They just seem more focused on these stupid diversity issues rather than trying to deliver something worthwhile and interesting.

Then cut out all the white people, make it an all non white show. In RL humanity, whites are an ethnic minority, Star Trek should reflect that..right?