The reason I use fanboys here is frankly because, this forum has a bizarre fanboyish attitude towards Discovery that I don't even find on boards like /r/Startrekdiscovery where you find far more reasonable discussion and criticism of the show being discussed.
There is a need for Discovery fans here to constantly shit over the rest of Star Trek and Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek, mock and deride people who think that vision is important to the series which happens constantly (and don't tell me it doesn't, I've seen countless posts of people posting "But Genes utopian vision!" with rolling eyes and laughter emojis).
You use "fanboys" because it allows you to feel superior to other fans for simply having an opinion that differs from yours. You use it because you erroneously make the assumption that your opinion is the right one by default and represents some sort of objective authority on what is acceptable or not in Trek.
Gene Roddenberry was a successful television producer and writer who created shows, films, and a franchise that I enjoy immensely. For that I am grateful. He was also possibly a rapist, definitely a sexist, frequently capricious and vindictive towards his coworkers, not nearly as progressive as he is often given credit for (though he deserves some recognition), a nepotist, arbitrary in what does and does not constitute his hallowed "vision" at any particular moment, made just as many mistakes and had just as many inconsistencies in his vision as anyone else, and is given credit (and sometimes took credit) for a lot of the contributions of others on the show and films who shaped the franchise nearly as much as he did.
So when people start talking to me about "Gene's Vision" and treating him more like a saint or visionary than a television producer out to make money just like everybody else, I tend to gloss over their Cult of Goddenberry religious fervor. He's Zefram Cochrane in
First Contact, a deeply flawed man who did something impressive motivated out of self-interest (which is fine) who over time has been shaped into this larger than life religious figure by his fans.
What is even the point of having discussions here? I'm out.
Your contributions have been uniformly hostile and histrionic, so don't expect me to beg you to stay. But some actual follow through on your promises would be appreciated. I'm tired of people saying they're taking their ball and going home only to be back the next day like nothing happened.
Nobody knows their experiences most except them as individuals even if they're part of a community. There's plenty of nuance, I'm always open to listening to people, especially if they are sincere. And while I can only speak for myself, but how many human beings wish to be pandered to? Isn't that supposed to be insulting or something? That's what some people tell me. Some sci-fi characters who are said to be like me are nothing like me and there are people more like me who are nothing like me in said attribute I'm supposed to be able to relate to. Seems weird, surely? Actually, it's not weird in the slightest... not because sci-fi is about experiencing others, which by default suggests being pandered to might be contradictary?
What the hell are you rambling on about? All the poster said was remember that there are transgender fans too in response to the use of the term "fanboy" to describe fans here, followed by someone else saying there are also fangirls. It wasn't even a commentary on the show or meant to be critical, yet you're reflexively bringing out the "pandering" argument against greater inclusiveness without even following the actual conversation.
