Be specific. What don't you support?
Homosexual Rights in the Star Trek Universe
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
- Status
Be specific. What don't you support?
While bees are spoken of, they're never seen, however we do see lot's of people, and we hear of their relationships, marriages, attractions, and sex hook ups.
But not if they're gay.
So if we're still there, literally right there on the bridge and are not being ostracized (and haven't been edited from the genome) and we feel no need to conceal our sexual orientation, because God knows no one else on the ship does, then the reason ...
While bees are spoken of, they're never seen, however we do see lot's of people, and we hear of their relationships, marriages, attractions, and sex hook ups.
But not if they're gay.
So if we're still there, literally right there on the bridge and are not being ostracized (and haven't been edited from the genome) and we feel no need to conceal our sexual orientation, because God knows no one else on the ship does, then the reason ...
I can think of quite a few characters (minor ones, admittedly, and some of them very minor) who were never presented in romantic situations. Therefore, by my optimistic logic, every one of them was gay. List includes Hawk from FC, Icheb (one tiny crush on B'Elanna is not absolute evidence) random male and female Bajorans on DS9, that dude who sold Tribbles in TOS, and of course, Garak who was bi.
Sorry, I just can't get behind a ST where anything other than heterosexuality is repressed/oppressed. It's too depressing, not to mention unrealistic. After all, no-one made a fuss about Dax and her ex-wife except for the rigid Trill members; that must count a bit*
*I'm aware you can take it as as a metaphor for homophobia, but it's so much more pleasant to not do that
Let's forget bees then - we didn't see a representative of every country/race/nationality found on Earth, did we? Yet that doesn't mean Brazilians don't exist in the 24th century.
Last edited:
Ok, so you're a "no" to the idea of rights for homosexuals in the Star Trek universe, got it.
To everyone else - this is NOT a thread about geneo, so let's stay on topic. Thanks!
... is that it's a flaw in a fictional universe that should be ignored.
^
That's not going to be easy.
Already, the previous attempts to address the concept are considered weak. "The Outcast" is seen as a 'noble failure' from T-Girl's (and other fans) point of view.
And let's face it, analyzing, criticizing and discussing the Trek universe is at an all time high (and often fun) now that we have social media and forums.
Heterosexuality is shown as being the default sexual behavior among 24th century humans.
Even the Outcast might have messed up a little bit--when Soren asked Riker about sexuality among humans, it went like this:
Riker could have mentioned something about same sex preferences at this point, but didn't.
The episode was supposed to be a analogy/message about homophobia.
At the same time, the Federation ostrasizing homosexuals? It still seems extreme.
That's not going to be easy.
Already, the previous attempts to address the concept are considered weak. "The Outcast" is seen as a 'noble failure' from T-Girl's (and other fans) point of view.
And let's face it, analyzing, criticizing and discussing the Trek universe is at an all time high (and often fun) now that we have social media and forums.
Heterosexuality is shown as being the default sexual behavior among 24th century humans.
Even the Outcast might have messed up a little bit--when Soren asked Riker about sexuality among humans, it went like this:
Riker could have mentioned something about same sex preferences at this point, but didn't.
The episode was supposed to be a analogy/message about homophobia.
At the same time, the Federation ostrasizing homosexuals? It still seems extreme.
Okay, what else can we conveniently ignore? Because it goes against the utopian vision.
If the utopia won't stand up to scrutiny , perhaps it isn't one.
A few of the reoccurring mid level characters were also not seen in romantic scenes, people like Sulu.
Do you think that's why their sexual orientation was never presented on screen?
I have stated that other possibilities might exist, it's just that in-universe I really can't find one that fits. And "no gay" might just be a Human thing. We've seen few enough Vulcans with their orientations on display that credible we could say that we just haven't seen our first obviously gay Vulcan.
Gays exist in every country, racial group, and nationality. So it isn't a matter of Star Trek not depicting the one Human subdivision that has all the gays in it.
Maybe by the 24th century people will come to accept that we don't spell "Brazilians" with a Z.
Okay, what else can we conveniently ignore? Because it goes against the utopian vision.
If the utopia won't stand up to scrutiny , perhaps it isn't one.
A few of the reoccurring mid level characters were also not seen in romantic scenes, people like Sulu.
Do you think that's why their sexual orientation was never presented on screen?
I have stated that other possibilities might exist, it's just that in-universe I really can't find one that fits. And "no gay" might just be a Human thing. We've seen few enough Vulcans with their orientations on display that credible we could say that we just haven't seen our first obviously gay Vulcan.
Gays exist in every country, racial group, and nationality. So it isn't a matter of Star Trek not depicting the one Human subdivision that has all the gays in it.
Maybe by the 24th century people will come to accept that we don't spell "Brazilians" with a Z.
I understand what you're getting at T'Girl, I just see it at as metatextual issue, not intra-textual. It's troubling that there was very little queer representation in Star Trek, but it's troubling because of what it says about the people/culture that made Star Trek, not the fictional world within it (IMO, obvs).
People really like to nitpick analogies, don't they?
Bees and Brasilians (with an S, then) were analogies: they weren't meant to be replicate the issue perfectly! Here, have another analogy: I don't complain that I've never seen someone plucking their eyebrows or sitting on a toilet in Star Trek, but I'm going to choose to believe that humans still do those things.
Okay, what else can we conveniently ignore? Because it goes against the utopian vision.
If the utopia won't stand up to scrutiny , perhaps it isn't one.
Maybe by the 24th century people will come to accept that we don't spell "Brazilians" with a Z.
Of course it doesn't stand up to scrutiny - it's a fictional world. Fictional worlds, even those created by a single author, often have varying degrees of contradiction and error. Star Trek has an extra handicap because it is created over decades by many different creators (i.e. everyone involved in making the shows).
Star Trek consists of two main components: what is shown on screen and the audience member's imagination. What is important, then, is how each audience member uses his or her imagination to resolve differences and fill in the gaps in the canon. You are using your imagination, it seems, to come to a rather depressing conclusion and I'm trying to understand why. I suppose it could be that you just read canon very literally and narrowly when combining it with the component of your imagination.
Oh, and the Oxford American Dictionary would disagree with you when it comes to spelling "Brazilian."
Maybe by the 24th century people will come to accept that we don't spell "Brazilians" with a Z.
"Brazilians" don't exist in the 24th century because hive collapse wiped out all the bees. No bees, no wax. No wax, no "Brazilians".
I love that this is the sort of board that people make the distinction between something 'metatextual' and something 'intratextual'. 
If there weren't production realities that had an impact on the Trek universe, only about 20% of the characters would be white.
If there weren't production realities that had an impact on the Trek universe, only about 20% of the characters would be white.
I love that this is the sort of board that people make the distinction between something 'metatextual' and something 'intratextual'.
If there weren't production realities that had an impact on the Trek universe, only about 20% of the characters would be white.
How many characters would be human?
That's true. I suppose the skin pigment would have more to do with the average climate on member worlds. The more direct sunlight they experience, the darker skinned they'd be.
With a 150 odd species in the federation, Humans would be two-thirds of one percent.
See, thars not how life workd, though. Other factors come into play than just ratio/percentage of this group or that group per populace. Combined, Chinese and Indians are 33% of the Earth's population, yet they do not make up a third of your graduating class or a third of your friends. Currently this is due to geography and that mist Chinese are in China and Indians in India.
This still illustrates that other factors come into play. One ethnic or genetic group might be more disposed for one activity or another. If men and women were truly treated and viewed as equal in all things, there still may be some things that attract more men than women or vice versa.
Some planets may just not send that many being to Starfeet whereas other beings are better suited or more eager for life in space.
what?
You say yourself it's the equivalent of a human bisexual, so right there that's not 'gay.' It's bisexual.
They're not the same thing. It's bisexual erasure to say they are, and I would have thought a transgender person was against that. Bisexual is not the same as gay, and you even say that yourself, so what the hell are you talking about?
.
4 genders = quadrasexuality, trisexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality.
Even Andorian trisexuality does not guarantee same sex attraction, but it can, because the lone sex which any hypothetical example of trisexuality is not attracted to, could be any of the four genders including the same sex as the example focussed on here, but not always.
Novels yes, there are four genders.
TV canon, maybe?
Unless? Unless what Data?
Golly.
Maybe there are still only two genders, and the ratio of genders in any possible quartet, can skew to 4:0 with respect to either gender?
I'll have you know about half of my friends are Indian or Asian.
Of course, I am a software engineer.
True, but we also as humans allow those real differences in attraction to different professions between groups to bias our evaluation of people's skill at those professions. Any job that the average man is more likely to want than the average woman, the women who do want the job have to prove themselves twice as hard to be accepted, so the actual difference between genders gets exaggerated in the results.
It's possible humans are more driven to join Starfleet than other aliens, but it wouldn't be that big a skew of 1/150 to the 75% we see on the show. Having the crew be mostly human is a budget decision.
Well, if you consider founding worlds, Alpha Centaurans are human, Andorians have problems making offspring, Vulcans "do it" once every 7 years, and for all we know Tellarites have litters, but don't do it that often because they find each other so damned disagreeable.
So maybe we DO outnumber them by that much?
It could be that humans are the rabbits of the galaxy.
That's has never made sense to me.
Of the limited number of founder worlds of the Federation, two were Human? To me it would make more sense if each of the Federation's five founders were of a different species.
Alpha Centaurans might be humanoid, but they're not Humans.
- Status
Similar threads
