Is Star Trek homophobic?

[BillJ]

Actually, I do think that homophobia was at work on the production of all of the trek series.

For instance, on the TNG Trill episode, people have noted that Dr. Crusher could not deal with Odan as a woman. What a lot of people forget is that Gates McFadden HERSELF protested that ending and found it in appropriate.

Of course the fact that a lover is constantly changing bodies wouldn't spook anyone.

In the TNG episode The Offspring, Data defines love as being something that develops between a man and a woman. Once again, members of the cast, including Whoopie Goldberg, protested the way the scene was written and again they were overruled.

Can't find anything like this in the transcripts. This is the closest I came up with:

***

(A couple by the far wall are gazing into each others eyes and holding hands)
GUINAN: You see?
LAL: What are they doing?
GUINAN: It's called flirting.
LAL: They seem to be communicating telepathically.
GUINAN: They're both thinking the same thing, if that's what you mean.
LAL: Guinan, is the joining of hands a symbolic act for humans?
GUINAN: It shows affection. Humans like to touch each other. They start with the hands, and go from there.
LAL: He's biting that female.
GUINAN: No, he's not biting. They're pressing lips. It's called kissing.
LAL: Why are they leaving?
GUINAN: Lal, there are some things your father's just going to have to explain to you when he thinks you're ready.
(Guinan moves away, and Riker comes in. Lal promptly starts flirting, and her voice deepens)
RIKER: You're new around here, aren't you?
LAL: Yes.
(She reaches across the bar, pulls Riker towards herself and kisses him. Data enters)
GUINAN: Lal! Lal, put him down.
DATA: Commander, what are your intentions toward my daughter?
RIKER: Your daughter? Nice to meet you.

***

Keep in mind that the script for Blood and Fire was written for TNG, gay themes and all....someone that was NOT GR pulled thte plug.

Pretty sure I remember reading that Roddenberry and Gerrold had major disagreements about 'Blood and Fire'.

I can recall a specific incident on Voyager that SCREAMED homophobia...it was the episode where the Doctor inhabited Seven's body. At some point in the episode a male character starts hitting on Seven/Doctor and the Doctor recoils in horror at the very thought of that happening.

During the production of Enterprise....SOMEONE made an executive decision to put an end to Archer and Trip's late night conversations and hanging out because there were rumors flying around the net that their relationship might be more than friends. Someone put an end to that fast because Trip and Archer started spending a lot less time together and around the same time we got the silliness of A Night in Sickbay...and the suggestion that Archer needed to spend some time with a woman.

Can't really speak to these two as I didn't pay much attention to the production of either show.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Ironically, I think if they put the issue out from the very beginning, we may have seen it more, and in a casual way.

In any way- humor, casual, dramatic, just to put it out there in the 23nd- 24th century.

Regarding same sex relationships and how it looked in the 24th century we only got a generalized, 'we've evolved out of all our prejudices and bigotries'.

So some shows today simply show homosexual relationships, even if the world isn't perfect.

Usually it's casually joked about, accepted, rejected or played for dramatic effect, but at least acknowledged and dealt with in one way or another.

And other shows are set in a world where you know gay people exist, so it not a too big surprise to suddenly see a gay character.

Just to be interesting, to see how characters react to the whole thing. Preferences, aversions etc.

I think so much time has passed it's somewhat too late to do it, because the pattern has been too ingrained.

 

[T'Girl]

Dr. Crusher could not deal with Odan

the episode where the Doctor inhabited Seven's body.

Neither of those really depicts homophobia, you simply had two character who were heterosexual, in the case of Crusher this fitted with her previously established orientation.

Very few movies have ever included a gay character. Does that make them homophobic?

If they have a couple of dozen adult main characters and every last one of them is shown to be straight, then the answer is yes to your question

 

[BlobVanDam]

Very few movies have ever included a gay character. Does that make them homophobic?

If they have a couple of dozen adult main characters and every last one of them is shown to be straight, then the answer is yes to your question

That is ridiculous. Movies/entertainment don't play to pure percentages. It has to fit the context, otherwise it's just a token gay guy to pander to a certain audience. Not including a homosexual doesn't make something homophobic. In fact, it can even mean........

(wait for it..........)

nothing at all.

Yes, positive homosexual roles in movies and television would be a good influence to society, but to expect it or force it is not helping anyone.

 

[The Inquisitor]

Very few movies have ever included a gay character. Does that make them homophobic?

If they have a couple of dozen adult main characters and every last one of them is shown to be straight, then the answer is yes to your question

[/QUOTE]

That's ridiculous. Plain and simple. Going by that logic there would have to be at least one black/Asian/Hispanic/transgender/fat/anorexic/disabled character in your group just to 'balance things out' in an attempt to make every demographic happy. Reality doesn't work like that. In my last job everyone I worked with (over 20 people) was White and straight. No-one in this group or our employer was in any way discriminatory. My current job is pretty much the opposite.

Being hassled in the street or workplace for your sexuality is homophobia in action. Star trek not having an openly gay character is not.

If Star Trek is homophobic then so is Star Wars, Aliens, Sunshine and a never ending list of other sci-fi titles.

If you want to see sexuality handled well in a sci-fi film watch Logans run but for gods sake stop calling startrek homophobic, it simply isn't.

 

[Deckerd]

Very few movies have ever included a gay character. Does that make them homophobic?

Yes.

The absence of something is not active lobbying against it (which is what homophobia along with all other bigotry is). We all have disabled people who work alongside us, and I may be wrong but I think the disabled population outnumbers the gay population in most countries, and yet you don't hear them whining about their lack of representation in movies or television. To take it even further, I'm using a ballpark figure of 50% of the population of most post-industrial countries are either fat or old or both but you most definitely do not see 50% of actors as fat and middle aged. This is outright bigotry by your standards. It's ageosizeophobia.

 

[Avon]

star trek isn't homophobic. i should know. it just ignored gay people, much like almost every other tv show ever.

this is probably better than say, early tng doing a heavy-handed, badly executed allegory.

 

[BenRoethig]

I agree with that ^

Absence of evidence is not evidence

Plus you have to take into account the time it was made. If they would have introduced gay characters at that time, it would have meant the end of star trek. Ellen's sitcom went from hit to off the air in no time when her character came out of the closet. A lot of people on both sides of the orientation line had to grow up before you could show an adult homosexual relationship and have it be accepted.

Homosexuality in Starfleet is probably a lot like you saw with Sam Adama in caprica, regular people who just happen to be gay. Nobody feels the need to constantly point it out constantly because its a not issue. And honestly, this is how most of the gay and Lesbian people I know are. Sexual orientation doesn't come up all that often. I accept that they're gay and they accept I'm straight and we move on to the regular personal interaction rule. The stereotypical overly effeminate gay guy or butch lesbian are the minority.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I agree, Trek has worked too long and too hard on its image and theme to be seen as blatantly homophobic.

It wouldn't be fair to call it homophobic. It tried by symbolism, but it did try to get the message out about acceptance.

I think what some posters may be saying is that Trek's avoidance of displaying openly gay characters may be more deliberate than unintentional.

At some point, it has to be established that a person in the 24th century can have a clear sexual preference and yet be accepting of same sex couples.

One problem may be, that as long as they avoid clearly showing it, awkward issues like this keep popping up, at least for some fans.

 

[Deckerd]

One problem may be, that as long as they avoid clearly showing it, awkward issues like this keep popping up, at least for some fans.

This thread has happened before and will happen again.

 

[JarodRussell]

What exactly would people have wanted to see regarding homosexuality in Trek? There's hardly any story worth telling. It would be like telling a cancer story: "Oh, you have brain cancer the size of a tennis ball. Wait a second." McCoy/Crusher gives him a small injection. "Oh, it's gone." It's supposed to be no big deal at all in the 23rd/24th century.

 

[OmahaStar]

This is just one more example of how Babylon 5 is superior to Star Trek. One of the leads, Susan Ivanova, is shown to be bisexual. And not one person on the station blinks an eye. It's a non-issue. If they can do it, why couldn't Star Trek?

 

[Deckerd]

If it's a non-issue, why is it a problem?

 

[BillJ]

Very few movies have ever included a gay character. Does that make them homophobic?

Yes.

The absence of something is not active lobbying against it (which is what homophobia along with all other bigotry is). We all have disabled people who work alongside us, and I may be wrong but I think the disabled population outnumbers the gay population in most countries, and yet you don't hear them whining about their lack of representation in movies or television. To take it even further, I'm using a ballpark figure of 50% of the population of most post-industrial countries are either fat or old or both but you most definitely do not see 50% of actors as fat and middle aged. This is outright bigotry by your standards. It's ageosizeophobia.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Deckerd]

I was being sarcastic.

Why, I oughtta...

 

[Bishop76]

I think he meant Ivanova's sexuality was a non-issue to other characters on the show. And I had completely forgotten about that - good point, Omahastar

 

[siskokid888]

Homophobic - no. I think the word you're looking for is "cowardly".

Though I see others prefer the term "timid".

How d'you explain the success of 6 Feet Under? Or Will and Grace?

Its the typical gay portrayal - the whole point of the character is the fact that they are gay. Their "gayness" is the reason for the character's existence. You would never see a cop show, for example, where the lead, when he leaves to go to work, kisses his husband and kids goodbye. He would be a cop that happened to be gay, not a gay guy that happened to be a cop. Homosexuality is still portrayed as an anamoly by the media, much like being a person of color used to be (and still is in many places). When that perception changes, then we can talk about the troglodytes that populate this country starting to come around.

The whole point of the characters of David Fisher and Keith Charles on SFU is that they're gay? That makes as much sense as saying that the whole point of the characters of Nate Fisher, Claire Fisher, Ruth Fisher or Brenda Chenowith was that they were straight. The show spent as much time on those characters' sexuality and relationships as it did with gay characters, and gay characters had many of the same relationship problems as straight characters. And they all - whether gay, straight or bi - also had other issues and interests, like jobs/school, families, friends, religion (in David and Keith's case) or other problems. We saw Keith's dysfunctional family, his abusive father, junkie sister and little niece he and David took care of, and his problems with anger control, losing his job as a cop, working as a bodyguard, etc. While Nate had problems with his tumor, David had the PTSD after his kidnapping/mugging.

Really, I don't know how anyone could say that the portrayal of gays or bisexuals on SFU was in any way stereotypical.

Sorry, I should have been more clear - I was referring to Will and Grace, I'm not familiar with the other show, Six Feet Under.

 

[OmahaStar]

If it's a non-issue, why is it a problem?

Interesting that you placed all the emphasis on the last part of that quote, not the first part. It was a non-issue on Babylon 5. She had relationships with both males and females, and no one batted an eye.

In a later episode, Marcus and the doctor used a cover story that they were a recently married couple (both men) in an effort to get to Mars. It was not played for comedy or drama, it was simply there. No one made an issue of it. But that non-issue showed that people no longer had issues with orientation. Two guys together? No different than any other couple.

And in 600 episodes of Star Trek, they couldn't even show a couple in the background of one single shot, holding hands or in some way acknowledging that gays exist?

Star Trek fans and producers proudly proclaim that they had the first ever interracial kiss back in the 60s. How far they've fallen since then.

 

[BenRoethig]

This is just one more example of how Babylon 5 is superior to Star Trek. One of the leads, Susan Ivanova, is shown to be bisexual. And not one person on the station blinks an eye. It's a non-issue. If they can do it, why couldn't Star Trek?

It was done very delicately though.

 

[BillJ]

She had relationships with both males and females, and no one batted an eye.

How could anyone bat an eye? No one was watching!