Keeping Tasha

[Michael]

I don't love the term "woke", but there is definitely a contextual difference between "treating people with respect" and what some would label "woke".

That’s true. However, there is a context here, even if it might not be apparent to you, and I know from previous posts that that’s how “woke” is understood by Lynx, i.e. “forced diversity” on TV shows and nonsense like that. So that’s why I responded the way I responded. And yes, at the end of the day that’s a question of how you want to treat people that have traditionally not been seeing themselves represented in media.

"woke" is generally when it goes overboard, to the point of not just being respectful, but becoming a major focus of the work to the detriment of anything else, or altering things nonsensically to achieve a diversity goal (like making black Vikings or something in a period piece, for "diversity").

No, that has not been my experience. In online discourse it has become a catch-all term for almost everything “the other side”, left or progressive, is doing or asking for. Fucking Taylor Swift getting young people to register to vote (without even endorsing anyone) is now some “woke” conspiracy. We are literally at a point in time where the term has been stripped of almost all meaning.

… having a poor ESG score can financially ruin a business.

Do you have examples of this?

 

[evilchumlee]

That’s true. However, there is a context here, even if it might not be apparent to you, and I know from previous posts that that’s how “woke” is understood by Lynx, i.e. “forced diversity” on TV shows and nonsense like that. So that’s why I responded the way I responded. And yes, at the end of the day that’s a question of how you want to treat people that have traditionally not been seeing themselves represented in media.

That's fair, although I don't think that "forced diversity" is "nonsense". Diversity is great... but... there can absolutely hit a point of being forced and outright distracting.

No, that has not been my experience. In online discourse it has become a catch-all term for almost everything “the other side”, left or progressive, is doing or asking for. Fucking Taylor Swift getting young people to register to vote (without even endorsing anyone) is now some “woke” conspiracy. We are literally at a point in time where the term has been stripped of almost all meaning.

It's partly why I don't particularly love the term "woke". It's become associated with... certain types. "Woke" really has been a useless term. (Along with useless terms, a personal most-hated useless term is "incel". The second I hear the word "incel", I know there is no argument to be made, but excuse my tangent.)

I personally consider myself to be left, closer to center-left on social issues and a proponent of Democratic Socialism on the economic front. I generally dislike the extremes of either side... i'm not a huge fan of progressives, but the MAGA Cult is way worse.

Like... an example of how I think... diversity is great! People should be represented. Totally down for that. Diversity doesn't mean "no white people" or worse "white people are bad". It means... diversity. If there's a character that makes sense to be white, make the character white. If it makes sense for them to be black, be black. Etc. If you have characters where it doesn't matter, in a visual medium give the part to... the best actor. If at anypoint somebody is thinking "There are too many of [race]", that's racist. Just give the role to the best person. Race should, by and large, be completely and utterly irrelevant.

I like to generally ask the question of "why", for anything. "why is that character [insert identity]. The answer determines the, excuse the term, wokeness. If the "why" is something that enhances the plot, makes sense of the story, actors performance, etc. Awesome. That's what we should be doing. If the answer is "uh, diversity?"... no. Go away.

Do you have examples of this?

https://www.cfodive.com/news/esg-sc...organizations,review of their ESG performance.

An article detailing. The Moody's report is linked in the article, but requires an account.

The tl;dr version is that a poor ESG score has a direct effect on business credit, driving up interest rates and making it more difficult to find financing. Moody's found this would not be the case if the ESG score was disregarded.

Companies are quite literally being forced into this.

 

[Michael]

That's fair, although I don't think that "forced diversity" is "nonsense". Diversity is great... but... there can absolutely hit a point of being forced and outright distracting.

Again I’ll have to ask for concrete examples of this actually happening. You alluded to “black Vikings or something in a period piece” earlier, which when I google it returns dozens of articles saying that’s not as ahistorical as most people would believe. Do you have more examples of this “forced diversity” happening? And what I mean with “more examples” is, are there so many instances of this that we have to accept it as a genuine problem?

(Along with useless terms, a personal most-hated useless term is "incel". The second I hear the word "incel", I know there is no argument to be made, but excuse my tangent.)

Not entirely sure what exactly you are referring to, but isn’t “incel” a self-ascribed term that a certain kind of misogynistic, “men’s right activist” kind of guy would use for himself?

Race should, by and large, be completely and utterly irrelevant.

Of course! Wouldn’t that be nice? But unfortunately by and large that’s not the reality. Attempts at assembling more diverse casts (and behind-the-scenes creative teams) are meant to correct for an industry and a society that historically and still today is not seeing race as irrelevant. The situation you want is still the ultimate goal, but we’re not quite there yet.

The tl;dr version is that a poor ESG score has a direct effect on business credit, driving up interest rates and making it more difficult to find financing. Moody's found this would not be the case if the ESG score was disregarded.

Sorry, I'll have to be a stickler for the semantics here: I specifically asked for examples of the claim that “having a poor ESG score can financially ruin a business”. I’m sure ESG measures in businesses have an effect on their credit score (and it’s probably not surprising that it’s still a negative one, considering it’s still an exclusively capitalist world driven by monetary concerns, rather than environmental or societal needs), but did a poor ESG score ever really ruin any kind of business? I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m just saying I don’t see any evidence for that claim being true.

 

[Skipper]

Maybe it's time to open a new thread on "The Outcast", but out of curiosity I searched Wikipedia for TV series that had episodes on LBGTQI+ themes before that and it was a very interesting read.

List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes
List of 1980s American television episodes with LGBT themes
List of 1990s American television episodes with LGBT themes

So before "The Outcast" there were literally dozens of episodes in other tv shows about this subject and in many of them (at least judging by the synopsis) they clearly said that "HATE FOR LGBT PEOPLE IS WRONG!" in much more direct way than TNG. So, honest question, how exactly would this episode be "brave" or "groundbreaking"? In relation to the rest of TNG, where every single person, including aliens, met specific and rigid cis-gender standards? Well let's just say it was a very low bar to clear.

By the way, the episode was so oblique in its condemnation of homophobia that the plot could be interpreted in a thousand ways. The J'naii represented supporters of gender theory who denied the sacred concept of the natural division between males and females. Soren rebels because being divided between men and women is the right thing to do, but her woke-SJW monsters punish her for this rebelliousness and brainwash her only to use the pronouns "Them" and " Their". Riker loses the battle, but it leads to him winning the war that women should be women and men should be men, as God intended.

 

[evilchumlee]

Again I’ll have to ask for concrete examples of this actually happening. You alluded to “black Vikings or something in a period piece” earlier, which when I google it returns dozens of articles saying that’s not as ahistorical as most people would believe. Do you have more examples of this “forced diversity” happening? And what I mean with “more examples” is, are there so many instances of this that we have to accept it as a genuine problem?

That was just one that popped into my head.

I'm going to disengage from this point only because of the issue created from the last comment, a "genuine problem" is going to be subjective, and I don't think it's something that will result in any meaningful conversation.

Not entirely sure what exactly you are referring to, but isn’t “incel” a self-ascribed term that a certain kind of misogynistic, “men’s right activist” kind of guy would use for himself?

We have very different experiences with the use of this word. I have never heard anyone describe themselves as "incel", it's frequently (in my experience, exclusively) used as an insult. I speak from personal experience there. I can only speak anecdotally for this, but in my experience it tends to be thrown around as a crutch. One time I can remember easily was (not here, elsewhere) criticizing Michael Burnham as a character. That apparently made me both racist and an incel.

I see it used frequently the point of the word being just utter nonsense.

Of course! Wouldn’t that be nice? But unfortunately by and large that’s not the reality. Attempts at assembling more diverse casts (and behind-the-scenes creative teams) are meant to correct for an industry and a society that historically and still today is not seeing race as irrelevant. The situation you want is still the ultimate goal, but we’re not quite there yet.

Feels like an odd way to get there if that's the goal.

"Race is irrelevant, but we need more x race." That's inherently nonsensical.

but did a poor ESG score ever really ruin any kind of business? I’m not saying it didn’t happen. I’m just saying I don’t see any evidence for that claim being true.

If we're going to be a stickler for semantics, I did say *can* ruin a business. A business' credit score getting tanked can, absolutely, ruin said business. A poor ESG score can do that, which is ridiculous, as it has absolutely nothing to do with their credit worthiness.

I don't entirely disagree with the ideology of the ESG score, I disagree with how it is used. Put up the ESG score and let consumers make up their mind about what businesses they want to support.

they clearly said that "HATE FOR LGBT PEOPLE IS WRONG!" in much more direct way than TNG. So, honest question, how exactly would this episode be "brave" or "groundbreaking"?

I'll take a step back and say maybe the word "brave" was wrong to use, and I don't recall anyone using "groundbreaking".

I'll walk a bit and edit my general opinion, "The Outcast' was an absolutely acceptable story that broached the topic of LGBT issues, doing so in a way that was generally considered acceptable for the time it was produced. It could have done things differently, although i'm not absolutely sure that it should have, but at the end of the day I don't see the episode as in anyway homophobic or problematic."

I think i'm happy with that.

I may have been the cause of the derail here and I apologize for that. I'm somewhat hypocritical in that my usual stance is to keep any sort of real-world politics out of fiction discussion, but I did engage. Apologies and perhaps it's more approrpriate to make a new thread to discuss these specific issues, or take it private messages. Thank you.

 

[Michael]

@Skipper, personally I’m fine with “The Outcast” not really being groundbreaking. I’ve long thought that the view that Star Trek is somehow “groundbreaking” in all kinds of areas is overblown by fandom, the makers of the show themselves and to some extent the general public. “The Outcast”’s claim to supposedly break any kind of ground for the gay community is certainly dubious, as the links you provided make clear. Still, I don’t think this detracts from it being a strong episode, even if not a perfect one.

By the way, the episode was so oblique in its condemnation of homophobia that the plot could be interpreted in a thousand ways. The J'naii represented supporters of gender theory who denied the sacred concept of the natural division between males and females. Soren rebels because being divided between men and women is the right thing to do, but her woke-SJW monsters punish her for this rebelliousness and brainwash her only to use the pronouns "Them" and " Their". Riker loses the battle, but it leads to him winning the war that women should be women and men should be men, as God intended.

Well, I think what’s clear though is that the episode takes a stance against a (fascist) society that forcefully imposes their dogma about a minority group’s way of gender self-identity. I think at its core it’s basically a story about personal freedom and the fact that only an individual themself can ever know and identify who they are and what they feel.

I'm going to disengage from this point only because of the issue created from the last comment, a "genuine problem" is going to be subjective, and I don't think it's something that will result in any meaningful conversation.

That’s your prerogative, of course. Maybe I worded that confusingly. What I meant to say was that for me a handful of instances of something like this occurting wouldn’t necessarily be indicative of a broad and maybe even systematic problem. Surely you would agree that it doesn't make sense to discuss something as a serious problem, when its occurrence is so few and far between as to be negligible. It just wouldn't make sense to take some edge cases or outliers and spin them into something that deserves a serious discussion.

We have very different experiences with the use of this word. I have never heard anyone describe themselves as "incel", it's frequently (in my experience, exclusively) used as an insult. I speak from personal experience there. I can only speak anecdotally for this, but in my experience it tends to be thrown around as a crutch. One time I can remember easily was (not here, elsewhere) criticizing Michael Burnham as a character. That apparently made me both racist and an incel.

Oh, I'm sorry that happened. I’m not aware of how exactly it went down, but that does sound like total bullshit, I agree. My understanding is that the term started as a self-descriptor of MRA’s, but that it has since been co-opted as an insult about alleged members of that group.

Feels like an odd way to get there if that's the goal.

"Race is irrelevant, but we need more x race." That's inherently nonsensical.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I believe our different viewpoints might be summed up by that one cartoon that I’m sure you’ve also seen before:

Spoiler: Equality vs. Equity

You want them to be totally race-blind, which is a good idea in principle, but can lead to inequity in the way marginalized people are treated. Equality between all people sounds good on paper, but there’s people that still today have to deal with a society shaped by generations of systematic racism. In my view the way to go about creating a fairer world where people who never had the opportunity – either personally or historically – are helped into positions that offset at least some of that past injustice.

If we're going to be a stickler for semantics, I did say *can* ruin a business. A business' credit score getting tanked can, absolutely, ruin said business. A poor ESG score can do that, which is ridiculous, as it has absolutely nothing to do with their credit worthiness.

I don't entirely disagree with the ideology of the ESG score, I disagree with how it is used. Put up the ESG score and let consumers make up their mind about what businesses they want to support.

Fair enough. I think the point that I wanted to get across with that is that I don’t see it as evident that “woke” somehow leads to businesses going broke. Come to think of it, that’s actually a narrative right-wing people like to perpetuate.

 

[evilchumlee]

In my view the way to go about creating a fairer world where people who never had the opportunity – either personally or historically – are helped into positions that offset at least some of that past injustice.

That's where I begin to have a fundamental difference. I am all about diversity, inclusion and equality... I absolutely do not, in any way, support "equity". Equity is just flat out discrimination and that is not ok.

Everyone should have equal rights, and we need to work hard to give everyone an equal opportunity. We do not, and should not, work to create equal result.

Fair enough. I think the point that I wanted to get across with that is that I don’t see it as evident that “woke” somehow leads to businesses going broke. Come to think of it, that’s actually a narrative right-wing people like to perpetuate.

Yeah. Also a phrase i'm not a fan of, although I don't think it's entirely baseless. Bud Light is a more high profile example. Some of the more recent box office disappointments could be indicative.

I don't exactly agree or disagree with the sentiment, but I don't think it's just something to be written off as "right-wing narrative". There seems to be at least shades of truth in it. It's not exactly shocking... the US is incredibly divided politically. Media that leans into one side over the other (or even has the perception of doing so) will naturally alienate those on the other side. The door swings both ways... just as people on the right may not want to watch things they perceive as "woke", people on the left generally won't want to watch things they see as catering to the right.

Sometimes people closer to the middle don't really care. "The Marvels" is an example for me personally. I have nothing against female led movies. I just... was not interested in that particular movie. I don't care about those characters, the movie just didn't appeal to me. That's ok... movies don't have to appeal to me... but some might say it's sexist or whatever to not want to watch that movie.

 

[Michael]

That's where I begin to have a fundamental difference. I am all about diversity, inclusion and equality... I absolutely do not, in any way, support "equity". Equity is just flat out discrimination and that is not ok.

Everyone should have equal rights, and we need to work hard to give everyone an equal opportunity. We do not, and should not, work to create equal result.

I feel like with equality alone you will never have a fair world. What good is equality when the reality is that not all people are the same, but come from different backgrounds are affected by various forms of discrimination differently?

… but I don't think it's just something to be written off as "right-wing narrative"

Well, it quite literally is a right-wing narrative, though. To the point where it’s even one of their slogans (“Get woke, go broke”). I think it’s a false narrative, too, since in those cases you are alluding to it’s not anything “woke” that’s to blame for financial losses, but the right-wing crowd trying to boycott an entity. A business, a movie or a brand being more socially or environmentally conscious is perfectly harmless, and using it as a pretense to boycott them because of it is wrong. To say those doing something good are to blame because them doing good leads to right-wing people reacting negatively and starting a boycott seems to purposely confuse the matter.

 

[Skipper]

I fell down a rabbit hole: just read the Wikipedia page about LBGTQI+ and Star Trek and, well, the franchise wasn't just behind in its representation of these minorities before new films and series. They actively made sure that any representation outside the cis-hetero norm did not appear. Except for the evil bisexual women of the Mirror Universe. Because they were evil and therefore abnormal. And showing two hot women kissing isn't advocating the LBGTQI+ cause: it's pleasing the male gaze.

Now I understand that maybe in 1992 people weren't ready and there was an objective fear that Bible Belt tv viewers would take up guns and attack Hollywood January 6th style, but exactly what excuse did Enterprise have? Aired around the same time as L Word?

 

[evilchumlee]

I feel like with equality alone you will never have a fair world. What good is equality when the reality is that not all people are the same, but come from different backgrounds are affected by various forms of discrimination differently?

Perhaps, maybe, but it absolutely should not be done on racial lines.

If we want to ensure equity, it has to be purely economic-based. I'm absolutely perfectly ok with helping out impoverished people, or other people who are in a financial situation that puts them at a disadvantage. Doing by race is just straight up discrimination. That's bad.

Well, it quite literally is a right-wing narrative, though. To the point where it’s even one of their slogans (“Get woke, go broke”). I think it’s a false narrative, too, since in those cases you are alluding to it’s not anything “woke” that’s to blame for financial losses, but the right-wing crowd trying to boycott an entity. A business, a movie or a brand being more socially or environmentally conscious is perfectly harmless, and using it as a pretense to boycott them because of it is wrong. To say those doing something good are to blame because them doing good leads to right-wing people reacting negatively and starting a boycott seems to purposely confuse the matter.

But... that's the point?

A business needs to attract customers. If customers do not give money to the business, they do no succeed. If a not-insignificant portion of the population decides they don't like the way a business conducts itself, they will not give money to that business.

That's... the point. Sure it can be something of a self-fulfilling prophecy but that is the core of it. Those people are using their wallets and the free market to influence what they want.

On the flip, a business, movie, or brand not caring about social issues is completely harmless... and yet, similar things occur. Having like, "too many white people" in a movie doesn't actually hurt anyone, but some use that as a pretense to boycott them because it is wrong...

Now I understand that maybe in 1992 people weren't ready and there was an objective fear that Bible Belt tv viewers would take up guns and attack Hollywood January 6th style, but exactly what excuse did Enterprise have? Aired around the same time as L Word?

They didn't want to.

That's a perfectly valid reason. They weren't interested in it.

I do writing projects here and there. I don't really have anything about LGBT issues in any of my writings. It's nothing against it. I'm just not interested in it. I DO have a trans woman character in a story, but the reader would probably never know. She's just written as a woman. I haven't found a need to dig into it. She doesn't run around with a "trans" badge on her clothes or anything. She just.. is, and I haven't found a reason to explore her sexual organs at any point.

 

[Skipper]

They didn't want to.

That's a perfectly valid reason.

No, I don't think it isn't. And the worst thing is that if you read the linked page they always said "Yes yes, now we are about to introduce an LBGTQ character. We're almost there. We swear this is the right time. Just a second, we're finding the right opportunity." At least it would have been better if they had been honest in their refusal to provide any LBGTQI+ representation. Instead they preferred to drown in their own hypocrisy.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

What if they'd kept her as a guest character? Say, Tasha got promoted and was given command of a smaller ship that patrolled the neutral zone border?

She and Worf could collaborate on an investigation.

 

[Lynx]

Oh my god, are you now going to do this whole “woke” rant in every other thread? Why are you so obsessed with this? It’s honestly kinda laughable that you want to turn treating people – and especially minorities – with a modicum of respect into “harassment” and “oppression”. And where the fuck do you see ”Communism“? I’m not even sure why I’m bothering to ask, since all I’m going to get is probably another word salad.

You won't even get a comment from me, exept for this one, since I've realized that it's totally meaningless to discuss with certain fanatics.

I don't love the term "woke", but there is definitely a contextual difference between "treating people with respect" and what some would label "woke".

"woke" is generally when it goes overboard, to the point of not just being respectful, but becoming a major focus of the work to the detriment of anything else, or altering things nonsensically to achieve a diversity goal (like making black Vikings or something in a period piece, for "diversity").

It's a valid point though that not being "woke" enough in todays world has consequences... especially for companies and the like, ESG scores a real thing, and having a poor ESG score can financially ruin a business.

You have some good points here.

 

[fireproof78]

No, I don't think it isn't. And the worst thing is that if you read the linked page they always said "Yes yes, now we are about to introduce an LBGTQ character. We're almost there. We swear this is the right time. Just a second, we're finding the right opportunity." At least it would have been better if they had been honest in their refusal to provide any LBGTQI+ representation. Instead they preferred to drown in their own hypocrisy.

Especially for all the claims around portraying an "evolved humanity."

 

[Skipper]

Especially for all the claims around portraying an "evolved humanity."

I sincerely believe that their concept of "evolved humanity" was that it had finally been established that there are only two genders and that they correspond to biological sex and that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation. I mean, even Data who is a robot has an assigned sex, gender and sexual orientation that coincides with heteronormativity! He can't even be asexual or agender!

I googled a bit and from what I read both Roddenberry and Bermann had reputations as homophobes.

 

[fireproof78]

I sincerely believe that their concept of "evolved humanity" was that it had finally been established that there are only two genders and that they correspond to biological sex and that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation. I mean, even Data who is a robot has an assigned sex, gender and sexual orientation that coincides with heteronormativity! He can't even be asexual or agender!

I googled a bit and from what I read both Roddenberry and Bermann had reputations as homophobes.

Perhaps altering the exterior results in that alignment for biological sex and gender.

Not sure about the rest. Not sure I care to speculate.

 

[evilchumlee]

No, I don't think it isn't. And the worst thing is that if you read the linked page they always said "Yes yes, now we are about to introduce an LBGTQ character. We're almost there. We swear this is the right time. Just a second, we're finding the right opportunity." At least it would have been better if they had been honest in their refusal to provide any LBGTQI+ representation. Instead they preferred to drown in their own hypocrisy.

I'm not sure if it's hypocrisy moreso than... diplomacy?

I don't think Berman and Bragga had any interest in having an LGBT character. Nor did Behr or Moore really for DS9. But they're all smart enough to not just say "We don't want to do that."

And... it actually is completely ok to not be interested in that. There is absolutely no reason anyone should be forced to create something they don't have an interest in creating. The responsibility is 100% on the audience to decide if they would like to enjoy that work or not. It's ok for a creator to make whatever they want, it's ok for the audience to consume what they want.

I sincerely believe that their concept of "evolved humanity" was that it had finally been established that there are only two genders and that they correspond to biological sex and that heterosexuality is the only sexual orientation.

I think that's something of a revisionist look.

I sincerely believe... they weren't think about LGBT issues at all, as to be frankly honest, a majority of people in 2024 do on the daily. I would generally consider myself an ally and support equal rights to love whoever you do and be whatever you are, but also... LGBT issues are not something on my mind a vast majority of the time. I have never, once, not a single time viewed some sort of media and thought about LGBT representation. It's something that isn't important to me personally. It's not something i'm interested in. There's absolutely no problem if a work does have LGBT representation. That's cool. I jus personally couldn't possibly care less either way.

I mean, even Data who is a robot has an assigned sex, gender and sexual orientation that coincides with heteronormativity! He can't even be asexual or agender!

Why would he be? Noonien Soong put an incredible effort into making Data appear to be human. The overwhelmingly vast majority of humans are heteronormative and are one of two genders. To make Data some non-binary, asexual being undermines the effort to take every step to make Data appear, for lack of a better term here, "normal".

Also just take into account personal perspectives. I would assume (and I might be wrong, and honestly I don't need an answer either way) that some of the people here who want more LGBT representation identify with the LGBT community. That's great. Totally support you. But you will have a different perspective from someone who is not.

I am a heteronormative straight white man. If I were to design and build an android, there is an almost 100% chance I would design it as a male. It's my experience, it's my perspective. Although I have to say I... probably wouldn't design genitalia for it, but Soong was apparently trying to get his creation as human as possible.

LGBT-identifying people are a small percent of the population today, there's no particular reason that would change in the 24th century.

Although I will give that Data seems surprisingly unaware as well, given that he actually created Lal without gender, gave her the opportunity to choose, but specifically told her that she had to choose male or female. Still, if Data's background was heteronormative, that is still his perspective and experience. Again like an overwhelming percentage of the population, they would think somebody would be male or female. Lal was urged not to choose an Andorian, given she would be the only Andorian on the ship... picking agender or some other non-binary identity would have put her at a similar disadvantage.

 

[Macintosh]

Lal was urged not to choose an Andorian, given she would be the only Andorian on the ship... picking agender or some other non-binary identity would have put her at a similar disadvantage.

I was thinking about Bruce Maddox's line about "if [Data] were a box on wheels I would not be facing this opposition" and wondering what would have happened if Lal had picked a non-humanoid shape after all. "I have scanned the ship's entire database and discovered several references in historical fiction to artificial beings that were not humanoid and had significantly greater capabilities than humans. Therefore I choose... R2-D2." Well, obviously they couldn't have picked R2-D2 specifically, but you know what I mean. After all, Johnny 5 sort of cameoed in Voyager...

 

[evilchumlee]

Well, obviously they couldn't have picked R2-D2 specifically, but you know what I mean. After all, Johnny 5 sort of cameoed in Voyager...

Probably exactly what Maddox said.

Lal would be seen as an object. Federation humans are "more evolved", but they are far from perfect and their track record with artificial life is not great.

If Lal took the form of say, an Exocomp... a good many people are going to treat her like an object. Data most likely DID get the amount of respect that he did precisely because he looks like a human. Prior to having emotions, people would sometimes ascribe an emotional state to Data, just because he sort of looked like he had some emotional response.

A flying vacuum cleaner doesn't have that.

 

[Skipper]

Guys, perhaps it's better to create a dedicated thread on the General Star Trek forum about the LGBTQ+ subject?