Remember, not every Star Trek episode has a happy ending...
LGBT Characters in Trek (Help and no flames Please)
- Thread starter neogothboy74
- Start date
I'd ease back on that theory. No single "out" group can lay claim to the themes of loneliness and otherness. In fact one could easily make the case that Star Trek is about obviating that otherness by embracing it.
There's no question that the TV canon lags FAR behind in the LBGT arena but those things you label as "queer" sensibilities, I label as simply human.
The idea is to get at the humanness.
IDIC, baby.
On the other hand, the specific ways in which those universal themes manifest themselves in the lives of LGBT individuals is fairly unique. Most forms of "otherness," at least in Western society, are based on traits that are either visible to others (e.g., skin color), or which involve being born into a specific, socially-identified, self-perpetuating community (e.g., being born into the Jewish community).
LGBT individuals, on the other hand, are labeled as being an "Other" because of a trait that is not always immediately visible to others (their sexual orientation), typically without being born into the LGBT community. They must contend with an "Otherness" that may not be detected by friends and family, with no community support group unless they actively seek it out and join it. (There are exceptions, of course -- someone who is transgendered might be noticeably so to others, and someone who is LGBT may, these days, have been born to or raised by LGBT parents who were themselves active in the LGBT community, but these scenarios are less common.)
That's not to say that this is a completely unique situation, mind you. A person who is biracial, for instance, may "pass" for white in the same way that a person who is LGBT may "pass" for straight. And an Atheist, for instance, may be born into a theistic community and "pass" for a theist. But these experiences remain distinct from the experiences of a great many other "out" groups, and that renders forms of art dealing with themes of alienation involving "Otherness" that isn't immediately visible and doesn't involve being born into a specific community valid targets for an LGBT-centric interpretation, I think. (I just don't think that's the ONLY valid interpretation of such works.)
^Well, of course all that's true, but Geoff's point is that the themes of Star Trek were relevant to any group of "others," or indeed to humans in general, and that no single group, LGBT or anyone else, has a unique claim to Trek's themes.
I don't get the sense that anyone's saying that any particular community has a unique "claim" or ownership to Trek's themes; the sense I get is simply wanting to acknowledge the validity of an LGBT-centric interpretation of Trek and its themes and the longstanding nature of LGBT audiences' relationship to Trek. I may be misinterpreting things, though.
I think it's great if some LGBT folks can find support for their unique "otherness" in Trek's themes. That's as far as it goes in my case. That is, I was drawn to themes like universal siblinghood, IDIC and peaceful coexistence, which resonate with any human -- everybody feels "other" at some point in his/her life.
At the same time, I was time deeply disappointed by Trek's inability to address my issues in a forthright manner. Lots of other "Others" had their issues explored directly. Why not me?
Gay subtext was fine and good and satisfying to LGBT folks in the 30's or the 60's, but by the 80's, 90's and noughts, it was time for gay TEXT, not encoded messages that were so deeply hidden they could be interpreted as providing support to anti- as well as pro-LGBT sentiments.
I'm not asking for the Trek equivalent of Glee, but would it kill JJ to have an open, acknowledged same-sex couple in the next movie?
CLB has nailed it, as least as far as where I'm coming from.
one of the "problems" with humanity in Star Trek is that, as far was our family issues go- ethnic tension, faith issues, "race" and gender– we've worked all that out by the time we, the audience, meet the Federation.
There isn't any attention placed upon race issues in Star Trek anymore, not since the 1960s. Blacks and other formerly (some might say currently) "out" groups are simply depicted as being fully equal parts of the human tapestry.
The same is true of women and people of faith.
Homosexuality, as was just pointed out, is only evidenced by behavior. So the only way to show it in the Star Trek context is simply to show it in terms of happy couples, homos and heteros carousing the same way when on shore leave, letters home to same sex spouses, etc.
Showing the "issues" linked with the friction of gays and straights in current society forces the show into allegory pretty fast, using proxy aliens to make increasingly esoteric points.
For instance, in THE DRUMHEAD, we have a loyal Starfleet officer put on trial for his genetic heritage which he had been hiding all his life. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, anybody?
or was it a proxy for being Jewish in a Nazi regime? Or a communist in the McCarthy era? Or an ANC sympathizer under Apartheid?
There have been episodes where our good guys ferry refugees from oppressive regimes from one place to another to escape the predation of their rulers. Was this the Underground Railroad? Or was it Americans getting endangered Vietnamese out of Saigon before the fall? Or Oscar Schindler and his list?
it's not a secret why the novels do the inclusion/issues thing better than the TV shows. We have more time with the books. More time to be subtle, more time to delve, more time for long character-illuminating tangents. And fewer overseers preventing experiments.
The series is 48 minutes a week, with commercials. Subtlety and nuance are just not on the table very much. In TV people fear the hammer of direct confrontation as often as not. A little Controversy is good for ratings, yes, but only safe controversy like the one Charlie Sheen is currently stirring. REAL controversy can cause station affiliates to drop episodes. Sometimes entire series. I'm not saying it's right to buckle under that pressure; I'm saying buckling saves money and fighting often costs. Hollywood is about money.
The only clean ways the show can address LGBT issues are via allegory, as it has done with all other social issues its taken up, or by inclusion.
Allegory is somewhat unsatisfying to any out group because it is, by its nature, nonspecific. The issue gets a hearing, yes, but not my specific version of it. Boo.
Inclusion, to some, means tossing a rug over the very real real-world issues that they hope will become central. Points for the face time but, again, unsatisfactory in terms of educating and keeping the debates alive. Also Boo.
And, remember, Star Trek depicts a near-utopian society. So no one is being bullied or murdered for being gay or black or asian or transgendered in that society. No one has been for hundreds and hundreds of years.
The writers are in a dilemma that, in some cases, can't be truly solved due to the very nature of how TV, Star Trek in particular, is made.
And, yes, it's an ugly shame that a show this progressive STILL hasn't had an openly gay character front and center. Absolutely hold their feet to the fire over this. Especially considering how many gay people there are backstage in the entertainment industry who are in positions to allow or disallow these depictions.
I vote for a gay captain or first officer next time around. With love interests and flirting and all the other stuff that goes with being a hot, smart, swashbuckling adventurer.
Lighting that candle will go a long way to dispelling the dark.
IDIC
one of the "problems" with humanity in Star Trek is that, as far was our family issues go- ethnic tension, faith issues, "race" and gender– we've worked all that out by the time we, the audience, meet the Federation.
There isn't any attention placed upon race issues in Star Trek anymore, not since the 1960s. Blacks and other formerly (some might say currently) "out" groups are simply depicted as being fully equal parts of the human tapestry.
The same is true of women and people of faith.
Homosexuality, as was just pointed out, is only evidenced by behavior. So the only way to show it in the Star Trek context is simply to show it in terms of happy couples, homos and heteros carousing the same way when on shore leave, letters home to same sex spouses, etc.
Showing the "issues" linked with the friction of gays and straights in current society forces the show into allegory pretty fast, using proxy aliens to make increasingly esoteric points.
For instance, in THE DRUMHEAD, we have a loyal Starfleet officer put on trial for his genetic heritage which he had been hiding all his life. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, anybody?
or was it a proxy for being Jewish in a Nazi regime? Or a communist in the McCarthy era? Or an ANC sympathizer under Apartheid?
There have been episodes where our good guys ferry refugees from oppressive regimes from one place to another to escape the predation of their rulers. Was this the Underground Railroad? Or was it Americans getting endangered Vietnamese out of Saigon before the fall? Or Oscar Schindler and his list?
it's not a secret why the novels do the inclusion/issues thing better than the TV shows. We have more time with the books. More time to be subtle, more time to delve, more time for long character-illuminating tangents. And fewer overseers preventing experiments.
The series is 48 minutes a week, with commercials. Subtlety and nuance are just not on the table very much. In TV people fear the hammer of direct confrontation as often as not. A little Controversy is good for ratings, yes, but only safe controversy like the one Charlie Sheen is currently stirring. REAL controversy can cause station affiliates to drop episodes. Sometimes entire series. I'm not saying it's right to buckle under that pressure; I'm saying buckling saves money and fighting often costs. Hollywood is about money.
The only clean ways the show can address LGBT issues are via allegory, as it has done with all other social issues its taken up, or by inclusion.
Allegory is somewhat unsatisfying to any out group because it is, by its nature, nonspecific. The issue gets a hearing, yes, but not my specific version of it. Boo.
Inclusion, to some, means tossing a rug over the very real real-world issues that they hope will become central. Points for the face time but, again, unsatisfactory in terms of educating and keeping the debates alive. Also Boo.
And, remember, Star Trek depicts a near-utopian society. So no one is being bullied or murdered for being gay or black or asian or transgendered in that society. No one has been for hundreds and hundreds of years.
The writers are in a dilemma that, in some cases, can't be truly solved due to the very nature of how TV, Star Trek in particular, is made.
And, yes, it's an ugly shame that a show this progressive STILL hasn't had an openly gay character front and center. Absolutely hold their feet to the fire over this. Especially considering how many gay people there are backstage in the entertainment industry who are in positions to allow or disallow these depictions.
I vote for a gay captain or first officer next time around. With love interests and flirting and all the other stuff that goes with being a hot, smart, swashbuckling adventurer.
Lighting that candle will go a long way to dispelling the dark.
IDIC
Last edited:
I'd recommend Torchwood as a model for that.
I wouldn't. Torchwood is too self-conscious about including gay or bisexual characters, to the point of making virtually every character bisexual, which is unrealistic. It feels gratuitous sometimes.
I'd recommend Caprica as a better model. It included alternative sexualities as a completely routine, normative part of Caprican society. Sam Adama, brother of lead character Joseph Adama and a hitman for the Tauron mob, was married, and the fact that his spouse was male was treated completely matter-of-factly. Clarice Willow was part of a group marriage, and her friendship with Amanda Greystone had some definite lesbian subtext, though I don't recall if it ever became text.
I have a problem with this whole idea of rejecting labels. It's almost always gay and bi people who don't want to be labeled, you rarely ever hear heteros being shy about saying they're straight. So from what I've seen, avoiding labels equals gay invisibility.
I'm gay and queer. I've got no problem saying that, at least in any situation where I don't feel like my safety would be endangered by being honest.
^I happen to be heterosexual, but I don't want to be labeled that way. That's merely a description of my preferences in one aspect of behavior, not a definition of who I am. I don't want to be labeled as "white" either, or as anything else. I want to be labeled as Christopher. I want to be defined by who I am, not what I am. I want to be seen as an individual, not merely an entry in a uniform category. So no, it's not only minorities who object to labeling.
And I have strong objections to the word "straight," because it implies that homosexuality is twisted or bent. It's the only instance I know of a label for one group that's an implicit insult to a different group. (No, wait, there's also "right-handed," where the very name is a blatant value judgment.)
And I have strong objections to the word "straight," because it implies that homosexuality is twisted or bent. It's the only instance I know of a label for one group that's an implicit insult to a different group. (No, wait, there's also "right-handed," where the very name is a blatant value judgment.)
Funny enough, I somehow got the impression that you were gay Christopher! I don't know where I got that impression. I may have just imagined it because you were good with using gay characters in your books. Not just using them at all, but using them well. I hope that sounds like a compliment, that's how I meant it 
I've loved your books btw since I'm having a little fan moment.
And of course I want to be seen as an individual, but labeling is part of it too, and I think within a minority, labels pro or con are a bigger issue. As a gay in a small town in the midwest, I'm very much an outsider, and that status is in many ways a defining characteristic, whether i like it or not.
I've loved your books btw since I'm having a little fan moment.
And of course I want to be seen as an individual, but labeling is part of it too, and I think within a minority, labels pro or con are a bigger issue. As a gay in a small town in the midwest, I'm very much an outsider, and that status is in many ways a defining characteristic, whether i like it or not.
Funny enough, I somehow got the impression that you were gay Christopher! I don't know where I got that impression. I may have just imagined it because you were good with using gay characters in your books. Not just using them at all, but using them well. I hope that sounds like a compliment, that's how I meant it
I find that rather odd, frankly. If a writer was good with using alien characters, would you assume the writer was an alien? You don't have to belong to a group in order to understand its members. You just have to pay attention and use your imagination.
Besides, I haven't included that many gay characters in my Trek books, not in sizeable roles. I've written for Keru a couple of times, but not in any romantic context where his orientation would be relevant. I included a lesbian couple in The Buried Age, but in a minor capacity. I've tried to be inclusive of everyone, but there are plenty of other Trek authors who've done more with GLBT characters than I have to date. So I honestly don't know what you're thinking of here.
I'm not joking. That's literally why the "right hand" is called that -- in the belief that it's the "correct" hand to use. And the derivation of the word "left" is even more offensive -- it's from a word meaning weak and useless (one etymology on Dictionary.com even relates it to a word meaning "castrated"). Then there's the fact that the Latin word for "left" is sinister. There's centuries of handedness prejudice embedded in our language, and that's no laughing matter. (Indeed, there was a time when left-handed people were subjected to abusive, damaging "cures" for their condition the same way gay people have been more recently.)
I don't know where I got the idea you were gay. It may well be that I was given bad info somewhere in the past. It doesn't really matter.Funny enough, I somehow got the impression that you were gay Christopher! I don't know where I got that impression. I may have just imagined it because you were good with using gay characters in your books. Not just using them at all, but using them well. I hope that sounds like a compliment, that's how I meant it
I find that rather odd, frankly. If a writer was good with using alien characters, would you assume the writer was an alien? You don't have to belong to a group in order to understand its members. You just have to pay attention and use your imagination.
Besides, I haven't included that many gay characters in my Trek books, not in sizeable roles. I've written for Keru a couple of times, but not in any romantic context where his orientation would be relevant. I included a lesbian couple in The Buried Age, but in a minor capacity. I've tried to be inclusive of everyone, but there are plenty of other Trek authors who've done more with GLBT characters than I have to date. So I honestly don't know what you're thinking of here.
I'm not joking. That's literally why the "right hand" is called that -- in the belief that it's the "correct" hand to use. And the derivation of the word "left" is even more offensive -- it's from a word meaning weak and useless (one etymology on Dictionary.com even relates it to a word meaning "castrated"). Then there's the fact that the Latin word for "left" is sinister. There's centuries of handedness prejudice embedded in our language, and that's no laughing matter. (Indeed, there was a time when left-handed people were subjected to abusive, damaging "cures" for their condition the same way gay people have been more recently.)
That any writer takes the trouble to include gay characters in ST, especially a few years back, does grab my attention a little I have to admit.
Again with the labeling, I know, but with Mangles not writing Trek fiction, is there any openly gay person currently writing Trek novels? Just curious.
And not because it's, well, on the RIGHT of one's body, as in direction? Sorry, I'm chalking that one up to coincidence. People call right-handedness that, because that's the location of the body where that hand is, nothing more than that. Same goes for the left-handedness. Any negative connotations arose AFTER the fact.
If you were talking Left-WING or right-WING, I might be more inclined to go along with it, because those terms have nothing to do with physical location (that I'm aware of). But not with hands.
Last edited:
^ That's the meaning of the lone word "right", yes. But it's not why the term "right handed" exists. That's because it's referring to the hand that's on the right of the body. I'm not denying that there's bias against the left-handed, but that arose AFTER the term "right handed" was decided upon. It's not like there was a massive international conspiracy that said "Okay, we're going to call it 'right handed' because that's the correct hand."
And what about people who object to labels because they honestly believe that heterosexuality or homosexuality don't really exist innately and are, rather, cultural constructs?
Read some queer theory before you start ranting about how it's just gay people uncomfortable with saying they're gay.
And what Christopher is saying is that that side of the body is called the "right" side (rather than a completely different word -- the "yorth" side, for instance, or whatever) out of a belief that that side was somehow superior to the opposite side and that the use of that side was morally superior.
Similar threads
