LGBTQIA characters and Bechdel test

[Tenacity]

"An earlier report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender."

0.006% of the population are in wheelchairs, inspite of that low percentage we (as a society) built those little ramps into the curbs of many street corners. It's almost as if we actually cared.

Given how many prominate straight characters there have been on the show, what's wrong with showing that one person in twenty-five?

Suppose the crew of the Discovery comes upon an unenlightened society

Given that we talking about (not?) showing gays on the show, your society must be members of Picard's crew

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Oops that was supposed to say "never."

My bad, I actually misread what you'd written. I've edited my reply upthread to clarify things, hopefully. To keep it simple, could you simply retype the entire question the way you intend it to read? Thanks. I'll get back later this evening.

 

[David Strickhouser]

0.006% of the population are in wheelchairs, inspite of that low percentage we (as a society) built those little ramps into the curbs of many street corners. It's almost as if we actually cared.

Given how many prominate straight characters there have been on the show, what's wrong with showing that one person in twenty-five?

Given that we talking about (not?) showing gays on the show, your society must be members of Picard's crew

I was not aware that we referring to (not?) showing gays. I thought this was a debate over forced inclusiveness in modern television, the new Star Trek series being the example at issue.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I was not aware that we referring to (not?) showing gays. I thought this was a debate over forced inclusiveness in modern television, the new Star Trek series being the example at issue.

Would love to know where all this "forced inclusiveness" is happening.

Is the Gay Mafia holding guns to the heads of showrunners, making them put gay characters in TV shows?

I'm mortified that the media is failing to report on this crisis.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I don't think I've ever heard a term as stupid as "forced inclusiveness". The whole concept behind that term is plain stupid. There is no such thing.

Being inclusive and supporting diversity is just a reasonable default position. Nobody is forcing anything.
Not having a diverse cast in the new Trek series would feel insanely backwards and absurd.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I have to admit, there's something weird about fans of a relatively progressive franchise like Star Trek complaining that it might somehow be made too diverse.

 

[Michael]

Oh sure, thanks. And I also appreciate the wonderful way in which you took my comment out of context.

How does the context change what you said, though? You did say there are more KKK sympathizers than gay people in the US and asked whether that should lead to more media representation for the KKK, thus saying both groups are valid forms of life that might deserve representation. How is that not putting them on the same level?

In what way would gay or lesbian characters help to create interesting stories? They are normal people. Their lives and relationships are just as mundane as everyone else's. In a Star Trek setting the sexuality of a character really shouldn't be the defining trait of that character. That society is supposed to have moved beyond such petty issues and biases.

Maybe the society the people in Star Trek are living in, yeah. But not our society, the one we are living in and that will make up the audience for the new show. LGBTQ characters make for interesting characters, because they were never before shown on Star Trek. How they will be presented will be very interesting to me. LBGTQ issues are the center of attention in today's society, so to see them covered in the science-fiction setting of the Star Trek future will be very interesting.

 

[David Strickhouser]

Is the Gay Mafia holding guns to the heads of showrunners, making them put gay characters in TV shows?

No, but their personal or professional "guilt" of not attempting to change hearts and minds is. Otherwise, this issue would be a non-issue.
And that's what we're really after isn't it; to mainstream this issue into comfort-ability of mass audiences?

 

[Adam]

Maybe the society the people in Star Trek are living in, yeah. But not our society, the one we are living in and that will make the audience for the new show. LGBTQ characters make for interesting characters, because they were never before shown on Star Trek. How they will be presented will be very interesting to me. LBGTQ issues are the center of attention in today's society, so to see them covered in the science-fiction setting of the Star Trek future will be very interesting.

There is always the possibility of an interesting story in a Star Trek setting. I'm afraid the stories they might tell about or with these characters could devolve into "LGBT-problems". That is the last thing you'd want for a positive representation of a group. If such characters are treated like every other character and the LGBT-identity is only a marginal factor as in, that is just what they happen to be, it would be fine. Welcome in fact.
People, I think, aren't against LGBT-characters in Star Trek. They are just tired of the fuss that is made about them. Every clear thinking reasonable person has long since accepted that they exist, they can be proud of their existence, and they are never going to go away. No matter how some might wish that happen.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

No, but their personal or professional "guilt" of not attempting to change hearts and minds is. Otherwise, this issue would be a non-issue.
And that's what we're really after isn't it; to mainstream this issue into comfort-ability of mass audiences?

If you mean the goal is to normalize identities that have historically been oppressed/marginalized, then yes, I suppose that's basically the idea.

No reason to do it in a ham-fisted manner, either. Showing it as totally normal and unremarkable, as in Beyond, works just fine. I don't expect anything done on the new show to be any more in-your-face than that.

 

[David Strickhouser]

LGBTQ characters make for interesting characters, because they were never before shown on Star Trek. How they will be presented will be very interesting to me.

What will make them interesting? That they stand out from the "crowd". Less "mundane" then the other characters?
A pop-up arrow on screen indicating: guess who!?!
Blending-in characters make interesting characters. Not ones with a light shining on them.

 

[Zonker]

My bad, I actually misread what you'd written. I've edited my reply upthread to clarify things, hopefully. To keep it simple, could you simply retype the entire question the way you intend it to read? Thanks. I'll get back later this evening.

My point was that the overwhelming majority of movies and television episodes show two men discussing something other than a woman. The only exceptions I can think of are movies and episodes with absurdly low numbers of characters. The Bechdel test simply points out how often media fails to give women the same treatment. Mostly because men are seen as the default.

 

[David Strickhouser]

No reason to do it in a ham-fisted manner, either. Showing it as totally normal and unremarkable, as in Beyond, works just fine. I don't expect anything done on the new show to be any more in-your-face than that.

No argument with that statement. That works for me. Thanks.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There is always the possibility of an interesting story in a Star Trek setting. I'm afraid the stories they might tell about or with these characters could devolve into "LGBT-problems". That is the last thing you'd want for a positive representation of a group. If such characters are treated like every other character and the LGBT-identity is only a marginal factor as in, that is just what they happen to be, it would be fine. Welcome in fact.
People, I think, aren't against LGBT-characters in Star Trek. They are just tired of the fuss that is made about them. Every clear thinking reasonable person has long since accepted that they exist, they can be proud of their existence, and they are never going to go away. No matter how some might wish that happen.

What would "LGBT-problems" be? A gay couple having a fight? Like straight couples do?

I agree that contemporary bigotries shouldn't be showing up in a series about a more "enlightened" future society.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

My point was that the overwhelming majority of movies and television episodes show two men discussing something other than a woman. The only exceptions I can think of are movies and episodes with absurdly low numbers of characters. The Bechdel test simply points out how often media fails to give women the same treatment. Mostly because men are seen as the default.

That's how I read it originally. I agree completely.

 

[OpenMaw]

Suppose the crew of the Discovery comes upon an unenlightened society, and one of its representatives is brought on board and inadvertently sees two crewpersons of the same sex holding hands or passionately kissing in the corridor.
Next, the landing party is held prisoner by this society after it receives a disturbing report from its representative.
Does this constitute a good Star Trek story? Will the unenlightened society suddenly "see the light" before the final credits?
Will this satisfy certain sectors of the audience for Star Trek: Discovery?

This would be the exact wrong approach. I keep parroting this one notion in the hopes it travels through the grape-vine to those who make multimedia. Be it music, movies, or TV shows. If you're going to have a character who happens to be gay, bi, trans... It has to be an incidental thing for it to truly be a progressive thing. If you draw excessive attention to it, those who are opposed to it are going to be immediately turned off to it. If you try to use it as some kind of a flag to flaunt, you'l turn those people away. It will have the exact opposite effect you want if you try to flaunt it and shove it in peoples faces. The best way to introduce these traits into characters is to just have it be there incidentally. Not because it's weird, abnormal, or something to be ashamed of, but because it is normal, mundane, and not worth making a fuss about anymore. Two characters sitting at a table, holding hands, showing affection. It's just there. Don't make it a plot point.

 

[Spider]

How does the context change what you said, though? You did say there are more KKK sympathizers than gay people in the US and asked whether that should lead to more media representation for the KKK, thus saying both groups are valid forms of life that might deserve representation. How is that not putting them on the same level?

Well now Mr. M, I most certainly apologize for NOT posting a big sarcasm smilie while YOU deliberately ignore a sentence in the post you reference.

That was just an example, I don't want to see that on Star Trek, unless of course they're the bad guys and get airlocked before the end of the show

 

[Adam]

What would "LGBT-problems" be? A gay couple having a fight? Like straight couples do?

I agree that contemporary bigotries shouldn't be showing up in a series about a more "enlightened" future society.

"LGBT-problems" as in AIDS-allegory, misfits in society, all the stereotypical "issues" that were dealt with to the death in film and TV in the past. A fighting couple like Spock and Uhura would be fine, normal as you said. Though I'm also not so keen on seeing a gay couple in the crew or any couple for that matter. It would be all about their relationship then, and that is frankly boring.
A character that kicks ass would be nice. Who goes home after a mission to her girlfriend/wife or his boyfriend/husband and enjoys those niceties of life.

A GOOD character would be nice.

 

[Adam]

This would be the exact wrong approach. I keep parroting this one notion in the hopes it travels through the grape-vine to those who make multimedia. Be it music, movies, or TV shows. If you're going to have a character who happens to be gay, bi, trans... It has to be an incidental thing for it to truly be a progressive thing. If you draw excessive attention to it, those who are opposed to it are going to be immediately turned off to it. If you try to use it as some kind of a flag to flaunt, you'l turn those people away. It will have the exact opposite effect you want if you try to flaunt it and shove it in peoples faces. The best way to introduce these traits into characters is to just have it be there incidentally. Not because it's weird, abnormal, or something to be ashamed of, but because it is normal, mundane, and not worth making a fuss about anymore. Two characters sitting at a table, holding hands, showing affection. It's just there. Don't make it a plot point.

+1

 

[Karp666]

A gay villain.

It would make the gay haters mad because there's a gay on the show. Also, it would also make the gay lovers mad because there's an evil gay on the show.

+1 from me