A new news article has been published at TrekToday: As reported back in December, Sonequa Martin-Green was named as a cast member for Star Trek: Discovery, but now the news is... Continue reading...
Calling it now: There will be, at minimum, two scenes where the fact that "Michael" is technically gender-neutral but is more often used as a guy name is used for comedic effect. And one where it's used to prove a point.
Well... it may be the telling signs of a paradigm shift in what we consider gender-specific names in pop culture. Look at season 10 Doctor Who; the companion is a girl named "Bill".
I think she's going to make it known that she dislikes her name and that's why everybody refers to her as Number One. Assuming the reports that it's use is like in "The Cage" are accurate. I bet the original plan before all the delays was to not actually tell us what her given name was and reveal it in the show.
Ofcourse a transgender character is possible, and I wouldn't mind it at all. However, I think people might just see a bit too much in this. After all, remember, 'Jayne ain't a girl'.
I doubt both of these. I'm only drawing from Pushing Daisies, but in the past, the masculine name for a female character wasn't even brought attention to (although I could be recalling incorrectly, it's been years since I've watched the show). Fuller may be gone, but two of his past collaborators (to include Pushing Daisies) are still working on Discovery. I suspect no one will bat an eye about her name being Michael and she won't bring attention to it. Or maybe I'm just projecting.
Yeah I hear ya... But "Bill " is not "Billie". Maybe it's a cultural thing, but in my experience, both names are exceedingly uncommon, at least in the US, and even more at least in Michigan, where I live. I can see "George" as a girls name moreso than "Bill". George could come from Georgie (like my cat), or Georgiana or Georgina... Not saying it's scandalous, just very uncommon.
It's a influence from Fuller. Besides trans people traditionally change their names to one closer to their actual gender. They aren't going to keep their old one. Although it would be a nice gag that Michael is a feminine name two hundred years from now. That happens, I had a male science teacher named Stacey.
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with your post or saying it was actually scandalous, I was just making a silly joke about Billie Piper.
Ah, Gotcha! Yes.... Billie Piper... agreed. I think it's more common in the UK for a lady to have a more gender-neutral or more masculine name. You know when someone has a name that just fits them? I see that in Billie Piper... it fits her. I found that her birth name was "Leian" and that IMDB states that when she was about a year old, her parents changed her name to "Billie Paul Piper". So she got double-whammied with masculine sounding names!
Good point.... ok, so that's two. Out of roughly 4 billion females on the planet... I think we're on our way to making a complete list! OK, to be serious, it doesn't bother me what Martin-Green's character's name is. I'm sure they thought about what to name the character pretty thoroughly. I'm sure there'll be a reason for it that gets explained. I'm fine with that.
I don't think it needs explanation. Although it would be funny if she said that she was named after her grandmother.
No one needs a long explaination of it, but a single line of dialogue that kinda tell us why the writers named her that would be fine. They did it for a reason, if they did it for the right reason, it'll be something that explains, rounds out, or develops the character in some way (the wrong reason, IMO, would be to make a political point).
Don't forget the actress Michael Learned, who played the mum on The Waltons. It's not that odd of a thing.
"Political point" perhaps is not the correct term. I just wouldn't want to see a scenario where the writers are implying or plainly stating that a certain character is a certain way; say transgender or any other characteristic (which is fine in and of itself) in such a heavy handed way as to feel unnatural to the story or to the characters development. I feel this was done in Supergirl with Kara's sister, Alex. OK, she's into girls. Fine. But then the scenes were written in such a way that it felt like the writers/producers were being forceful in that portrayal... unnecessarily long scenes of kissing, making out, implying intimacy between the two characters, repeatedly. (I had more of an issue with this because of its air time and the fact that my 4-year old is asking questions that he cant yet understand the answers to). Once Upon a Time is/was even worse with this. When they suddenly and for no apparent reason other than to do it, made Dorothy of Kansas a lesbian in love with Mulan. It came out of no where.. there was no lead up to it, no interesting glances or playful flirting that would signal that perhaps Dorothy liked other girls.. it was just shoved in front of us in a way that felt awkward and forced by the writers, as if they decided at the last minute to make this character lesbian. And thus it was not believable. But more so than that, especially on broadcast stations such as ABC, CBS, etc, concepts and ideas that are more in alignment with progressive ideas are portrayed on screen, unabashedly so. I personal have no real problem with that; but it often feels to me, and other viewers in my family, that many times what is presented to us in fictional television is done so in a manner as to try to present one side of a controversial or debatable topic to the viewer, and that's it. My point is, if First Officer Micheal Burnham is the lady's name, fine. If she's supposed t be trans, fine too- but make it a part of her character... her history.. make it mean something. Don't just make her/him that way just as lip-service to those who want to see more trans people on tv, and don't do it for the sake of "forcing" transgender issues to the forefront. I don't want to see fictional tv for the sake of entertainment being used in much the same way as all of the news media is used, to present one-side of the issues that we deal with today in an attempt to make "their perspective" the right one by overwhelmingly only showcasing, what is more often than not, a "progressive", left-leaning perspective. That's what I mean by doing it for the "wrong reason". If we accept that characteristics of other people are completely normal and natural, then it shouldn't need to be written in the show to be so "in your face". Let it be natural.. acknowledge it and continue on. We can have characters in our favorite shows representing the demographics of real life without the metaphorical jumping up and down screaming, "Look! Look! A gay/trans/bi/purple person!". Yes, OK... we see that, thank you for point it out. No need to artificially make a big deal out of it just to bring attention to it. Now if they purposefully made Michael Burnham, as portrayed by Martin-Green, transgender, and used that to demonstrate tolerance for this other identity, or conversely to show us how perhaps humans haven't improved and this character must endure prejudice and mistreatment, and how she/he overcomes that, that would be great. Really, who knows... perhaps "Micheal" is just how it is spelled, and it's actually pronounced in a way that makes it more effeminate or ethnic and it has nothing to do with gender identity issues or sexual orientation whatsoever.