I'm not sure we are saying it is "odd", as in weird, unusual, awkward or bizarre... just uncommon. How many other women named "Michael" are there? Probably not many; they usually are named Michelle, Micheala, or something similar.
News Martin-Green Confirmed For Discovery
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
I'm not sure we are saying it is "odd", as in weird, unusual, awkward or bizarre... just uncommon. How many other women named "Michael" are there? Probably not many; they usually are named Michelle, Micheala, or something similar.
By that logic, it would not be believable to establish a character as heterosexual without a "lead up," as you put it.
By the way, what men had Dorothy been shown flirting with?
Right as soon as women are required to sign up for Selective Service as well. If we're really serious about equality.
We may be getting off topic and venturing close a deep rabbit hole on this one; healthy discussion is one thing, but I'm not certain the forum owners want or have a dedicated section to discussing such issues outside of their context to Star Trek.
Whether we like it or not, at this time in our society assumptions are made about people's gender identities and sexual preferences. Those assumptions historically fall on traditional male/female pairings. Again, whether it's correct or not, non-heterosexual relationships are the exception, not the rule to human pair bonding. I am in no way saying I agree that that is how is should be, or that any alternative option is wrong- I don't think that at all. But it is what it is, for now. Walking down the street, if you see a person in jeans and a t-shirt, sporting a goatee and they're holding a girl's hand, your mind tells you that they are male. You must be informed otherwise to know that they are transgender and have had surgery and extensive hormone treatments in order to appear on the outside as they feel on the inside. Exception, not the rule.
So I don't agree that those born male and who identify as male, nor those born female and identify as female, and who subsequently find themselves attracted to the opposite sex/gender need to be established, explained, or demonstrated before hand.
Correction on Dorothy Gale as portrayed in OUAT, it was Ruby with whom she shared her true feelings with. On that point, while I can't point to Dorothy demonstrating a partner preference one way or the other, Ruby was shown to have had a boyfriend (I think she was supposed to marry him too...), unfortunately, Ruby ate him. So we got the same treatment for Ruby's character as well... she was firmly established to have been in a romantic relationship with a man, and then in the last 10 mins of one episode we learn she doesn't exclusively feel that way. All fine and good except for how rushed it felt. Much better execution of this with Sara Lance in Arrow/Legends of Tomorrow.
Agree... unfairness abounds in humanity. Similarly, "other people" shouldn't have to jump through ridiculous hoops that ordinary people do either. In fact, we should do away with hoops altogether.
I don't believe so. However, there are still many people who are un-accepting of any deviation from the traditional gender roles and sexual norms of the bygone era of the 1950s.
How many other women serve aboard interstellar vessels of space exploration with scores of extraterrestrial colleagues? Probably not many.
Absolutely, I can agree with you here about the lack of open-mindedness. Humanity is changing, we'd be better for it if we'd all get on board to understanding it and accepting people for who they are.
In reality, clearly none. But this makes a good point in that this is fictional storytelling taking place hundreds of years in the future, so anything is possible. We should be open and willing to see where the storytellers take us. None of us can say how humanity will be in 250 years time.
Let's hope better than today.
I don't see your point. You seem fine with LGBTQ+ characters, but you think them engaging in any intimacy is shoving it down your throat?
Is heterosexual couples being intimate or cisgender people being their gender shoving it down your throat as well?
I mean, it's The CW. Romance and shipping is part and parcel for any show on that network. Did you have the same problem/discomfort with explaining the relationship between Kara and Mon-El which has been extremely romance-heavy, or is the issue mostly with same-sex relations? (I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm genuinely wondering because of the way you worded it.)
The problem here is that you're asking them to define a transgender character (or any LGBT+ character by the sound of it) by their sexual identity/gender. You don't ask the same thing from a heterosexual character because it strikes you as ridiculous to have, say, Kirk explain why he likes girls better than boys.
The idea that it doesn't "mean" anything unless they bring it to the forefront is a wee bit insulting, and it comes from a position of privilege in my opinion. Now, I know nothing about you, but if I were to guess I'd assume you're a straight male (you don't have to confirm or deny), and as such you're used to see heterosexual people everywhere. Basically all the entertainment throughout the history of the world has been made in your image. Even the majority of the homo and bi entertainment is there for your pleasure, to appeal to your preferences (it's not a coincidence that men are the biggest connoisseurs of lesbian porn, for instance).
I just think a little understanding of where other people are coming from will go a long way here. Women, black people, hispanics, asians, LGBT+ people, all of the aforementioned groups where they happen to intersect... none of them have had the privilege of seeing themselves represented in books, films, tv shows or what-have-you compared to us straight blokes. What looks "meaningless" to you is not meaningless to them, and that's the point really. They're not just there for your pleasure. Their mere existence is meaningful to people who don't feel they have a voice and a viewpoint that is being taken seriously in the entertainment industry. And this is exactly what Star Trek has always been about. It hasn't always been done well or wisely, but the idea at heart has always been to present a future that is better for all of us, where people have the right to exist and be who they are without having to explain why they do so first.
I understand; it's difficult to accurately have such discussions outside of verbal discussions. I am not doing a great job at conveying my feelings on this topic. I apologize for that. I am personally good with all of those lifestyles. Where I get annoyed is in television portrayals, where I feel the writers are heavy handed with their approach to introducing this types of character traits. I don't know how to explain other than liken it to when the writers do the same thing with issues such as climate change, gun control, race relations, and other similar, polarizing issues.
There is a way to acknowledge all of these things in story, whether it be a belief in global warming/cooling, guns saves lives/guns take lives, someone is gay, lesbian, transgender, heterosexual, etc tastefully and with some level of respect.
The way I don't like to see it done, and where I feel some of my other examples have fallen into the habit, is when a character that perhaps we've known for 2, 3 or more seasons "suddenly" is presented as <insert variable here> without any lead up or prior implication, particularly when it is out of line with how that character has behaved or been described in the past. It's like a hard left turn... you don't care that you've made a course correction, but it's jarring when it comes about unexpectedly. When it does come about, whether it be making a character homosexual, transgender, whatever - the writers/producers then seem to feel it is necessary to remind you about every chance they get, anytime the character is on screen, and then dedicate half of an episode about it. I don't want to see half an episode dedicated to "more traditional" gender roles, relationships, either.
While I personally am more accepting, it is difficult at times to adjust to what is becoming a "new normal" in society. The assumptions we could make about people, characters, and tv even 10 or 15 years ago, which would have been a safe bet, aren't so anymore.
Again, I know I haven't done an amazing job explaining myself here; and I don't intend to be insensitive (quite the opposite) nor to offend anyone. But I feel about these issues as presenting in entertainment the same as I do in real life about things like race: If we are to accept each other for who we are, blind to ethic race, blind to gender identity, and to accept it as completely normal (as we should), then it needs less talking about, not more. The more we point out just how different we are, the more isolated and separate we become. This is not the same as refusing to discuss inequality or discrimination in any form; those are wrong and need to be corrected.
We can acknowledge that someone is a certain way, feels a certain way, loves a certain way, but we don't need to be reminded after every commercial break. At some point, you yell at the tv screen saying "OK! I get it! She likes girls/He likes other guys! Can we please move on?! " So that's where I'm at. The "shove it down our throats" part is where the writers and producers keep bringing it up as if to condition us to it as being normal, which feels abnormal. It would be more natural and feel as if it's truly a part of a character if it's stated or demonstrated and then treat it as we have always treated anything else on tv, with regards to gender, sex, relationships and personal identities.
Does that make sense? I tried to be more succinct this time.
Thank you for your reply, it made me think deeply on this... although I didn't have to do it for very long to realize you are correct. I again apologize if anything I've conveyed has been taken as insulting, as that is not my intent.
To answer your first question, yes, the Kara/Mon El relationship was also too heavily portrayed. I feel the same regardless of the participants in the relationship.
I think when I said "make it mean something..." that was taken incorrectly. I don't mean to say that it in and of itself is meaningless, but rather that I don't think that a character should be added for the sake of just having a token gay guy... or just so the producers can say, "see, we have the first transgendered main character on tv! Praise us for it!". Do it for the same reasons you mentioned, that these people haven't had a voice in tv and film. Because their lifestyles are normal to us now (or should be). Because they need to be portrayed on tv and film the same as anyone else.
And you're right... I am a straight male, married with one child, two cats, a dog, working an IT job in the midwest and I'm not in the thick of race riots, LGBTQ+ marches or anything of the sort. Although I am often treated poorly as a white male minority in some of the local communities... I have been sheltered from a lot of this for the longest time... and am used to what is seen on screen, and has been for a long long time. That makes the transition (no pun intended) to seeing how we integrate these people into our pop culture entertainment a different experience for some of us.
As I said in my other post before I saw your reply, I just feel that we don't need an LGBTQ+ whatever else you'd like to add type of character just so they can say they have one on screen... I want that to be an integral part of the character, just as it is integral to the real life people that it represents.
Also, Billie Jean King - famous tennis player. As well as Billie Holiday and Billie Jo Spears, famous singers.
I suggest that you'd explain this in the same way you'd explain a man and a woman kissing?
Which is exactly what I do.
"I'm okay with it as long as it doesn't affect me..."
Precisely my point. They try too hard, we don't need to be conditioned or convinced that it is normal, because it is!
I'm saying that the way it's handled on screen is sometimes treated as if it isn't, as if it's something that needs reinforcing to be excepted by the viewer. Which is insane.
It all comes down to how comfortable one is with who they are. The people who scream the loudest, are the ones afraid that seeing something that is different from their "normal" is somehow going to change them.
I've seen people different from me in various media, worked with people different than me, lived next door to people different than me. Never once has it changed who I am on a fundamental level.
If you're implying that's how I feel, I can certainly say that is not the case.
Similar threads
