• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Mary Sue site's article on DS9 and Queerness

It would have been nice if they could have had an out LGBTQ character, but TV and advertisers in conservative areas of the USA just weren't ready in the 1990s. Getting the show put on a short leash or cancelled wouldn't be doing any favors for anyone.
 
Other than saying that the franchise should have shown more conviction in showing homosexual characters, I actually find myself disagreeing with it a lot. Having been coded as queer does not necessarily mean a character is necessarily gay. Niles Crane, written as if he were gay and performed so by a man who is gay, is straight. Garak playing the character as omnisexual, as Andrew Robinson put it, should have suggested possibilities, but not following them, we cannot know Garak beyond the actual romantic relationships he had.
 
In the documentary, ISB says that it was something they never asked for because they assumed the answered would be a resounding "no" (or something to that effect). He does say it was one of his biggest regrets about the show.

I do think if they'd managed to slip an LGBT character under the radar they would've introduced them in the right way, not splashing it all over a press release and defining the character solely by their orientation, but just had it evolve naturally through the shows exceptional writing.
 
It would have been nice if they could have had an out LGBTQ character, but TV and advertisers in conservative areas of the USA just weren't ready in the 1990s. Getting the show put on a short leash or cancelled wouldn't be doing any favors for anyone.

There were numerous openly gay characters on TV before DS9. They could have gone there if they chose. According to many, Rick Berman himself was not in favor and was possibly a homophobe.
 
I recently rewatched DS9 fully for the first time as a mature adult and was really surprised at how open and confident Fax is sexually. I could totally buy her as polyamorous or bicurious at least. In a number of episodes she makes clear she has a love life to the full and try everything once kinda attitude so I imagine that would include her sex life.

DS9 really benefits from letting the actors play with the characters and it seems also put some of themselves in there
 
There did seem to be a deliberate effort to portray Garak as sexually ambiguous, beyond Andrew Robinson's acting choices. According to Behr and Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Garak's sexuality was discussed in the writer's room, but never really pursued as a storyline or outright addressed on the show because they didn't think they could sell it to Paramount. However, that doesn't mean they didn't do anything about it. Wolfe had this to say in 2006:

The way I wrote him (and I think the way Andy so wonderfully played him), Garak was attracted to Bashir. He knew that attraction was not going to be returned (or even particularly noticed) and that was okay. He considered Bashir a friend and a protegee. There's nothing overt, there's no big flags waving or anything. It's all subtext. So maybe "clearly" is an overstatement.

How about, "It would not be wrong to interpret Garak as bisexual."

The subtext he speaks of is definitely there. Nothing concrete enough that it can't be up for debate, but still substantial enough that plenty of people picked up on it on their own, without knowledge of behind-the-scenes trivia to influence their read. It's an aspect of his character that sits in this weird limbo area that technically isn't "canon" but is intentionally present enough that I don't think it can be easily dismissed, either. That said, I'm someone who doesn't get hung up on what is or isn't "canon" or explicitly spelled out in the text, so it's easy for me to say that. The fact that Garak's intended sexual fluidity was never directly addressed or confirmed doesn't make that aspect of his character any less valid to me or difficult to reconcile with what we see on screen, though obviously YMMV.

RE: the article and DS9, I've said this elsewhere, but DS9 always felt like the queerest Trek to me, and I know a lot of other LGBT Trek fans who feel similarly. In part because of Garak and Jadzia, the saucy Mirror Universe shenanigans, and to a lesser extent the fluid identity of the Changelings, but also because the station itself was a place where seemingly anyone could go to find a home and acceptance, regardless of how "othered" they were where they came from. The concept of "found family" isn't exclusive to LGBT people, but we nevertheless have a lot of experience with it as a byproduct of being disowned and ostracized by our "real" families and social circles, so this aspect of the show really resonates with me on a deep, personal level. And on the "just a fun coincidence" front, the carpeting in certain sections of the station resembles the trans pride flag.

Having been coded as queer does not necessarily mean a character is necessarily gay.
Maybe not in the most technical sense, but communicating that a character is gay (or, at least, not heterosexual) without having to state it outright is traditionally the objective of queer coding. It was a common practice in the film industry to get around the Hays Code, when homosexuality was among the many listed "perversions" that could not be depicted in motion pictures produced by major studios and it's still a trick writers and actors employ today, relying on the audience's visual literacy and familiarity with stereotypes to get a message across that they either don't want to communicate in a more direct way, or feel that they can't be direct about without pushback from certain segments of their audience. It allows them to steer interpretation in a certain direction while still retaining plausible deniability. I find it a bit frustrating, frankly, but I understand why it happens and it's usually better than nothing.

At any rate, it definitely seems to fit what Robinson, Wolfe and co. were doing with Garak.

Garak playing the character as omnisexual, as Andrew Robinson put it, should have suggested possibilities, but not following them, we cannot know Garak beyond the actual romantic relationships he had.
He didn't really have any. The only thing we see that comes close is Ziyal, but he rebuffs her romantic overtures and seems pretty conflicted about the situation for whatever reason, and she dies before the relationship really has a chance to develop in any direction, romantic or otherwise. Garak never has any sort of concrete, mutually reciprocated romantic relationship in the show the way many of the other main and supporting characters do, a solitary existence which could easily be explained as a consequence of his past as an Obsidian Order operative, but it also plays into the kind of ambiguity the writers (and Robinson) were aiming to convey.

It could be argued that we can't make any assumptions about Garak's sexuality (or anything else about him we aren't outright shown or told about) since we don't see solid confirmation of it one way or the other. While I think this is an understandable position to take, I also don't think there's an absence of support for the opposite view in the show. It's just there subtextually, like so much else about Garak's character. Subtext can tell us as much, if not more, than exposition can, and it's an important storytelling device that lends depth, complexity and richness to characters and the worlds they inhabit. It exists as a complement to the text. It would be a mistake (and IMO, kinda boring) to completely discount what's between the lines, especially for a character like Garak, who, as Robinson once put it, lives in the subtext.
 
Garak was very cautious about Ziyal at first, because in addition to all the usual reasons to be cautious about a new relationship Ziyal had just spent a great deal of time alone with Dukat and it was entirely possible that Dukat prepared her to assassinate him. Dukat wanted to get back at Garak for killing his father, but Dukat couldn't get anywhere near Garak without alerting him. But if Garak and Ziyal were close, it would be easy for her to plant a trap. After Garak was satisfied that Ziyal was not going to kill him, he relaxed a bit. We saw them exchanging public exchanges of affection several times. Garak may still be afraid that he was just Ziyal's default choice as the only Cardassian around, or that she was too young for a real relationship with an older man, but I saw real affection there.

Of course being attracted to Ziyal in no way preludes being attracted to Bashir also. Being attracted exclusively to one sex is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination.
 
Maybe not in the most technical sense, but communicating that a character is gay (or, at least, not heterosexual) without having to state it outright is traditionally the objective of queer coding.
You seem to think I am confused about how coding works. Trust me, I am not. Just because an author introduces elements of (what culture would consider) homosexual behavior does not mean in and of itself that the author intends the character to be homosexual. It may well just be a commentary on gender and sexual standards of his or her era. EM Forester had plenty of characters who could be analyzed for their homosexual characteristics, some whom we are supposed to interpret as being gay, others who are definitely meant to be heterosexual. The goals of authors like Forster is to use behavior in order to critique norms about sexuality. The example of Niles Crane, which you dismiss out of hand, similarly serves as a critique about how society constructs heterosexuality and masculinity, and perhaps more importantly, an image of marriage beyond traditional gender roles that allows for the possibility of same-sex marriage to exist.

The elements of Garak's omnisexuality are present really in one episode only. Neither Behr, nor Wolfe, nor anyone else chose to build upon what Robinson introduced in his performance in Garak's first episode. If I am not mistaken, Robinson was instructed to tone it down in subsequent episodes (by whom I do not know). The writers have expressed regret for not doing more with Garak, and they have been willing to talk about what they could have done. Conversely, they saddled Garak with Ziyal, which intentionally or not, brought the character back over to the heterosexual side, at least according to Andrew Robinson himself.

Can we make assumptions about Garak's sexuality? There is only one character that he expressed any affection for. He explained that it was because she was Cardassian, and maybe it was his desire to be with a Cardassian that was more important than any other considerations. If Robinson played Garak as omnisexual--his words, and his performance is the only thing we can go by--then a relationship with a Cardassian woman would be a legitimate expression of his sexuality. It should be of no surprise that Garak was willing to compliment Kira when she presented as a Cardassian.
 
In the documentary, ISB says that it was something they never asked for because they assumed the answered would be a resounding "no" (or something to that effect). He does say it was one of his biggest regrets about the show.

I do think if they'd managed to slip an LGBT character under the radar they would've introduced them in the right way, not splashing it all over a press release and defining the character solely by their orientation, but just had it evolve naturally through the shows exceptional writing.

Having met ISB in October 2018 at the NYC premiere of the documentary, I'm willing to vouch for his regret about that.

If that's not good enough, I have a framed poster with his signature and a note testifying to his regret that DS9 didn't do more along these lines.

I was impressed that the documentary went there, and more impressed that I got two minutes to talk with ISB about it and he owned it as much in person as he did in the documentary.
 
Having met ISB in October 2018 at the NYC premiere of the documentary, I'm willing to vouch for his regret about that.

If that's not good enough, I have a framed poster with his signature and a note testifying to his regret that DS9 didn't do more along these lines.

I was impressed that the documentary went there, and more impressed that I got two minutes to talk with ISB about it and he owned it as much in person as he did in the documentary.
Watching the documentary, he does seem like someone who'd be wonderful to spend an afternoon with and just talk all things DS9 with. Even after all this time you can still see his passion and love for the show.
 
You seem to think I am confused about how coding works. Trust me, I am not. Just because an author introduces elements of (what culture would consider) homosexual behavior does not mean in and of itself that the author intends the character to be homosexual. It may well just be a commentary on gender and sexual standards of his or her era. EM Forester had plenty of characters who could be analyzed for their homosexual characteristics, some whom we are supposed to interpret as being gay, others who are definitely meant to be heterosexual. The goals of authors like Forster is to use behavior in order to critique norms about sexuality. The example of Niles Crane, which you dismiss out of hand, similarly serves as a critique about how society constructs heterosexuality and masculinity, and perhaps more importantly, an image of marriage beyond traditional gender roles that allows for the possibility of same-sex marriage to exist.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as condescending or presumptuous. I felt a basic explanation of queer coding provided necessary context for the point I was making and didn't want to leave it out. If it matters, in another thread a while back, there was some confusion and mocking remarks about the use of the term "coding" in this context, so I wanted to be clear about it for the benefit of anyone reading our exchange who may not know what it means or some of the history behind it.

You're right: there are many different ways of "queering" characters beyond the specific definition that I provided, and different writers have different motivations for doing so, and this practice does not require a character to be gay. However, I think the coding that is going on with Garak is functioning along the lines of that more narrow definition (i.e. a character coded as queer in the "not heterosexual" sense and not in the broader, more abstract academic sense) which also seems to be the understanding the author of the article is working from. I didn't address your example of Niles because what the Frasier writers were doing with Niles was different, so I didn't see it as comparable or relevant to the discussion about Garak.

The elements of Garak's omnisexuality are present really in one episode only. Neither Behr, nor Wolfe, nor anyone else chose to build upon what Robinson introduced in his performance in Garak's first episode
I disagree. The scene in "Past Prologue" where Garak introduces himself to Bashir by cruising him is definitely the most blatant example, but he's flirtatious and overly tactile with Bashir through season four, and some of the looks he gives him are pretty damn suggestive. In "Improbable Cause," he gives Bashir chocolates, which could be construed as a gesture of friendship, but it's also a gift that has romantic connotations. There's also the following exchange in "The Wire":

BASHIR: And so they exiled you.
GARAK: That's right. And left me to live out my days with nothing to look forward to but having lunch with you.
BASHIR: I'm sorry you feel that way. I thought you enjoyed my company.
GARAK: I did. And that's the worst part. I can't believe that I actually enjoyed eating mediocre food and staring into at your smug, sanctimonious face. I hate this place and I hate you.
On the surface, it's a man going through withdrawal, lashing out at a friend while feeling sorry for himself, but on another level it's arguably suggestive of his deeper feelings for Bashir (and Wolfe's comment about how he wrote Garak as attracted to Bashir would support this interpretation).

If I am not mistaken, Robinson was instructed to tone it down in subsequent episodes (by whom I do not know). The writers have expressed regret for not doing more with Garak, and they have been willing to talk about what they could have done. Conversely, they saddled Garak with Ziyal, which intentionally or not, brought the character back over to the heterosexual side, at least according to Andrew Robinson himself.
This part of Robinson's recollection of events isn't consistent. He's definitely said more than once that he was held back in what he wanted to do with the character and asked to tone it down, but then, in this recent interview, he claims the opposite, and adds that the writers liked what he did because it added to Garak's ambiguity. I'm not really sure what to make of such a discrepancy, but I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's possible they did like what he did, but asked him to tone it down out of fear of retaliation from higher-ups, or producers intervened, or something along those lines (though to me it doesn't seem he ever toned down his performance, to be honest).

Can we make assumptions about Garak's sexuality? There is only one character that he expressed any affection for. He explained that it was because she was Cardassian, and maybe it was his desire to be with a Cardassian that was more important than any other considerations. If Robinson played Garak as omnisexual--his words, and his performance is the only thing we can go by--then a relationship with a Cardassian woman would be a legitimate expression of his sexuality. It should be of no surprise that Garak was willing to compliment Kira when she presented as a Cardassian.
I think Garak showed plenty of affection to Bashir as well, per my comments above (he also cared about him and trusted him enough to allow him --- an outsider and non-Cardassian -- to witness his final moments with Tain and Tain's death, breaking a major Cardassian cultural taboo; not something Garak would do for someone he didn't deeply care about at the very least). But yes, of course a relationship with a Cardassian woman would be a legitimate expression of his sexuality and I didn't intend to imply otherwise or that he can't be attracted to women. I'm also not denying that Ziyal was introduced to steer Garak in a more heterosexual direction as a potential love interest. My point about Ziyal was in response to your comment that we can only know Garak based on the romantic relationships he's had on the show. His association with Ziyal, while affectionate and clearly heading in a romantic direction, never makes it to confirmed romance stage before she dies (the development of this relationship was poorly handled IMO and a giant missed opportunity, something Robinson has himself lamented). He clearly feels attraction to Ziyal, but is also plainly conflicted about it and not sure how to proceed. And then she dies before it gets sorted out.

Regarding Garak's compliment to Kira that she never looked more ravishing than she did as Iliana Ghemor, I interpreted it as a jab about the superiority (to Garak's mind) of Cardassian physiognomy vs. Bajoran more than a genuine expression of attraction to her, but again, there's no reason he couldn't find her or any other woman attractive. I just don't think any of this invalidates or contradicts subtext that exists with respect to Garak and Bashir.
 
I think there's no reason not to think of Garak as bisexual since the actors and writers have both stated that was their intent and would have made it so if not for the censors.

It may be a bit "Dumbledore is gay" but it's something direct.
 
The tendency of people to assume others' sexual orientations based solely on secondary evidence (why not just ask the person?) remains a point of amusement and frustration for me in equal measure.

Kirk was obviously straight! Look at how many women he hooked up with!!!

Because bisexuality doesn't exist?
 
^ I always like to think all Trek characters are pansexual, seeing how frequently they get it on with aliens.

The tendency of people to assume others' sexual orientations based solely on secondary evidence (why not just ask the person?) remains a point of amusement and frustration for me in equal measure.

Kirk was obviously straight! Look at how many women he hooked up with!!!

Because bisexuality doesn't exist?
It's good that you point out that with different species, any number of differences existed when it came to sexuality, whether it is the morphology of genetalia, the roles in reproduction, or the cultural baggage that various sexes and genders might carry. Every sexual encounter across species is unbounded by the norms of the individuals society. Unfortunately from the perspective of information, Star Trek never engaged in any "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."

That said, the only evidence that we have of the sexual orientations of the characters on any series is what the do on screen. We've seen a lot more examples of major characters who have been shown pursuing people of both sexes (Sulu, Garak, Dax, Quark*, Seven of Nine, Mirror Georgiou, Raffi). There are two characters who have been shown pursuing homosexual relationships, Stamets and Culber. And we have a lot of people who pursue others who identify with the other/another gender/sex. It was funny when Georgiou confronted Stamets and Culber about their relationship and their sexuality, but ITRW questioning how one identifies would be highly offensive. There is always the possibility that someone will show a character who pursued one sex pursuing another. Until then, there is no evidence. We can say as much about Picard's homosexuality/bisexuality as we can say about Stamets' heterosexuality/bisexuality: nothing.

Similarly, I don't know how much we can infer even if we acknowledge that differences in morphology might exist. At least from my perspective, the coupling of a cis man with a trans woman is heterosexual. It's not my business to figure it out other than to say than one is a man and the other is a woman.

In part, the problem is that the writers throughout the franchise haven't done much to imagine sexual identities or morphologies beyond man and woman. There are examples of species who reproduce differently, Vilix'pran, or the J'nai (although saying she has "urges to be female" really complicates the picture).

I know that some people (*cough* Fandom Meance *cough*) hit the panic button when somehow it was suggested that Kirk may be shown as not being definitively heterosexual. I don't care. All I care about is that there are good stories that let me think a little. Same with the characters on Lower Decks: for some reason, posters in the LDS subforum felt the need to discuss quotas (being vague to avoid spoilers). Again, I don't care. Jessie Gender made a video recently about the history of queer and trans fans to the franchise, and she was completely convincing when it came to the argument that their overwhelming loyalty hasn't been rewarded with sufficient levels of representation. They should introduce new characters. They should re-imagine old characters OR add to those characters. Sadly, we still haven't been shown a major operated trans character outside of Quark. Until then, I don't know why we should discuss these issues in terms of the potential rather than the evidence.

ETA: let me say that there is at least one character for whom we can speculate a sexuality that is not shown on screen: Malcolm Reed. IIANM, the character was originally intended to be gay, Keating implored the producers to make the character gay, and he claims to have unceasingly played him gay.
 
Last edited:
ETA: let me say that there is at least one character for whom we can speculate a sexuality that is not shown on screen: Malcolm Reed. IIANM, the character was originally intended to be gay, Keating implored the producers to make the character gay, and he claims to have unceasingly played him gay.

That's quite interesting as the writers made the most openly hetero guy in the show.

Sadly, we still haven't been shown a major operated trans character
Not an easy task as given the supposed enlightened 24th century attitudes and tech a fully operated trans person would just be strollin around looking and being treated like their chosen gender. Unless you wrote a transformation story halfway through a season which I can't see happening unless it is IRL happening to an actor on the show
 
There could have been some interesting way to approach gay and trans stories. Ezri could have been guy with a similar story to what actually aired and still hooked up with Bashir in the end. It could be interesting with male Ezri and Worf in doing the bait and switch of Worf not giving a shit about Ezri's gender but just put off that this guy reminds him so much of his dead wife. They could have just had male-male or female-female couples standing around in the background of scenes or holding hands or whatever. In the 2000s I was thinking of a story for Enterprise that probably sounds a bit like similar to parts of Lifesigns and Alter Ego in someone communicating across an alien race's planetary network through virtual reality, and it might have been Reed or Mayweather talking to some female alien but then it becomes apparent that it's actually some alien guy who felt more comfortable talking as a female and feels they identify as one. You do something with the changelings who could be a man or woman or alien or anything. Maybe old Odo from the time travel planet was a woman for part of his two hundred years. I sort of become annoyed when I hear they were at least going to give it a go in TNG season 1 with Blood and Fire, which might have been crap too, but at least someone was trying to bring something to the table, and then they sat on their hands for the next 18 years and give us slop like Prophet and Lace.
 
Not an easy task as given the supposed enlightened 24th century attitudes and tech a fully operated trans person would just be strollin around looking and being treated like their chosen gender. Unless you wrote a transformation story halfway through a season which I can't see happening unless it is IRL happening to an actor on the show

That's where ME: Andromeda ****ed up because they couldn't figure out how to show a character was trans without them deadnaming themselves.

Oddly, ALIEN arguably did it much better in 1979.

Lambert was trans according to a ship's readout. Of course, no one could read it so...
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top