What’s being confused here is headcanon vs. actual representation. We members of the lgbt+ community were basically told over and over again by Old Trek (pre Abrams) that we didn’t exist in the Trek universe. I’ve had Trek fans tell me “people like you were wiped out by Khan’s eugenics programs because you contribute nothing to society and that’s good because I want for my family to be free to enjoy Trek without having to explain homosexuality to my kids”. This is the mindset Old Trek created in some fans, and some of the things that were said in this thread indicate that it’s still very present and won’t go away anytime soon, no matter how much representation Discovery introduces. (Or maybe precisely BECAUSE it’s finally introducing this representation. Way too late, but at least they’re trying now.)
Anyway. Us lgbt+ folks had to make do with what we were given in Trek. I’m the first to start quoting Sir Patrick who said he “always thought Q was gay”, and Moore who said Q was written as “being in love with Picard”, but at the same time I know TNG would NEVER have had ANYTHING between them other than half-baked “in all the universe you’re the closest thing I have to a friend, Jean-Luc” and “To learn about you is, frankly, provocative” lines and bed scenes that were interesting but were also always put into a context of heterosexuality surrounding them so that there would be no ‘’misunderstandings’. It’s the same for Garak and Bashir. Sure there’s tension and whatnot between them, especially in their first scene, it’s incredibly gay (which IS ultimately why the actors were told to tune it down because we can’t have -GASP- gay people on Trek) but the representation never took an actual step. It’s people putting things into their headcanon, and it’s cool and fun to do that, I’ve written my share of Picard/Q stories, but only up to a certain point - which is the one where you remember the producers and their attitude towards homosexuality. It’s like a cold shower, and it’s why a lot of lgbt+ folks are still upset about the way Trek treated us, because, as someone said, there was no excuse. Other shows at the time had lgbt characters. Even Dallas, in the late 70s (!) managed to make an episode that featured a gay character who said things like “I have to be true to myself” etc and this, while being clunky in parts due to the time at which it was made, was better representation in one single episode and with just a few lines than Trek managed in all the decades it existed (until now). And yes, this kind of thing brought in homophobic fans like the one I mentioned above. They liked it, they enjoyed it, and now that Trek has actual representation they throw hissy fits because “things are being shoved down our throats”
aka they are now out in the open instead of being hidden behind a zillion layers
and “two men kissing might be unpalatable for our audience” producer mindsets.
Therefore, one of the worst things for me personally is straight people coming at me with “but Garak and Bashir! But Picard and Q! But Kirk and Spock!” when I say there was no real representation on Old Trek. Those weren’t representation - those were half-baked and unfinished ideas that STILL enable those who would not like to see representation on Trek to say “no there was nothing, you’re imagining things”. That’s not what representation is. Having Culber and Stamets is what representation is.
Anyway. Us lgbt+ folks had to make do with what we were given in Trek. I’m the first to start quoting Sir Patrick who said he “always thought Q was gay”, and Moore who said Q was written as “being in love with Picard”, but at the same time I know TNG would NEVER have had ANYTHING between them other than half-baked “in all the universe you’re the closest thing I have to a friend, Jean-Luc” and “To learn about you is, frankly, provocative” lines and bed scenes that were interesting but were also always put into a context of heterosexuality surrounding them so that there would be no ‘’misunderstandings’. It’s the same for Garak and Bashir. Sure there’s tension and whatnot between them, especially in their first scene, it’s incredibly gay (which IS ultimately why the actors were told to tune it down because we can’t have -GASP- gay people on Trek) but the representation never took an actual step. It’s people putting things into their headcanon, and it’s cool and fun to do that, I’ve written my share of Picard/Q stories, but only up to a certain point - which is the one where you remember the producers and their attitude towards homosexuality. It’s like a cold shower, and it’s why a lot of lgbt+ folks are still upset about the way Trek treated us, because, as someone said, there was no excuse. Other shows at the time had lgbt characters. Even Dallas, in the late 70s (!) managed to make an episode that featured a gay character who said things like “I have to be true to myself” etc and this, while being clunky in parts due to the time at which it was made, was better representation in one single episode and with just a few lines than Trek managed in all the decades it existed (until now). And yes, this kind of thing brought in homophobic fans like the one I mentioned above. They liked it, they enjoyed it, and now that Trek has actual representation they throw hissy fits because “things are being shoved down our throats”
aka they are now out in the open instead of being hidden behind a zillion layers
and “two men kissing might be unpalatable for our audience” producer mindsets.
Therefore, one of the worst things for me personally is straight people coming at me with “but Garak and Bashir! But Picard and Q! But Kirk and Spock!” when I say there was no real representation on Old Trek. Those weren’t representation - those were half-baked and unfinished ideas that STILL enable those who would not like to see representation on Trek to say “no there was nothing, you’re imagining things”. That’s not what representation is. Having Culber and Stamets is what representation is.
For me Garak's feelings towards her comes mostly from dialogue and the sort of way he feels uncomfortable whenever she starts talking about him in a flattering light. Also the scene when he finds out she was murdered and basically says that he never understood why she liked him and now he never will know.
