Pre-2009 Star Trek and LGBTQI+ representation: simple disinterest or active hostility?

(This is a discussion born from this thread: Keeping Tasha)

We all know that the representation of lbgtqi+ themes and people before the new films and tv shows in Star Trek has been, well, less than satisfactory. The question that arose in the discussion dedicated to Tasha Yar was whether this was the result of simple disinterest, unbecoming but in line with the era in which these series were made, or an active and deliberate intention aimed at preventing any representation of something that deviated from heteronormativity.

Obviously we can't blame TOS for this but already with TNG the situation is different. Before 1992 and the famous episode "The Outcast" there had been literally dozens of episodes of various television series dedicated to LBGTQI+ themes. in the 1977 there was a The Jefferson episode with a transgender woman!

List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes
List of 1980s American television episodes with LGBT themes
List of 1990s American television episodes with LGBT themes

And to be clear, in many episodes (at least judging by the synopses) it was clearly stated that "HOMOPHOBIA IS BAD!". So 1992 is not exactly a year (at least in the field of TV fiction) where these topics are taboo. On the contrary.

And how does Star Trek, the bastion of tolerance and evolved humanity, respond? In an episode where an actress who is a cisgender woman has a love story with a cisgender man and the word "homosexuality" is not said even by accident, but we are assured that the story is in favor of the LBGTQI+ community.

It's a story that uses metaphors so oblique that other interpretations are perfectly legitimate. One could say that the J'naii represented supporters of gender theory who denied the sacred concept of the natural division between males and females. Soren rebels because being divided between men and women is the right thing to do, but her woke-SJW monsters punish her for this rebelliousness and brainwash her only to use the pronouns "Them" and " Their". Riker loses the battle, but it leads to him winning the war that women should be women and men should be men, as God intended. It's obviously an interpretation that doesn't respect the wishes of the writers of the episode, but what's interesting is that nothing in the episode itself would contradict it.

What's interesting is that when it came to condemning racism or drug use, Star Trek clearly said "RACISM IS BAD" or "DRUGS ARE BAD". What viewers saw on screen was clearly racism or drugs, just with a little sci-fi dressing.

And what about homophobia? "Please use your imagination. We cannot say clearly for some reason that 'HOMOPHOBIA IS BAD' but we assure you that is what we would like to say. We swear"

After this episode, we have the infamous DS9 episodes. Where we have hot women kissing. And this not means supporting the LBGTQI+ cause. It's pleasing the male gaze. Also considering that a good part of these women are evil predators from the Mirror Universe. Taking full advantage of the Depraved Bisexual trope.

And after this? Absolutely nothing at all. Not even in Enterprise, which was broadcast in the same years as L Word! And even in Galactica (from the same years) there were LBGTQI+ characters! We had to wait for new films and new series to have a true representation of these minorities.

Until now I had always given the benefit of the doubt and thought that it was simply not on the authors' radar to talk about these themes or include these characters. Let's say a sin of omission. Then I read the Wikipedia page dedicated to Sexuality and Star Trek and I read some interesting things there.

For example:

That same year Mulgrew stated in an August 2002 interview for Out in America:

Well, one would think that Hollywood would be more open-minded at this point, since essentially the whole town is run by the gay community. It makes very little sense if you think about it. No, Star Trek is very strangely by the book in this regard. Rick Berman, who is a very sagacious man, has been very firm about certain things. I've approached him many, many times over the years about getting a gay character on the show--one whom we could really love, not just a guest star. Y'know, we had blacks, Asians, we even had a handicapped character--and so I thought, this is now beginning to look a bit absurd. And he said, "In due time." And so, I'm suspecting that on Enterprise they will do something to this effect. I couldn't get it done on mine. And I am sorry for that.

Or about the Next Generation episode, "The Offspring"

According to the script, Guinan was supposed to start telling Lal, "When a man and a woman are in love..." and in the background, there would be men and women sitting at tables, holding hands. But Whoopi refused to say that. She said, "This show is beyond that. It should be 'When two people are in love.'"

So the theme existed, it had also been insistently requested to include gay characters in the show but those who ran it always refused to do so, practically lying to those who asked ("In due time.").

So my suspicion is that there was a specific desire to make all the characters appear as the perfect embodiment of cis-gender women and men, even the aliens. And searching the internet it seems that Berman was a known homophobe, but here we are on the side of gossip.

So, what is your opinion? Simple desire not to rock the boat, or ill-concealed hostility towards non-cisgender themes and characters?

 

Make money. They figured they could make more money by not rocking the boat of their cash cow. I'm sure there was hostility there, as well, but it all comes down to making money.

A franchise that made its original splash by being inclusive, became very conservative when the money started rolling in.

 

I can understand this reasoning in the 90s (to a point) but the 2000s? Considering that "L Word" and "Will & Grace" aired alongside Enterprise? And I don't know how many other countless television series had LBGTQI+ characters in those same years?

 

It was airing at 8pm, and was run by the same people who ran TNG and the rest. The world changed around Star Trek and Trek remained static, probably why it was cancelled.

 

So the real reason wasn't money. At most a justification that they told themselves?

 

It was money, at least at the corporate level, Enterprise never changed with the times, hence it made less money for Paramount/CBS. Society was changing and it didn't. Less eyeballs to lure advertisers.

TPTB have always been risk-adverse when it comes to Star Trek. Which is why they keep trying to make TWOK over and over.

 

If it were just a matter of a lack of any LGBTQIA+ people in the franchise, than I'd be willing to say it was a general disinterest, although by the time of Voyager's later seasons and Enterprise's entire run it was making the supposedly forward thinking and progressive Trek franchise look like the proverbial dinosaur. However, the fact that the only place we saw any representation the LGBTQIA+ community in the Trek franchise was in the Mirror Universe, which is meant to be the Trek universe turned evil and wrong definitely makes it look like TPTB of the time were being hostile.

I don't buy the "it was the times we lived in" or "Trek fans are noted conservatives" lines that usually tossed around in these discussions. As already noted, "the times we lived in" argument gets shot down due to there being other shows on TV at the time that featured openly gay characters in their main casts, and even a few as the lead. The "Trek fans are too conservative" argument gets shot down when you factor in that the conservative wet dream that was Walker Texas Ranger, another Paramount show that ended in 2001 (same year Voyager ended) featured openly gay characters. Granted, they were guest stars and used as comic relief, but that's still a bit better than the Star Trek shows of the time pulled off.

 

I don't think it was just money. Like @The Wormhole noted, they depicted not-cis character, who were EVIL! So not just a desire not to rock the boat but open homophobia which was uncalled for.

 

Based on his Star Trek policy in regard to presenting LGBTQ+ persons, I know which word I'd pick for Rick Berman. It isn't "sagacious," and with all respect, it isn't "risk-averse" either.

I can understand the OP not wanting to indulge in gossip, but I can't think of a good reason to give Berman the benefit of the doubt.

 

It is obviously tricky to assign blame, as this article shows.

Fan-Favorite 'Star Trek' Character Confirmed as Gay (heavy.com)

 

Gay Trek actor Jonathan del Arco also finds it "wonderful", and so do other gay/bi fans, wo do feel properly represented, particularly by her great speech near the end.

 

They wanted Reed to be gay, and Chef to be gay. It did not happen. They never replace the Reed character for a gay character, or alluded to Chef being gay during the entire run, even though they could have. The closest they ever got to LGBT themes in the series was T’Pol’s neuropressure session with a female MACO, Archer’s fantasy in “A Night in Sickbay” with Hoshi massaging T’Pol in the decon chamber (while T’Pol massaged Archer and Archer massaged Porthos), and the alien hooker with Hoshi in the turbolift and again in T’Pol’s quarters (which was an assault) in “Rajiin”. To be fair, they also had poly character in Phlox and never seriously explored polyamory either. The show never explored sex and sexuality even though that was what it was supposed to be doing differently from the other Treks

They did feature a lesbian kiss on DS9, outside of the mirror universe context, but it was also suggested that it was forbidden.

Hawk was supposed to be gay in FC. It never came up, though technically it was not denied either, though that in itself is a cop out. He of course was assimilated and tried to kill Picard, only to killed by Worf.

When it comes to the mirror universe, that was a DS9 thing. There were no gay characters in ENT’s mirror universe episodes. I supposed it could have been implied with the promiscuity of mirror Hoshi, but that’s a stretch; that’s not how it was presented in the episodes, as she was associated with Forrest, Archer and Mayweather and never with T’Pol or a different female.

You could in theory argue that Star Trek inched along at a snail’s pace if you want: 1992 (The Outcast), ‘95 (Rejoined), ‘96 (FC), '02 (A Night in Sickbay), '03 (Rajiin, Harbinger). But it never actually got there until 2016/2017.

I think that, even though it makes sense that in-universe characters are as blind to orientation and gender identity as they are to color and gender, in the real world it because a certain producer in charge of the franchise between 1991 and 2006 was more conservative than his audience and just did not want to portray any gay characters in any of the shows. And that became a very big problem come the early ‘00s, when legalization of gay marriage was a hot topic, and there was plenty of LGBT support on television, movies, and even from authors at the time.

As for the delay until 2016, they waited until there was a sudden shift in acceptance in queer identity in the US, which did happen in 2014/15. Which only happened after the POTUS came out in favour of gay marriage, circa May 2012 (Into Darkness has just finished production that same month when that happened, hence the lack of LGBT representation in that film).

 

Out of curiosity, "they" who?

 

This is taken from an interview with David Gerrold. As many of you may know, he wrote an episode of TNG (which was never made) called "Blood And Fire" in which two openly gay characters were supposed to appear.

TrekMovie: Let’s talk about “Blood and Fire” – the AIDS allegory that you wrote and the obstacles you ran into trying to get it produced.

David Gerrold: I don’t blame Gene as much as I blame Rick Berman for that clusterfuck. Others have confirmed it. They have said that in their experience Rick Berman was a raging homophobe, which makes the whole thing even more bizarre. Because, before Rick Berman came on the show, he had written a three-page memo on ‘here are some of the stories we could tell, some of the issues we could address’. And number three on his three-page memo was AIDS and how we should do something about AIDS. So now Gene and I appeared at a Star Trek convention in November of 1986 and somebody asked “will there be gay people aboard the Enterprise?” And Gene – to give him credit for knowing the right thing to say at the right time – said “yes, it is time, we should show gay people on board the Enterprise.” This got a lot of applause. So then he repeated it in a staff meeting and balled out one of the producers and said “no, it’s time” So I figured if Gene said it in a staff meeting, then he truly means it. So it was time for me to get a script assignment and I started to do “Blood and Fire,” because I wanted to do something so far removed from funny.
[...]
So that the script, somewhere in there I was “you know what, these two characters, they could be boyfriends.” There were two lines of dialog. “How long have you two been together?” and “Since the Academy.” That was it.
[...]
So Gene’s lawyer sits on Gene’s face for a while – he was another homophobe – and said “you have to take the gay characters out.”

So, according to Gerrold, not only was Bermann a homophobe, but also Leonard Maizlish. And hearing all the things that have been said about him over the years, adding "homophobia" to the list doesn't surprise me at all.

 

I suspect Rick Berman put his job security above rocking the boat and potentially upsetting his superiors by pushing for queer themes on his shows.

With the current sad and depressing anti-"woke" backlash going on, it's hard to image what the reaction would have been in the 90's if Dax kept dating her ex and everyone treated it as normal, or if they played up her trans allegory a bit. Or if Malcolm's fight with Hayes ended the way we probably all thought it would. Or if Data's Day ended with him deciding he was asexual.

Star Trek novels featured queer characters in the 90's, but they were explicitly banned from using the word "gay" or similar. Officially it was because "everyone's past that in the future" but unofficially it was to keep it as closeted as possible.

 

Ah, about the "certain choices were only made because of money" thing. I work in a quasi-corporate environment. And yes, obviously money is the ultimate driver. But companies are made of human beings, with their ideas and prejudices and obviously each of them has their own personal idea of how to get that "money". And from my experience it is very difficult for someone in a position of power to completely overturn their deepest beliefs just for the sake of money. So it's a little difficult for me to attribute the lack of representation of LBGTQI+ themes and characters only to the desire for more money, because other contemporary series were doing it and evidently it was working.

 

And this doesn't make any sense from a world-building point of view. Even in the most open and welcoming society imaginable, you must somehow be able to indicate your sexual orientation or gender identity, if only for convenience.

 

I just saw "Chaos on The Bridge" and it gave me the impression that, being a syndicated show, they had a lot more freedom than there would be on a network. That is to say that (after Roddenberry's death) all major (creative) decisions were made by Bermann. There wasn't really anyone above him saying, "This is good, this is not." Maybe I'm wrong.