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

[The Wormhole]

I think the main reason everyone calls out the Trek franchise's lack of LGBTGIA+ representation before 2009 is because the Trek franchise prides itself over being so forward thinking and progressive. They pridefully boast about having television's first interracial kiss (a claim which isn't even completely accurate) as well as daring to show a future where white people and non-white people are equal. If Trek really were as daring as its reputation would suggest, it should have been no problem to have a gay character by the end of the 1990s, and by the 2000s they were starting to look backwards because of a lack of any gay characters. Enterprise ended exactly one month before Doctor Who introduced its first openly gay character, after all.

 

[Oddish]

Yeah, though I previously called out in this thread that the Mirror Universe Lesbians being the only direct homosexual representation in the pre-2009 franchise as an act of hostility (IE, they only show homosexuality in the place where everything is evil and wrong) I will concede at the time the episode was made that likely wasn't the intent. Granted, the actual intent was to fetishize lesbians, which isn't much of a defense, nor is it much better than if they actually were trying to say homosexuality is evil and wrong. But there we are.

Sometimes, you have to accept that before representation is done right, you'll get imperfect (or even just plain disastrous) attempts at it. As a teen, growing up at the height of the AIDS crisis, I was pretty homophobic. One of the first things that made me rethink my position was the early part of Stephen King's "It", which featured an act of despicable anti-gay violence. And yes, it painted the same-sex couple in it in a sympathetic light... but it also had them wearing make-up and nail polish and acting in an effeminate manner. Or another example is the guys at the Blue Oyster bar in the Police Academy movies... the patrons are painted as good guys, at least to the point that they deliver a comeuppance to the villains in the first two movies... but their appearance is kind of... well, stereotyped.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

Some kids can be extra-cruel. For better or worse, they're fictionally teeming in many Stephen King movies.

 

[Skipper]

Enterprise ended exactly one month before Doctor Who introduced its first openly gay character, after all.

And there were queer characters in Galactica, which was airing at the same time as Enterprise.

Searching on Google it seems that there is an episode of Enterprise that would somehow be (yet another) oblique metaphor on homosexual people, Stigma. A disease is spreading among Vulcans who practice mind meld, which is why this minority is ostracized.

This disease is an overt metaphor for AIDS and the minority who practice mind meld would represent the LBGTQI+ minority who are unfairly ostracized. I haven't seen the episode, but judging only from the summary it seems problematic to me at the very least, because it reinforces the old prejudice that AIDS was only a gay thing.

 

[Tim Walker]

People are also allowed to be attracted to who they are attracted to. I'm a straight man. If my fiancé were to suddenly have man's body, I wouldn't be able to continue the relationship in the same manner than I previously had been. I would still love him, but I don't believe I could love him in a romantic fashion.

That's not some terrible, bigoted issue. That's human. Love is love, but not all love is the same and the REAL bigot would be someone who shames another for who they are attracted to or not.

It's ok to be straight, it's ok to be gay, just as much as it's ok to not be straight and not be gay.

Not any sort of expert, but I have looked at a number of articles over the years, on line and in magazines.

An article I read decades ago. Theory that the (future) sexual orientation is determined before birth. Becomes hard wired into the fetal brain. At a critical point, the (future) sexual orientation may be altered by hormones or something. And the altered sexual orientation becomes hardwired into the fetal brain.

I understand that gender identity may also be hardwired into the brain. A different part of the brain.

Also, I came across mention of a Romantic Orientation.

If these different orientations are hard wired before birth, there is no obvious way to change them after birth.

 

[Skipper]

Not any sort of expert, but I have looked at a number of articles over the years, on line and in magazines.

An article I read decades ago. Theory that the (future) sexual orientation is determined before birth. Becomes hard wired into the fetal brain. At a critical point, the (future) sexual orientation may be altered by hormones or something. And the altered sexual orientation becomes hardwired into the fetal brain.

I understand that gender identity may also be hardwired into the brain. A different part of the brain.

Also, I came across mention of a Romantic Orientation.

If these different orientations are hard wired before birth, there is no obvious way to change them after birth.

In 2019, an article was published in Science that reported a study on the topic. It is a very ambitious work, based on the genetic data of 500 thousand people. It essentially says that genes have a weight in determining a person's sexual orientation, but there is not a single gene involved: on the contrary, many different genes have a small effect. However, he also says that homosexuality depends only in part on genes (it has been estimated that they influence sexual orientation by 25 percent or less), and that the rest depends on environmental factors. This is why it is impossible to determine whether a person is homosexual or bisexual just by looking at their DNA.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay2726

 

[Oddish]

If these different orientations are hard wired before birth, there is no obvious way to change them after birth.

That almost goes without saying, given that only a certified masochist would have been gay back in the 80's, to say nothing of when it was still illegal.

The episode "The Outcast" took some heat for its supposed stance on conversion therapy. But what is often unsaid is that if actual conversion therapy hadn't been pretty much useless, many gays and lesbians in previous decades would have gladly undergone it. Still would, in some places. Homosexuality might be decriminalized nationwide, but I expect there are still locations where gays have a rough life. Plus, it's still illegal in some countries.

QUOTE: However, he also says that homosexuality depends only in part on genes (it has been estimated that they influence sexual orientation by 25 percent or less), and that the rest depends on environmental factors. This is why it is impossible to determine whether a person is homosexual or bisexual just by looking at their DNA.

That seems hard to believe, given the sheer number of kids with perfectly ordinary upbringing, often in conservative environments, who turn out to be gay/lesbian.

 

[Tim Walker]

One of the best parts of TOS was exploring the various Nationalities of Earth, by having characters represented from them.

But given the 200+ nations on Earth, there should be alot more represented then what we've seen so far.

So many Nationalities/Ethnicities that aren't even represented or misrepresented.


e.g. having Garret Wang play Harry Kim, a Chinese-American actor portraying a Korean Character.
e.g. having Linda Park play Hoshi Sato, a Korean-American actress portraying a Japanese Character.

But apparently all us Asians are so interchange-able to Caucasian Execs that we can just be thrown in willy nilly.

But historically, Asian Americans have gone VERY under-represented.

This is not to even mention some of the more complicated multiple ethnicities and multi-cultural backgrounds that people have IRL that can be delved into, but they chose not to.

e.g. Isa Briones who played Soji in ST:PIC, she's part Filipino, part Sweedish/Irish.
None of that ethnic/national background was ever mentioned or brought up or included into her character. Even if it was part of her "Background" for her human persona/identity that she had to live falsely under while not knowing who she really was.
Despite it being "Easy Pickings" to show representation of her ethnic heritage on both sides.
Especially hybrid multi-ethnic backgrounds starting to become the norm in the future.

Agreed, it would have been relatively easy to depict (or at least hint at) different human ethnicities/cultures.

For example, in the Riddick franchise, we see hints of a cosmopolitan future.

In Firefly, we see hints of a cosmopolitan future.

Trek casting could have done more to include different ethnicities and culture backgrounds for human characters. Certainly easier than convincingly depicting Alien species.

Or, at the least, Trek could have done more to hint at a cosmopolitan future.

 

[Skipper]

That seems hard to believe, given the sheer number of kids with perfectly ordinary upbringing, often in conservative environments, who turn out to be gay/lesbian.

1) 25% is not small number
2) "perfectly ordinary upbringing". So, gays should be only the result of a "unordinary" upbringing..?

 

[evilchumlee]

Or, at the least, Trek could have done more to hint at a cosmopolitan future.

They've done some things, although I think especially from about early TNG, the general idea in Trek was that alot of the "old" ethnic and racial identities were no longer particularly relevant. Earth moved a bit more towards a monoculture, being so interconnected.

But we do see it. TOS acknowledges Scotty being Scottish, Chekov being Russian, etc. It doesn't go too deep. TNG make pretty consistent use Picard being French, Worf's adopted Russian background, and they utilize Miles and Keiko to showcase different cultures coexisting.

But by and large, I think a hallmark of Star Trek is that we've somewhat moved past alot of that stuff and we largely share a unified, human culture. (granted, that unified, human culture is Space America, but it's American TV so... that's how it worked out.)

 

[Skipper]

But by and large, I think a hallmark of Star Trek is that we've somewhat moved past alot of that stuff and we largely share a unified, human culture. (granted, that unified, human culture is Space America, but it's American TV so... that's how it worked out.)

Where wives proudly take their husband's surname after getting married and children that of their father. Something that was no longer done and was considered patriarchal and sexist in many European countries already during the broadcast of TNG.

 

[evilchumlee]

Where wives proudly take their husband's surname after getting married and children that of their father. Something that was no longer done and was considered patriarchal and sexist in many European countries already during the broadcast of TNG.

You'll never please everyone. It's an impossible fight.

I can see a writers room for a new Star Trek series, painstakingly ensuring that every possible ethnic group, gender identity, age, etc. is all represented. The show finally goes to air in a triumphant parade of diversity.

"Just like I expected, I guess Inuit people don't exist in the 23rd century, huh bigots?"

I don't want to get on too much of a political soapbox here, but this is part of the problem today. I used to be WAY more left than I currently am. I still consider myself left, but much closer to center. Part of it is because the Left's worst enemy is the Left. There's that constant "if you're not left enough, you might as well be a red hat" and nothing is ever enough. It's like no matter what it is, there's a rolodex of complaints ready to go.

"This is bad because... um... uh... *checks notes*... wives takes their husbands last name! Damn sexist patriarchy!"

Like. Hot damn. Give it a rest.

 

[Skipper]

You'll never please everyone. It's an impossible fight.

I can see a writers room for a new Star Trek series, painstakingly ensuring that every possible ethnic group, gender identity, age, etc. is all represented. The show finally goes to air in a triumphant parade of diversity.

"Just like I expected, I guess Inuit people don't exist in the 23rd century, huh bigots?"

 

[Oddish]

1) 25% is not small number
2) "perfectly ordinary upbringing". So, gays should be only the result of a "unordinary" upbringing..?

"Should" or "shouldn't" is irrelevant. As far as I know, there's no data that says children who grew up in a specific region or location, ate certain food, played certain games, owned certain pets, had certain diseases, were exposed to certain chemicals, or anything else of that nature had a higher probability of being same-sex attracted. So if there are environmental factors, I'm just wondering what they are.

 

[BK613]

Just to put things in a historical context, 'don't ask, don't tell' began the same year that DS9 began (and a year and a half before TNG ended). That's where we were then.
Could things have been better? Of course, but you can almost always say that about past events.

 

[Tim Walker]

One of the best parts of TOS was exploring the various Nationalities of Earth, by having characters represented from them.

But given the 200+ nations on Earth, there should be alot more represented then what we've seen so far.

So many Nationalities/Ethnicities that aren't even represented or misrepresented.


e.g. having Garret Wang play Harry Kim, a Chinese-American actor portraying a Korean Character.
e.g. having Linda Park play Hoshi Sato, a Korean-American actress portraying a Japanese Character.

But apparently all us Asians are so interchange-able to Caucasian Execs that we can just be thrown in willy nilly.

But historically, Asian Americans have gone VERY under-represented.

This is not to even mention some of the more complicated multiple ethnicities and multi-cultural backgrounds that people have IRL that can be delved into, but they chose not to.

e.g. Isa Briones who played Soji in ST:PIC, she's part Filipino, part Sweedish/Irish.
None of that ethnic/national background was ever mentioned or brought up or included into her character. Even if it was part of her "Background" for her human persona/identity that she had to live falsely under while not knowing who she really was.
Despite it being "Easy Pickings" to show representation of her ethnic heritage on both sides.
Especially hybrid multi-ethnic backgrounds starting to become the norm in the future.

[tress portraying a Japanese Character.

But apparently all us Asians are so interchange-able to Caucasian Execs that we can just be thrown in willy nilly.

But historically, Asian Americans have gone VERY under-represented.

This is not to even mention some of the more complicated multiple ethnicities and multi-cultural backgrounds that people have IRL that can be delved into, but they chose not to.


Despite it being "Easy Pickings" to show representation of her ethnic heritage on both sides.
Especially hybrid multi-ethnic backgrounds starting to become the norm in the future.
[/QUOTE]In an episode I otherwise liked, I couldn't really accept that La'an was descended from Khan. The cast members looked too different from each other.

As for a character with a multi-ethnic background, one could show that person celebrating 2-3 different cultures as their own. Setting a low bar for Trek here. Very much easier to do than depicting alien species.

 

[evilchumlee]

But apparently all us Asians are so interchange-able to Caucasian Execs that we can just be thrown in willy nilly.

But historically, Asian Americans have gone VERY under-represented.

Yeah, I feel for Asian Americans. If there is any group that is truly oppressed, it's Asian Americans. You get it from both sides... you're "white" to minorities, and your a minority to whites.

There is such a huge push for black, latin and LGBT representation, but Asians Americans get tossed aside way too often.

I'm not a proponent of an actor needing to match the specific -insert identity- of the character... they're actors, their entire job is to pretend to be something. Just pick the best person for the job. But absolutely, Asian Americans need more representation across the board.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

In an episode I otherwise liked, I couldn't really accept that La'an was descended from Khan. The cast members looked too different from each other.

As for a character with a multi-ethnic background, one could show that person celebrating 2-3 different cultures as their own. Setting a low bar for Trek here. Very much easier to do than depicting alien species.

If Khan is truly the multi-nation conquering dude that his history should have been, it wouldn't surprise me if he had children with MANY women across the world, so La'an being one of his many descendents wouldn't surprise me.

They could've easily worked that in given La'an would be many generations removed from Khan Noonien Singh.

 

[evilchumlee]

If Khan is truly the multi-nation conquering dude that his history should have been, it wouldn't surprise me if he had children with MANY women across the world, so La'an being one of his many descendents wouldn't surprise me.

Maybe, but it's not the medieval times... Khan more than likely wasn't out there personally on the battlefield carving his way through nations...

La'an is a few generations removed anyway, so there's no reason to assume that there would be no multi-racial ancestry in there regardless. I don't see La'an as any kind of issue, beyond it being just generally dumb that we have a really unnecessary Khan reference.

 

[Skipper]

Abd why didn't she change her surname?!? If by a quirk of fate my surname was "Hitler" I don't see why I shouldn't change it. In the name of what principle should I keep it?