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

[Michael]

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.

I’m pretty certain Berman always had the dreaded studio executives above him, that according to interviews with him and other Trek producers always tried to influence the shows one way or the other. Plus, I guess as the producer you also had to answer to advertisers and their demands.

 

[Tuskin38]

I’m pretty certain Berman always had the dreaded studio executives above him, that according to interviews with him and other Trek producers always tried to influence the shows one way or the other. Plus, I guess as the producer you also had to answer to advertisers and their demands.

Examples I can think of are the Studio Execs for Enterprise wanting Bands on the NX-01 (which we thankfully didn't get) and familiar safe Star Trek tech not killing anyone, like they didn't want an episode where the transporter malfunctions and kills someone.

 

[Quantum21]

Some hostility, some indifference.

It's interesting to see, there have been recent interviews online with David Gerrold and others that give us some insight to these times. Much of it new.

According to Gerrold, Roddenberry agreed to a fan's convention wish to show LBGTQ representation, but later on as he was losing his faculties he backed down on the idea. Key to this was Bob Justman, who during an early meeting on the subject made a flippant comment about homosexuals. Roddenberry scolded Justman on this point, but I think fearing this reaction elsewhere it was quietly dropped after discussing with the execs at Paramount.

Another person against this idea who soon became the decision maker was Rick Berman, both a misogynist and homophobe who declared no homosexuals would ever appear on his show.

We've certainly come a long way.

(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?

 

[The Wormhole]

They wanted Reed to be gay, and Chef to be gay.

Out of curiosity, "they" who?

Reed being gay was a popular fan theory that circulated while Enterprise aired, one which Dominic Keating was aware of and supported, but there's no other indication there were any plans to make Reed gay. Indeed, putting aside the subtext that went on between Reed and Major Hayes, there's quite a lot of references throughout Enterprise's run that make it rather clear that Reed is supposed to be heterosexual.

Hawk was supposed to be gay in FC.

That's a rumor only, which Neal McDonough debunked saying he was not made aware of any plans or intent while filming that Lt Hawk was supposed to be gay.

 

[Rahul]

Giving Trek the benefit of doubt here:
'Old' Star Trek had a very, very low level of "sex & relationships" in general. TOS & TNG Season 1 (with one(!) implied sex scene between main characters!) the most. But there's barely more than one relationship on each SHOW, during each entire runtime, and even Kirk gets a lot less action than pop culture makes it seem.
ST09 was when Trek became horny. And streaming Trek is when the shift to relationship-focus happened.
The writers back then where barely able to write a non-offending straight love-story (cough Trip & T'Pol cough).
Stuff like "The Outcast" makes me think they had their hearts at the right place, but that they had no idea how to tackle that topic in a relatable way and better stuck to what they knew and their techno-babble. And srsly, they took their hero character for that episode, not a guest star or minor recurring character. So I think they did care.

 

[Skipper]

That's a rumor only, which Neal McDonough debunked saying he was not made aware of any plans or intent while filming that Lt Hawk was supposed to be gay.

I wonder how this rumor started... it was also repeated in the mainstream media.

 

[Michael]

Giving Trek the benefit of doubt here:
'Old' Star Trek had a very, very low level of "sex & relationships" in general. TOS & TNG Season 1 (with one(!) implied sex scene between main characters!) the most.

Why would they need sex scenes, implied or otherwise, to introduce a character as gay on the show, though? On The Next Generation they made sure to establish the heterosexuality of all the main characters within the first season, for most of them even within the first handful of episodes. Even the android had a clear case of the not-gays in the first regular episode.

 

[Oddish]

I think that at the time, having a gay character on your show was like having a male teacher in a daycare center... no one refuses to enroll their kid in a daycare because the teachers are all women, but a male one would give some parents pause. Similarly, no one refused to watch a TV show because everyone on it was heterosexual. Ergo, the daycare that only hires women and the TV show that writes all its characters straight have the advantage. Of course, some daycares still hired male teachers (I did the job for 6 years), just as some TV shows featured gay characters. But they were accepting that some viewers would stop watching. And given that Voyager struggled through much of its existence and Enterprise was foundering almost from the start, they decided they couldn't risk losing more business.

Since DS9 was the Trek that kind of did what it wanted, they were able to do "Rejoined" as an experiment of sorts. Presumably, response was mixed, given that they had another episode with same-sex interactions, but they didn't take it farther (going full Garashir for instance).

 

[Tuskin38]

I wonder how this rumor started... it was also repeated in the mainstream media.

and the novels went with it too.

 

[Citiprime]

I think the record of 90s Trek is mixed. Could it have pushed the line further? Yes, absolutely. But I do think the Berman-era shows are products of their era, and it should be pointed out that having openly gay characters, let alone lead characters, in a regular television series was still taboo.

I mean it was major news when Ellen DeGeneres came out on her show, and shows like Will and Grace were exceptions and novelties instead of representative of how common-place gay characters were becoming at that point in TV history.

There are a few things that I would point out:

• Jonathan Frakes has stated that he argued for the J'Naii to be played by male actors to make the allegory to homosexuality and sexual orientation more explicit in TNG's "The Outcast," but was denied by Berman and the powers that be. Also, the episode was criticized from both sides when it originally aired. Conservatives hit it for using Star Trek as an allegory to question societally imposed gender norms, and groups like GLAAD felt the message in the episode was muddled by the conclusion where there exists a successful way to "convert" someone into compliance.
• TNG's "The Host" sets up the Trill. I always thought it's somewhat problematic how the episode deals with the conclusion. Maybe this is just me, but I always think the episode kinda accepts it as a forgone conclusion that Beverly can't continue the relationship with Odan because the symbiont's host is now female. I don't know if this is me applying a feeling that isn't present, but the sense when I watch is that it's not even a possibility, because you know our cast are straight people, and that could never happen.
• DS9's "Rejoined" has the distinction of having the first same-sex kiss in Trek history. According to Memory Alpha, there was significant blow back to the episode from some circles.

According to Ronald D. Moore, "Some felt betrayed, didn't want to see this in their homes. An affiliate down south cut the kiss from their broadcast." Terry Farrell agreed, "There were quite a few people that were upset, that had thought there should be a warning, because they were upset that they couldn't have a conversation with their children about what the episode was about. So, we did something controversial that, still to this day people come up to me and say, 'Thank you.'" Conversely, René Echevarria said, "My mother was absolutely scandalized by the episode. Shocked and dismayed. She told me 'I can't believe you did that. There should have been a parental guidance warning.'" Jay Chattaway commented: "that had people up in arms"

Steve Oster recollected that a man called the show and complained, "You're ruining my kids by making them watch two women kiss like that." It was a production assistant who took the call. After hearing the man's complaint, the PA asked if the man would've been okay with his kids seeing one woman shoot the other. When the man said he would be okay with that, the PA said, "You should reconsider who's messing up your kids."​

That's a rumor only, which Neal McDonough debunked saying he was not made aware of any plans or intent while filming that Lt Hawk was supposed to be gay.

It should be noted that McDonough is a VERY conservative Catholic. I believe he was fired/left from an ABC show after he refused to do sex scenes with Virginia Madsen. So I'm not saying he's wrong, or questioning his word, but it may be one of those things where they didn't discuss it with him given it wasn't an explicit part of First Contact and if it was part of the character's backstory they may have not wanted to create an issue where there was no need to have an argument about it if they wanted McDonough for the role.

 

[Ovation]

It should be noted that McDonough is a VERY conservative Catholic.

If you ever watch the series Justified (made in the 2010s), you’ll see he’s loosened up a little regarding onscreen behaviour.

 

[The Wormhole]

It should be noted that McDonough is a VERY conservative Catholic. I believe he was fired/left from an ABC show after he refused to do sex scenes with Virginia Madsen. So I'm not saying he's wrong, or questioning his word, but it may be one of those things where they didn't discuss it with him given it wasn't an explicit part of First Contact and if it was part of the character's backstory they may have not wanted to create an issue where there was no need to have an argument about it if they wanted McDonough for the role.

In the very same interview where McDonough denied there being any intention to make Hawk gay, it was brought up that they did make him gay in the novels, which McDonough responded by saying "that's cool."

 

[Oddish]

...groups like GLAAD felt the message in the episode was muddled by the conclusion where there exists a successful way to "convert" someone into compliance.

That's a destructive fallacy that went on too long. Lots of people volunteered for conversion therapy (and some teens were volunteered) because they thought it could turn them straight. Problem is... it's basically snake oil. A gay person might choose to avoid same-sex romance for any number of reasons... but that doesn't mean they can just "manufacture" desire for the opposite sex.

 

[NCC-73515]

Out of curiosity, "they" who?

Keating confirmed years ago that Reed was initially supposed to be Trek's first gay character, with a big cover story on the Advocate. He could've been exaggerating that part, but it is what he said.

 

[Oddish]

Keating confirmed years ago that Reed was initially supposed to be Trek's first gay character, with a big cover story on the Advocate. He could've been exaggerating that part, but it is what he said.

That actually makes a certain amount of sense. They had obviously been moving in that direction for some time.

 

[Skipper]

I would like to know exactly the behind the scenes story of when an actor (or at least someone not directly responsible for creative decisions) says something like this. Did a producer approach them between takes to say "Ah, by the way, your character is gay"?

What comes to mind is simply this. Due to a set of more or less random (perhaps involuntary) factors, it gives the impression that a certain character will turn out to be queer. The thing makes (in the narrow sphere of the fandom) news. Now, partly to get free publicity, partly to avoid the risk of appearing homophobic, TPTB do not deny the news. But they don't even confirm it. Because they have absolutely no desire to include this type of character (everyone decides the real reason why). But at least when it invariably doesn't happen, they will have a plausible deniability at their disposal.

 

[Skipper]

But let's talk about the end of the Host. The look of horror on Beverly’s face when she sees the new host is a woman certainly suggests that her real problem is not that Odan keeps changing bodies, but that his new body is female.

 

[BillJ]

But let's talk about the end of the Host. The look of horror on Beverly’s face when she sees the new host is a woman certainly suggests that her real problem is not that Odan keeps changing bodies, but that his new body is female.

I kinda think that was the point. Doesn't Beverly even point out her own prejudice?

Perhaps it is a human failing, but we are not accustomed to these kinds of changes. I can't keep up. How long will you have this host? What would the next one be? I can't live with that kind of uncertainty. Perhaps, someday, our ability to love won't be so limited.

The Next Generation Transcripts - The Host (chakoteya.net)

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

In the very same interview where McDonough denied there being any intention to make Hawk gay, it was brought up that they did make him gay in the novels, which McDonough responded by saying "that's cool."

Are you indicating there were written sequels to FIRST CONTACT, and Hawk was resurrected?

 

[evilchumlee]

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".

This... this is part of it, although the answer might not be what you wanted to hear.

They just didn't care. They weren't interested in the topic.

That's really the cold hard truth at the end of the day. They were just not interested in it. They might have paid some lip service behind the scenes, saying "oh yeah, we're totally gonna do that...", but that's an easy thing to say when you're not actually interested in doing it.

And... that's actually ok. They can make whatever they want. They can tell the stories they want to tell. If they don't want to tell LGBT stories, that's ok. They don't have to. It's also ok if you want them to, but at the end of the day, they are the creators and do what interests them.

I kinda think that was the point. Doesn't Beverly even point out her own prejudice?

She does, but the reaction is also totally valid.

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.