I suspect “prequel novels”.
Pre-2009 Star Trek and LGBTQI+ representation: simple disinterest or active hostility?
- Thread starter Skipper
- Start date
- Status
I want to share an experience I had discussing this very topic, which shines some light on why it might not ALWAYS be the best thing to have writers who aren't particularly well versed in LGBT issues write that sort of thing.
I always thought it would have been cool had they made Garak gay. I shared my ideas who what I would do with it. I would have had Garak be confirmed gay, absolutely. The character would be a contrast to Bashir... just as Bashir tended to be pining after Dax and continually getting shut down, Garak would be continually pining after Bashir and getting shut down. Both were pursuing people they couldn't have.
Seemed like a great idea from my straight man point of view.
The criticism I received from some identifying as LGBT was that it was a terrible idea and reinforced a stereotype of gay men being predators, trying to "convert" straight men into being gay.
I had no intent of that... I was just creating a mirror-like situation with two characters having issues with trying to attract the person they were interested in. I wasn't thinking of some deeper meaning behind any other of it. Just... "hey, Bashir liked Dax but she didn't like him. What if Garak liked Bashir, but he didn't like him".
After receiving the criticism, I can see the perspective, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. But I would have never considered that perspective on my own.
I always thought it would have been cool had they made Garak gay. I shared my ideas who what I would do with it. I would have had Garak be confirmed gay, absolutely. The character would be a contrast to Bashir... just as Bashir tended to be pining after Dax and continually getting shut down, Garak would be continually pining after Bashir and getting shut down. Both were pursuing people they couldn't have.
Seemed like a great idea from my straight man point of view.
The criticism I received from some identifying as LGBT was that it was a terrible idea and reinforced a stereotype of gay men being predators, trying to "convert" straight men into being gay.
I had no intent of that... I was just creating a mirror-like situation with two characters having issues with trying to attract the person they were interested in. I wasn't thinking of some deeper meaning behind any other of it. Just... "hey, Bashir liked Dax but she didn't like him. What if Garak liked Bashir, but he didn't like him".
After receiving the criticism, I can see the perspective, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. But I would have never considered that perspective on my own.
Is it, though? I mean, obviously the writers didn’t have to do anything I or you or we wanted. And that’s where you seem to come from with this: obligation. They were of course under no obligation to deliver what viewers are asking for.
But just because they weren’t obligated to write about LBGTQ+ issues, does that make it “okay”? Why do you think it’s okay? I like to think Star Trek – or any television show, for that matter – plays an important role in normalizing marginalized, persecuted minority groups. One that’s perhaps easy to dismiss, but shouldn’t be underestimated either. So if you consider that many seems to hold Trek to a high standard in terms of broaching social issues or breaking ground for marginalized groups, is it any wonder that these people expected more from the producers?
So let’s forget for a moment that they didn’t have to do anything, didn't you want them to do more?
This is a topic that I myself am personally not particularly interested in. I personally am indifferent. I support it if they do, i'm not bothered if they don't.
I would definitely take issue to an anti-LGBT message, but just... generally not doing much is honestly no concern of mine at all.
I tend to not really think much about representation at all. It's not something that's important to me. I don't really care if all the characters are white, black, gay, straight, it's largely irrelevant to me. Perhaps it's my own background and perspective but I don't tend to identify with characters based on race, sexuality, or gender... I identify based on personality traits and such. I like to see characters who are like me... that doesn't mean characters that look like me or are attracted to the same people as I am. I'm looking for what's inside, how they act, etc.
Yes, her own. But why she is speaking for the rest of humanity? And she, until realizing that the new host was a woman, was perfectly "accustomed to these kinds of changes". I mean, she was happily read to bang Riker and she was smiling radiantly while waiting his beloved's third host.!
Prequels, actually. The big one was a novel called "Rogue," a couple of other novellas that took place between the launch of the E-E and First Contact. Hawk's partner, Ranul Keru, continued appears in novels for the rest of the run, and a version of him was even in the post-PIC Titan novel "The Dark Veil."
This all really boils down to individual perspectives. I think Crusher's revelation at the end of the episode is a fairly powerful one that certainly resonates with me. It wasn't *JUST* that's Odan's new host was female, but it was the breaking point. Crusher couldn't handle the uncertainty and the change. When the host went from Odan to Riker... she was kind of like "weird, but ok", and she absolutely WAS conflicted. She had a whole conversation with Troi about whether or not Riker was in there, or if it was all Odan now. She could potentially deal with the physical changes, but she needed it to be Odan.
When that fails and the new host is female, it does change everything. She was just becoming ok with the fact that Odan would be in Riker's body, which was already difficult. Now, Odan is in a female body, adding an extra layer. Physical attraction and gender ARE important to a majority of people... it would be too much for most to handle.
Would we be having this same question if we say, moved the episode into Discovery, and the way they were able to resurrect Culber was as a woman. Would we be outraged if Stamets, a gay man, was unsure if he would be able to have the same relationship with her? We shouldn't be... Stamets is a gay man, it would be inappropriate at best to suggest he MUST engage in a relationship with a woman. Why then do we not hold a heterosexual to the same standard?
Crusher is a heterosexual woman. Yes, Odan now having a female host is a bigger deal to her than having a male host. It opens up a whole OTHER set of issues beyond the ones that already exist. Yes, that very much IS human.
Well said. An essential element of romantic love is sexual desire. And you either feel it or you don't: that's why conversion therapy doesn't work, no matter how motivated the patient.
My head canon is that whatever she said, Beverly was just straight by inclination. Women weren't her thing.
That's an interesting idea, though if it were my project, I'd do what DIS did and start with a successful and positive relationship. Stamets and Culber were the perfect introduction to LGBTQ Trek characters... I might not have liked DIS much, but I did like them.
I've seen it with women, too... in "Rose Madder" by Stephen King, a battered women's shelter was (falsely) accused of behavior of that nature. Sort of like "men are bad, try other women instead". In another book, it's never stated outright but sort of implied that a female victim of domestic violence had that very experience.
As an aside, Stephen King's relationship with gay characters was interesting, in some of his earlier work. He was obviously sympathetic, but there were some dubious stereotypes included.
It's kind of like the age-old conflict of doing what you see as right versus putting bread on the table. In the matter of Voyager and Enterprise, the showrunners chose the latter.
Last edited:
Fair enough, I guess. Representation matters little to me personally as well. But I can recognize that that’s because the cis male, white, hetero perspective has historically been overrepresented, to a point where I simply never could have longed to see myself represented in media, simply because cis white hetero characters written by cis white hetero writers are everywhere and media used to be presented almost exclusively through that narrow lens. You say you’re not identifying with characters in media by way of their ethnicity, sexuality or gender, but rather with who they are as characters. And yeah, I totally get that, I really do. But rarely are people discriminated against because of their character traits or how they act. Certainly not on a systemic level. So I think we’re comparing apples to oranges here.
So even though *I* certainly don't feel like it matters to me, I absolutely see that it matters to so many other people and their experiences. And as a social being I just empathize with that. Their wellbeing matters to me, for its own sake, but also because I share a world with them and their wellbeing is always going to influence my wellbeing.
I respect that and understand your reasoning, but would argue that had Beverly reacted differently, showing the ability to still feel attraction to Odan, even if now in a body of the opposite sex, it would have made for an infinitely more powerful moment. Crusher — a heterosexual character on an early 90s show — saying she can’t engage with someone because they look female now is simply the least imaginative, most expected and safest way they could have played that out. It challenges exactly zero expectations and norms and portrays her exactly the way a heteronormative audience would predict she reacts in that situation
I agree with everyone who’s saying that romantic attraction is certainly tied to sexual attraction and that I would never hold it against Crusher that she had to end it there with Odan. But still I would have found it more interesting and powerful if they had played against that and made what she had with Odan transcend looks and appearances.
Snipped just for brevity but sure. I can appreciate different perspectives and all that but I feel like the more we all dig in about identity politics, the worse we all are. I can absolutely understand wanting to see characters who are like you (a generalized "you", not you personally) in many ways, including race, sexuality, gender, etc. And that's totally ok. But rather than be upset about the lack of say, gay characters, why not find something within characters to identify with?
For me personally, "being white" is not my primary character attribute. My identity is based around my morals, ideals and general outlook on the world. If I absolutely had to pick an outside identifier, it would be "American", but even then... it's pretty weak. I don't get upset if there aren't enough Americans around.
I do understand that as a white man, I have alot of representation... so it's a different perspective naturally... it's just that the representation doesn't matter to me.
I agree with that, which why despite being indifferent personally and actually not particularly interested in those stories, I still support it happening. I just... also don't mind if they don't.
It's certainly interesting in its own right although it feels a bit too "happy ending"ish, not the bittersweet look at human nature. There's nothing wrong with a happy ending, but ultimately the episode was about human nature... I think it's inaccurate to say "looks and appearances"... to make Crusher still go with it and still stay with Odan is tantamount to saying sexuality, gender and sex are completely irrelevant... which doesn't seem very human at all.
If I absolutely HAD to edit the ending, I would probably just take the LGBT issue out of it entirely and just have another male host show up. Rather than having the undertone of Crusher not wanting to be with Odan because she's a woman now, it's more about how despite loving the "spirit" of Odan, she couldn't keep separating the physical appearance from his essence. In the grand scheme, I truly think that WAS more what the episode was saying. Having the new host be female was really not "ew, i'm not gay", and really just a way to speed up and drive home the point of "This is too much, I can't do it."
Stuck this at the end to respond specifically... yes. Yes, that's true.
There are still very much real world concerns with all of this. The audience IS heternormative. The show is written and made for them. Star Trek, even in TOS when it was a bit more on social commentary, was never about making people feel uncomfortable. That's not what the franchise is about. It's usually not nearly as deep as people tend to paint it.
TOS was mostly hailed as super-progressive because they had a black woman and a Russian on the bridge! Outlandish! Even the big, "groundbreaking" interracial kiss wasn't because the characters loved each other, they were forced against their will. The shows aren't trying to shock you... they're telling some sci-fi stories that occasionally deliver some sort of message in a relatively "safe" way.
It's just... not the show some people want it to be.
EDIT
Missed this when responding.
Yes, agreed totally. They are wonderful and i'm happy they are on the show! They are perfectly done, and avoid the pitfall that seems all-too common when media tries to make gay characters by making them... "the gay character", with that becoming their primary, defining trait.
Stamets and Culber are complex characters in their own right. They... are also gay. That's great!
Its the sequel novels after the movie, in the Relaunch novelverse. His husband is either a Trill or a Bajoran (I cannot recall)
Last edited:
Beause you live in a world that always represents you. Imagine aliens living on Earth for years and expecting diverse representation in Earth media and we as humans saying that representation does not matter to us. Its a backhanded insult, since its not about the generic you.
Last edited:
Even if a bit more representation was done in the 90's, it would have been the "Gay Character" in that there "Gayness" would have been #1 on there definition, and not say Engineer.
Why I do Love the handling in Discovery, Stamets is an Engineer, who happens to be gay, same with Dr. Culber. Its portrayed as "Normal" in that its not portrayed as "Different" or Abnormal. You wouldn't have gotten that in the 90's, or even 00's.
Would have insisted that them being gay as there primary reason for being there. I wouldn't go so far as "Token" but it would be a sterotype portrayal.
Why I do Love the handling in Discovery, Stamets is an Engineer, who happens to be gay, same with Dr. Culber. Its portrayed as "Normal" in that its not portrayed as "Different" or Abnormal. You wouldn't have gotten that in the 90's, or even 00's.
Would have insisted that them being gay as there primary reason for being there. I wouldn't go so far as "Token" but it would be a sterotype portrayal.
IMO the Discovery team wrote the Stamet/Culber couple a lot better than the Adira/Gray couple. Or the former are better actors.
How do fans who are LGBTQ think?
If she had said something like, "Look, I'm straight, this is a little too much for me," I would totally agree with your reasoning. But she doesn't make it a personal matter. She speaks of all humanity. But bisexual people exist. Pansexual people exist. People who remained with their partners after the transition exist. So the reasoning of Dr. Crusher at least indicates that the writers have made quite a confusion between evolution and sexual orientation. Because if we took her words at face value, what would it mean? That the natural condition of human beings is heterosexuality and that the aforementioned bisexuals are mutants who for some reason have skipped the steps of human evolution?
Especially in the 90s, one issue of "Write what you know" is that the writers would probably have done more damage than not in not really knowing how to write LGBTQ properly. It would have been nothing but stereotypes, I think we've come a long way culturally since then and probably dodged a bullet, so to speak.
The thing is that I think you're latching onto something that I don't believe was the intent. You're seeing this as a strictly sexuality-based decision, which I don't believe it was. Crusher was already struggling when Odan had taken Riker as his host... there's a whole scene of her talking to Troi about it, trying to make sense of it all.
It really wasn't a situation of as long as Odan was a guy, everything was fine. It was much more the fact that Odan switched bodies, and ultimately switching into a female putting it over the top for her.
It IS very much a human issue to have trouble with that.
Although even if that WAS the only issue, her comment still stands... yes, other sexual identities exist, but the overwhelming majority of the population... by and large the natural condition of human beings... is heterosexuality. Even if that's the ONLY thing Crusher is talking about, she's still accurate.
I... strongly disagree about the use of the word "natural" in this context. And I think a lot of researchers who study the subject of human sexuality would agree with me.
A better word would be "typical", I think.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
