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

[Damian]

Looking back at the era we were in during the Berman era, I think part of it, honestly, was that there just wasn't a huge push back then for gay/lesbian TV in general. Until maybe the very end of his era I just don't recall much, if any, great calls to include more homosexual characters and stories in TV shows. Again, I'm not saying there was absolutely none. But it probably didn't factor into many people's top 10 lists of things they'd like to see more of in TV shows at the time. If it had been, I do believe Star Trek probably would have incorporated it more. Star Trek of the 1990s was much more money driven then it was during the 1960s.

Maybe Star Trek could have been at the forefront. We can look back and say it wouldn't have cost them anything in viewership and maybe it might have won them some accolades. We'll never know for sure. But they didn't. We're all looking for some reason they didn't. From Berman was a homophobe, to risk averse show runners, to Roddenberry's actual intent.

But the more I read about it, the more sources I see, the more I really start to think that they just didn't consider it to any great degree. Berman indicated it was thought about but just never seemed organic. But it really sounds more like they just didn't consider it a priority, if they gave it any real thought at all. And I tend to believe his statement for the most part. He could have easily blamed fears the studio would veto the idea or have him tarred and feathered. But he didn't. He made it clear the decision was theirs and they didn't pursue it.

But I don't see a lot of 'homosexuality' is a bad thing in Star Trek during its history either. You could argue they weren't sensitive enough about the issue and made some decisions that could be questionable. The line at the end of "The Host" is nebulous (honestly, I always took it to mean that sexual orientation was still important to humans and they can't just go from one sex to the other in relationships, and not that homosexuality itself was an issue). I think they did that to shock the audience, I know I was surprised to see a woman walk in--I honestly hadn't considered that. But it may have been done that way also to keep Beverly on the ship. I mean, if a man came in, she probably would have run off with him and she'd be gone from the show. So it was a convenient way to keep her on the Enterprise. Sometimes it's the simple answer that's the right answer, and in this case that may very well have been why they had a woman be the new host. But I digress.

But at the end of the day we can't change history. The simple fact is Star Trek didn't take up the mantle until the Kurtzman ere really. And I'm starting to believe more and more the reason why it wasn't addressed in the Berman era wasn't due to any outright hostility or animosity. But that it really just didn't occur to them to cover to any great extent at the time. And that's not just Berman. I haven't seen really any of the showrunners talk about wanting more homosexual characters in the shows while they were working on it.

 

[Damian]

Thanks. I combined two scenes in my head. Been a while since I've watched the episode.

Don't feel bad. The only reason I remember is I just happened to watch that episode about 3 or 4 weeks ago LOL. I'm currently rewatching TNG and just finished up that season a week or so ago.

 

[evilchumlee]

And I'm starting to believe more and more the reason why it wasn't addressed in the Berman era wasn't due to any outright hostility or animosity. But that it really just didn't occur to them to cover to any great extent at the time. And that's not just Berman. I haven't seen really any of the showrunners talk about wanting more homosexual characters in the shows while they were working on it.

This is the answer, by and large.

We tend to have an odd view of history in 2024, where we tend to judge works created in a different time by 2024 standards and project 2024 sensibilities on the creators.

Was Berman potentially kind homophobic? Sure? Were alot of people in the 80's/90's homophobic. Yes and no. Yes by today's standards 100%, not necessarily by their contemporary standards. I've been around long enough to remember some of that time. I used to pretty liberally call things/people "gay" as an insult, and really had no issue dropping the "F-bomb", something I wouldn't even CONSIDER for any reason today. And I can say with honestly wasn't because I actually any animosity towards gay people... I didn't actually care if two people of the same sex were attracted to each other. Calling things "gay" was kind of disconnected from "homosexuality" in my head. If I said "that's so gay", I was insulting someone... but I wasn't actually saying "that is something I associate with homosexuals in a negative way", it was just.. "gay". I no longer do this... times and attitudes change.

The point of that being that "LGBT" wasn't even a THING at the time, just "gay" (to the masses anyway), and it wasn't something that most people thought about at all. Hell, in 2024 I spent VERY little time thinking about LGBT things, generally only when it comes up on the internet or something. I just... don't care? In the most respectful possible way. I don't care what someone's sexual orientation is. That generally extends to media now as well.

Back in the day, someone like Berman wasn't thinking about gay people. It might come up once in awhile, and get an answer like "Uh sure, maybe we can do that" and then immediately gets forgotten. It just really wasn't important to the vast majority back then.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

With all the demand for gay-themed TREK characters, I found the negative reactions for BLOOD AND FIRE highly illogical.

 

[Damian]

We tend to have an odd view of history in 2024, where we tend to judge works created in a different time by 2024 standards and project 2024 sensibilities on the creators.

And I think we need to be careful about that. Not really on this thread, just in general. I think here we seem to be having an honest discussion about whether Star Trek of the past was homophobic, or if it was just generaly apathy, disinterest. I haven't seen anyone here suggest people should stop watching older Star Trek because it was homophobic or anything like that.

But there are some that suggest basically some older films/shows should be boycotted or outright be made not available because they don't conform to today's standards. I love Hitchcock and 007 movies. But I know some of what they present wouldn't pass muster if made today (or at least parts of some of those movies). But I'm aware of that as I watch those and can still enjoy those movies and know they are a product of their time. I get very concerned about any suggestion or perception of censorship (outside defamation/ yelling fire in a crowded theater sort of thing). It's ok if someone chooses not to watch something because it offends or make them uncomfortable. That is their right. And it's even ok to tell people why it bothers them. But I don't ever want someone to be able to tell someone else what they can or cannot watch. After all, who's to say there are things we do today that might bother people 20 years from now. We wouldn't want to be erased or ignored. Use that as a way to have honest discussions instead, like we are doing here.

 

[evilchumlee]

With all the demand for gay-themed TREK characters, I found the negative reactions for BLOOD AND FIRE highly illogical.

This is where perspectives come into play.

Is there actually a huge demand for gay-themes characters in Trek?

Or is there a huge demand within certain circles who have a particular interest in gay-themed characters?

There's an important distinction... and I feel like it's very much the second option. In my non-LGBT circles, there is very little to no discussion of wanting gay Trek characters, and some who actively do not want them. Generally ranges from "complete apathy" to "we don't need that".

I haven't seen anyone here suggest people should stop watching older Star Trek because it was homophobic or anything like that.

But there are some that suggest basically some older films/shows should be boycotted or outright be made not available because they don't conform to today's standards.

This. 100%. And there ARE things that have become harder to obtain... like an episode of "Community" where a character playing a D&D campaign had painted himself black to represent a Dark Elf... removed for "blackface".

It's ridiculous. If it offends you, don't watch it. It's that simple.

We wouldn't want to be erased or ignored. Use that as a way to have honest discussions instead, like we are doing here.

And it's very appreciated. It's ok to want something, or not want something, or to be offended by something.

It gets less ok to say "I'm offended by this, so NOBODY gets to have it." Sounds an awful lot like bigotry to me. "Believe what I believe and don't be different from me or you're wrong and bad."

EDIT -

I do want to take a moment to reiterate that the civil discussion is appreciated. I haven't always had such pleasant discussions elsewhere. This topic can get outright hostile, and I understand why, but that doesn't really help anything. I know some of my stances aren't received particularly well by the LGBT community, but I believe i've been respectful. It's ok to have disagreements.

 

[Oddish]

In the latter part of the Berman era, the prevalent Trek shows (ENT and VOY) fell far short of their potential in a number of ways... it could be argued that this was just one of those shortcomings.

 

[Skipper]

Another point that fits into the, er, context (despite Roddenberry having rather liberal habits on the subject) is that the characters usually follow the sexual morality of the American 1950s. Usually they are totally flabbergasted by any custom that deviate only a little from the exclusive heterosexual monogamous relationship. I remember in Stigma, an episode where Archer explains that human beings have overcome discrimination and learned to embrace diversity, Tucker was completely incapable of understanding Denobulans' polyamorous relationships and panicked by Phlox's wife's advances, as if anything other than monogamy wasn't even remotely conceivable.

I'm not the most uninhibited person on the planet, but if someone in an open relationship asked me to sleep with them I would simply say "no thanks", I wouldn't look around in a panic saying "WHAT IS HAPPENING!?!? !"

 

[Jayson1]

Star Trek has never been great at exploring issues though it has lots of great quotes that resonate with fans. "We are killers but we're not going to not kill today, Leave your bigotry in your quarters, it won't be tolerated on my bridge, and so forth. The reason people look at as being progressive and forward thinking is because or starters it's a future that is not a dystopia. Society didn't destroy itself.

But also because the characters and people get along with each without some of the more petty reasons why people hate and fight with each other in the modern day times. Especially with TNG. The show might not have all the answers to our problems but it makes people feel good when they watch it. It's about being positive and creating good feelings more than about trying to make you think. Which is kind of smart because the more realistic you explore a issue the more cynical you have to be. While this might make for better tv it doesn't always make for better Star Trek because i's appeal is a little different from some of your more routine tv shows you will watch.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek was what it was. Warts and all.

 

[evilchumlee]

The reason people look at as being progressive and forward thinking is because or starters it's a future that is not a dystopia. Society didn't destroy itself.

This.

BUT ALSO, Trek *HAS* always been "progressive" and forward thinking... however it's a been bit closer to "center progressive" than like a reactionary left.

Star Trek has a sort of progressivism where tolerance is universal, but that doesn't mean you agree with, understand, or personally accept some things. Phlox might be polyamarous and that's perfectly acceptable and nobody would tell him he can't be. It's *ALSO* ok for Tripp to be weirded out by it.

Tolerance is not a one way street. True tolerance is being tolerant of Phlox's polyamory, and ALSO tolerant of Tripp's aversion to it. It's actually only a problem when one of them tries to assert their view on the other; Tripp tries to force Phlox out of it, Phlox tries to force Tripp into it.

Trek has actually reached what I think is the ideal level of tolerance. It's not a one sided tolerance where one must fall lock-step in and fully 100% support everything about -insert topic- They just have to respect the right of those people. It's almost that never-actually-true idea in America of "I don't agree with it, but I support your right to it".

It's somewhere I think we go wrong in the real world. I think it actually hurts "the cause" to take something like LGBT issues, since that's what the thread is about, and take a stance of you need to actively support this, rather than you need to accept this. Those are two very different things. Trek has tended to fall into the latter, which is a good thing.

EDIT -

Here's an example of what I mean in real world talk, and what is probably a more controversial take of mine. I can show an example of "True Tolerance" when it comes to pronouns.

True tolerance with pronouns is that one can self-identify as any pronoun they wish, and nobody can tell them they can't. ALSO others are under no obligation to participate with them. They also have the right to choose to use that pronoun or not. Neither opinion is superior to the other, both have equal rights.

It becomes intolerant when one side disallows something, be it someone who doesn't want to use the preferred pronoun attempts to disallow the usage, OR it becomes it intolerant when the person with the preferred pronoun is forcing another to abide by their opinion.

In real world terms, sometimes I feel like we are growing more intolerant in our zeal to enforce tolerance.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Of minor note, a TrekBBS thread on gay representation in Star Trek from 2001. We've come a long way.

 

[Skipper]

Of minor note, a TrekBBS thread on gay representation in Star Trek from 2001. We've come a long way.

I love the last message

Guys, this is getting too large. I'm going to close it. (we usually close at 100). We can start a new one if folks want, but it looks like this is a good place to stop.

 

[Michael]

It's actually only a problem when one of them tries to assert their view on the other

… or when one of them is actively working to introduce legislature that curtails the rights of a group, makes it easier to discriminate against them, stoking public hatred and fear about them or is just changing the world so that the group doesn’t exist anymore. Then we definitely can’t be tolerant of that. To be tolerant of that, out of a desire to reach an ideal of “true tolerance”, would simply be foolish.

Here's an example of what I mean in real world talk, and what is probably a more controversial take of mine. I can show an example of "True Tolerance" when it comes to pronouns.

True tolerance with pronouns is that one can self-identify as any pronoun they wish, and nobody can tell them they can't. ALSO others are under no obligation to participate with them. They also have the right to choose to use that pronoun or not. Neither opinion is superior to the other, both have equal rights.

It becomes intolerant when one side disallows something, be it someone who doesn't want to use the preferred pronoun attempts to disallow the usage, OR it becomes it intolerant when the person with the preferred pronoun is forcing another to abide by their opinion.

In real world terms, sometimes I feel like we are growing more intolerant in our zeal to enforce tolerance.

You’re speaking of “forcing another to abide by their preferred pronouns”, which is certainly nothing I ever observed in the real world. “Preferred pronouns” are just that, the pronouns someone prefers. It’s certainly impolite to not respect someone enough as to refer to them the way they are telling you they like to be referred to. (And I admit, in most cases where people are arguing they should be able to do so, I wonder why it’s so damn important to them to not simply respect someone’s wishes, especially considering how easy it is to do.) But beyond being told it’s impolite or ignorant or uncool, I have never personally observed how someone is “forced” to use a specific pronoun. How would that even work? People can be impolite and will have to live with the consequences, of course. Like if, for example, you misbehave in a restaurant; should they be tolerant of your misbehavior or should they be able to ask you to leave? But that’s not “forcing you to behave”. That’s just asking you to be a decent human being.

 

[1001001]

How fucking hard is it to call someone by their preferred pronouns?

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

When Adira told Stamets they preferred “they” as a pronoun, Stamets just continued on without skipping a beat. No big deal.

I know that’s post ‘09, but still it’s right there for everyone to see.

It’s so easy.

 

[BillJ]

Of minor note, a TrekBBS thread on gay representation in Star Trek from 2001. We've come a long way.

I'm glad my much younger self steered clear of that particular minefield.

Though the thread itself shows it was a very different time.

How fucking hard is it to call someone by their preferred pronouns?

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

When Adira told Stamets they preferred “they” as a pronoun, Stamets just continued on without skipping a beat. No big deal.

It is and it isn't. Humans are varied, and what might be easy for you might not be easy for someone else. I still trip over using "Ma'am" and "Sir" from time to time when thanking someone for something.

 

[UssGlenn]

True tolerance with pronouns is that one can self-identify as any pronoun they wish, and nobody can tell them they can't. ALSO others are under no obligation to participate with them. They also have the right to choose to use that pronoun or not. Neither opinion is superior to the other, both have equal rights.

I have to say there is a certain grammatical logic to this approach, since pronouns were "invented" for the convenience of everyone else, and thus the job of selection of appropriate pronouns falls to the other person. Even when speaking of yourself in the third person you usually use your actual name.

But beyond being told it’s impolite or ignorant or uncool, I have never personally observed how someone is “forced” to use a specific pronoun. How would that even work?

Some of the "thought police" rulings coming out of the UK seem to be trending this way, but I don't know if it's gotten to that point yet. Surely someone has been fired over it by now, somewhere.

It is and it isn't. Humans are varied, and what might be easy for you might not be easy for someone else. I still trip over using "Ma'am" and "Sir" from time to time when thanking someone for something.

That reminds me, everyone is concerned about putting subjective and objective pronouns in their signatures, but no one thinks to list their preferred honorifics. How do you start a formal letter to someone with they/them pronowns? There is no avenue to ask for clarification.

 

[Captain Jollydark]

You’re speaking of “forcing another to abide by their preferred pronouns”, which is certainly nothing I ever observed in the real world. “Preferred pronouns” are just that, the pronouns someone prefers. It’s certainly impolite to not respect someone enough as to refer to them the way they are telling you they like to be referred to. (And I admit, in most cases where people are arguing they should be able to do so, I wonder why it’s so damn important to them to not simply respect someone’s wishes, especially considering how easy it is to do.) But beyond being told it’s impolite or ignorant or uncool, I have never personally observed how someone is “forced” to use a specific pronoun. How would that even work?

Just this. Stamets handled it exactly right.

It's not "equal rights" to refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns. Using someone's preferred pronouns doesn't impede your rights to free speech. Using a person's preferred pronouns is a matter of civility. It's just polite.

I do understand that some people assert their preferred pronouns in confrontational ways (believe me) and it can make a simple mistake into a bigger deal than it needs to be, but refusing to even try on the principle of "free speech" just seems like an excuse to be impolite. It's mean-spirited. You'd have to go out of your way to make a point of not using a person's preferred pronouns, wouldn't you?

Or you could just talk to the person. Preferred pronouns rarely come up in a discussion about best episodes or favorite ships.

My oldest grandchild prefers they/them. I often forget and misspeak, but I do try and someday I won't have to think before I talk about them and it will come as naturally as the he/hims and she/hers of my other grandkids. (Or whatever they decide in the process of growing into who they want to be.)

 

[1001001]

It is and it isn't. Humans are varied, and what might be easy for you might not be easy for someone else. I still trip over using "Ma'am" and "Sir" from time to time when thanking someone for something.

Oh, sure. People make mistakes with no ill intention. I get that.

That’s a very different argument than “I have the right not to call someone by their preferred pronoun.” That’s deliberately being cruel to a person who is already vulnerable and/or marginalized.

Not down with that.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I have a trans friend. They went away for six months and came back he. I misgendered them once, and thankfully never to them but when speaking to a mutual friend.

I worked with someone for a few months, and months later they came back as an NB. This one I struggled with, and when speaking to a coworker and friend about it prior to them returning, I was told "you do realise you called them 'she' six times just now, right?"

I improved at least. Enby's I struggle with but I try. And doing so doesn't hurt even a tiny bit.