News Star Trek: Discovery Nominated for GLAAD Award

[NCC-73515]

While also making it clear that if people are determined to pursue conversion therapy, it works.

The people most willing to send others into conversion therapy aren't the ones who are concerned about how backward and inhuman their actions might look, because to them being non-heterosexual is worse, and if the end result is that the converted now identify as heterosexual, then mission accomplished.

The people who would send others into conversion therapy are the people who think it would be better if the gays "went away" or perhaps "I wish they could all be put on an island...and then the island nuked."

Do these sound like people concerned about how backward or inhumane they sound?

Advanced technology of that era that can wipe memory and implant Romulan remote-control into people's brains can certainly alter personalities as well. That doesn't make it ethical or justified (think Kurn, Geordi...)

Of course the villains aren't concerned about being evil. Has that ever happened? Did they ever have to be?

I know what it is, but that isn't the point. It's a terrible message and it's harmful because of what happens to the character. She's just a plot point, existing only to suffer. I saw this as a child and I'm a trans woman, although I didn't really understand that at the time. It's complicated. So I was just utterly confused as to what I was going through. I saw this a character who seemed to be going through something similar at least to what I felt, but it ends like that. It makes you feel worthless. I don't think you're taking into account how it might actually affect viewers.

Yeah, if that episode was anything to go by humanity is purely hetereosexual with two genders with defined roles. Which is laughably outdated now.

They could have easily added a line about how humans used to persecute other humans who were considered different, but they've evolved beyond that and humanity celebrates it's variety.

So Riker opposing a cruel culture is a terrible message? And that speech is very much the point of the whole episode. She exists not only to suffer, to show how cruel these people are and how the victims are effected, but to speak for her group and expose what happens to them. I find it quite odd to see her as "just a plot point". There is a lot of dialog with her and Riker, she doesn't just have a minor victim role.

Sure, the apparent hetero-cis-normativity is as outdated now as Pike's "woman on the bridge" and Lester's "women can't be captains" is.

It would be interesting to check earlier script versions, maybe it got lost in rewrites.

 

[DonIago]

I'm glad Trek got over trying to bury LGBTQ people as allegory and focused on them as people. They've never managed to make it work until Culber and Stamets, I hope it's more like this going forward.

I could even accept "The Outcast" as a decent 'well, they tried...' episode if they at least made it clear that homosexuality was alive and well within humanity in the 24th century with a throwaway line and had the conversion therapy fail.

 

[DonIago]

Advanced technology of that era that can wipe memory and implant Romulan remote-control into people's brains can certainly alter personalities as well. That doesn't make it ethical or justified (think Kurn, Geordi...)

Of course the villains aren't concerned about being evil. Has that ever happened? Did they ever have to be?



So Riker opposing a cruel culture is a terrible message? And that speech is very much the point of the whole episode. She exists not only to suffer, to show how cruel these people are and how the victims are effected, but to speak for her group and expose what happens to them. I find it quite odd to see her as "just a plot point". There is a lot of dialog with her and Riker, she doesn't just have a minor victim role.

Sure, the apparent hetero-cis-normativity is as outdated now as Pike's "woman on the bridge" and Lester's "women can't be captains" is.

It would be interesting to check earlier script versions, maybe it got lost in rewrites.

What's more important to the audience who has the most to learn from this sort of episode?
That the character they're unsympathetic with to begin with made an impressive speech (that they probably dismissed out of hand anyway, since after all the character is 'confused')
OR
That the therapy she was forced to undergo, willingly or otherwise, cured her?

I'm pretty sure that audience was a lot more interested in the second part. And, again, they don't care how villainous it may look, because to them they're doing the right thing for the person who doesn't know what's best for themselves.

"It's killing me to send you to conversion therapy, but I know in my heart that it's what God wants and what is best for you, and in the end you'll thank me for having cured you."

 

[NCC-73515]

I'm glad Trek got over trying to bury LGBTQ people as allegory and focused on them as people. They've never managed to make it work until Culber and Stamets, I hope it's more like this going forward.

Dax first thought that Ferengi who's attracted to Quark is a guy, and that was no issue.
The Bolian in Field of Fire had a co-husband or something like that.
When Dax and her former lover got back together, the problem was reviving a previous host's relationship, not that they were in female hosts.

Actually the Ferengi are a good example of our discussion as well: To address sexism, the Ferengi were portrayed as incredibly sexist and backwards for quite a while. Ishka's feminism was strongly opposed by other Ferengi, including her son, but gradually spread further over several episodes until the Nagus himself became more tolerant. In those initial episodes, the Ferengi were the bad backwards sexist guys, their oppression worked, and that didn't mean at all that they were right.

 

[NCC-73515]

What's more important to the audience who has the most to learn from this sort of episode?
That the character they're unsympathetic with to begin with made an impressive speech (that they probably dismissed out of hand anyway, since after all the character is 'confused')
OR
That the therapy she was forced to undergo, willingly or otherwise, cured her?

I'm pretty sure that audience was a lot more interested in the second part. And, again, they don't care how villainous it may look, because to them they're doing the right thing for the person who doesn't know what's best for themselves.

"It's killing me to send you to conversion therapy, but I know in my heart that it's what God wants and what is best for you, and in the end you'll thank me for having cured you."

Maybe you find her "unsympathetic", or think she was "confused". I just strongly disagree

Would a less realistic, less cruel approach not have softened the story too much? If their brain alterations hadn't done anything, they wouldn't have been so bad after all, and people would still be left as they were anyway. But the very point that they did destroy who she was made them much more evil and made her loss much worse. But we can end the circle, I guess we just interpret the episode and its intentions very differently.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Advanced technology of that era that can wipe memory and implant Romulan remote-control into people's brains can certainly alter personalities as well. That doesn't make it ethical or justified (think Kurn, Geordi...)

Of course the villains aren't concerned about being evil. Has that ever happened? Did they ever have to be?



So Riker opposing a cruel culture is a terrible message? And that speech is very much the point of the whole episode. She exists not only to suffer, to show how cruel these people are and how the victims are effected, but to speak for her group and expose what happens to them. I find it quite odd to see her as "just a plot point". There is a lot of dialog with her and Riker, she doesn't just have a minor victim role.

Sure, the apparent hetero-cis-normativity is as outdated now as Pike's "woman on the bridge" and Lester's "women can't be captains" is.

It would be interesting to check earlier script versions, maybe it got lost in rewrites.

Try to understand that it may affect other people differently, especially when they see themselves or are meant to as this episode failed to do. Media for a while could only tell LGBTQ stories if they ended in tragedy in order to get an emotional response out of cishet people who were seemingly incapable of doing it for real people until a movie or show taught them to. Imagine that's all you see, people like you dying, suffering, tortured or whatever. You never see a single positive story where they end up happy and doing what they want to do. Since you'll never understand that, I assure you that it does affect you and how you see yourself and it's for the worse. I'm glad you got a good message out of it, but it's a terrible message to LGBTQ people and I honestly don't know of a single one who is a Trek fan who likes this episode. That should really tell you something.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Maybe you find her "unsympathetic", or think she was "confused". I just strongly disagree

Would a less realistic, less cruel approach not have softened the story too much? If their brain alterations hadn't done anything, they wouldn't have been so bad after all, and people would still be left as they were anyway. But the very point that they did destroy who she was made them much more evil and made her loss much worse. But we can end the circle, I guess we just interpret the episode and its intentions very differently.

Why did it have to be framed around how her society was cruel and destroyed her instead of her being free for the first time and begin working to change things for the better on her planet with other people like her?

 

[NCC-73515]

Try to understand that it may affect other people differently, especially when they see themselves or are meant to as this episode failed to do. Media for a while could only tell LGBTQ stories if they ended in tragedy in order to get an emotional response out of cishet people who were seemingly incapable of doing it for real people until a movie or show taught them to. Imagine that's all you see, people like you dying, suffering, tortured or whatever. You never see a single positive story where they end up happy and doing what they want to do. Since you'll never understand that, I assure you that it does affect you and how you see yourself and it's for the worse. I'm glad you got a good message out of it, but it's a terrible message to LGBTQ people and I honestly don't know of a single one who is a Trek fan who likes this episode. That should really tell you something.

Tom Hanks' character died in Philadelphia, but won the case. It was a great film, also in terms of LGBTQ representation.
The future Earth having no issue with people like us was a good message and not a terrible one. Enhancement by contrast. Her speech was the highlight of the episode for me, and her bitter end only reinforced the injustice of it all.

Then I am the first you get to know. Perhaps that can also tell you something.

Why did it have to be framed around how her society was cruel and destroyed her instead of her being free for the first time and begin working to change things for the better on her planet with other people like her?

It didn't have to be, but made it all the more tragic, highlighting the injustice of how these people, representing us, are treated. Removing the threat could have made her struggle, which is our struggle, less realistic, less impactful, and less relevant. If fiction wants to address real issues, it shouldn't hide what makes them issues, and shouldn't shy away from their inherent darkness. Imagine an anti-slavery film without cruel slave-owners. Even Trek's famous interracial kiss was actually in the context of them being forced into kissing, in a pretty bad episode, which is kinda disturbing in itself, but the point was that they kissed. That doesn't mean that the episode was great, cause it wasn't at all! Still people remember the kiss, and it was considered quite progressive at the time.

 

[Takeru]

Dax first thought that Ferengi who's attracted to Quark is a guy, and that was no issue.

Yes but then they quickly make the reveal she's actually a woman.

The Bolian in Field of Fire had a co-husband or something like that.

Which doesn't say anything about his sexuality, they were intentionally vague about when they didn't have to be, they could habe said he had a husband but intentionally chose not to.

When Dax and her former lover got back together, the problem was reviving a previous host's relationship, not that they were in female hosts.

At least we got a kiss between two women out of that one but the relationship was still a straight relationship in the past and in the present it was the slugs who were attracted to each other, not really the women.

The problem is that before Discovery Star Trek NEVER had an actual LGBTQ character, we had a handful of allegories and some "they could be if you want them to" maybes and that is pathetic! TOS gets a pass because it was the 60s but by 1987 many shows have had them (I posted some earlier in the thread). Even in 2016 Beyond still cut Sulu's marriage and only showed a glimpse of another guy who many people interpreted as his brother.

 

[DonIago]

To be fair, I've not heard anything think that Sulu's partner was his brother; is there a source for that?

Any points that DS9 gained from "Rejoined" it unfortunately squandered when it consistently suggested that gay people were exclusive to the Mirror Universe.

I was glad when ISB acknowledged in What We Left Behind ...and later to my face (and in writing on a signed poster) that the show should have done better.

 

[NCC-73515]

Which doesn't say anything about his sexuality, they were intentionally vague about when they didn't have to be, they could habe said he had a husband but intentionally chose not to.

:

In the German version, they took it out completely, and gave him only co-wives :/

 

[Awesome Possum]

Tom Hanks' character died in Philadelphia, but won the case. It was a great film, also in terms of LGBTQ representation.
The future Earth having no issue with people like us was a good message and not a terrible one. Enhancement by contrast. Her speech was the highlight of the episode for me, and her bitter end only reinforced the injustice of it all.

Another example where the character dies. You don't have to kill your character in order to have a good message and story. Thankfully media is starting to shy away from this and hopefully we can leave it in the past as a mistake.

And Trek had no issues, but also not a single LGBTQ person until Discovery. It would be like Trek being against racism and never hiring a single person of color to play a character of color until 2017. Then someone tries to claim an episode they slapped some purple paint on a white guy as a positive portrayal of a person of color because it was about racism, as if racism is the single thing that defines the life of every person of color.

Then I am the first you get to know. Perhaps that can also tell you something.

What, that you've never seen decent representation in your life?

It didn't have to be, but made it all the more tragic, highlighting the injustice of how these people, representing us, are treated. Removing the threat could have made her struggle, which is our struggle, less realistic, less impactful, and less relevant. If fiction wants to address real issues, it shouldn't hide what makes them issues, and shouldn't shy away from their inherent darkness. Imagine an anti-slavery film without cruel slave-owners. Even Trek's famous interracial kiss was actually in the context of them being forced into kissing, in a pretty bad episode, which is kinda disturbing in itself, but the point was that they kissed. That doesn't mean that the episode was great, cause it wasn't at all! Still people remember the kiss, and it was considered quite progressive at the time.

Once again, as I've tried to explain multiple times, I don't have an issue with the injustice. It's that it's the only way they could tell a story about a LGBTQ person. They couldn't even hint at the idea of a LGBTQ person being happy and open, couldn't take her to a crewmember who was gay.

 

[NCC-73515]

What, that you've never seen decent representation in your life?

That generalizations based only on personal experience can be inaccurate

 

[Awesome Possum]

And you continue to ignore the point I was trying to make, I'll just assume that's intentional.

 

[NCC-73515]

And you continue to ignore the point I was trying to make, I'll just assume that's intentional.

I've explained my POV compared to yours in every way I can think of, with examples, with my reasons. There's nothing else for me to add right now. Do you want anything specific answered in more detail? What do you assume is my intention, then?

 

[Awesome Possum]

To be fair, I've not heard anything think that Sulu's partner was his brother; is there a source for that?

Any points that DS9 gained from "Rejoined" it unfortunately squandered when it consistently suggested that gay people were exclusive to the Mirror Universe.

I was glad when ISB acknowledged in What We Left Behind ...and later to my face (and in writing on a signed poster) that the show should have done better.

I remember it happening here, but it was from the same sort of people who don't want any gay people to show up at all.

 

[Vger23]

I am pleased with this.

I am not the greatest judge of these things, as a cis-gendered, white, straight, Christian, married, male (wow...talk about privilege hahaaha), but I am learning as best I can.

That said, I find the Culber / Stamets relationship to be one I'm personally proud is on Star Trek because it seems to be (at least from my perspective) a thoughtful, sensitive, and responsible portrayal of an LGBTQ couple in a realistic, loving, flawed relationship....just like any other couple who loves each other would experience.

 

[Awesome Possum]

They're really one of the more realistic couples on Trek.

 

[Vger23]

They're really one of the more realistic couples on Trek.

I think they're top in that category....although admittedly that is not a particularly high bar.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I get that the point of it is cruelty, but that was sort of the “positive” portrayal of LGBTQ people at the time. They were objects of pity with short tragic lives. Which may engender sympathy in cishet people, but is just another reminder for LGBTQ people that it’s your fate to be miserable and suffer. That you can be “fixed” if you give up everything you know about yourself, that the core element of your identity is an illness. When you’re still in the closet or very young and trying to figure out who you really are this can be traumatic.

I'm sorry, Possum, but sometimes life has sad outcomes, even for LGBT people. Not every story can have (or should have) a happy ending, and the luck of the draw happened with this story and with the story about older people being forced to commit voluntary suicide (Half A Life). A great example of of an unhappy ending comes from two episodes of this classic 1960's TV show (the former about a prostitute and her child,* the latter about a hard-hitting muckraking newspaper about to be acquired by a larger media company, with the kind of socially conscious journalism it does sure to be neutered by the new owners-check out what's said here about media ownership, which is a concern now.) I find it amazing that after people complained about how Star Trek (particularly The Next Generation) has its characters always lecturing other races on how to be good and always having happy outcomes due to said speeches, is now upset because the expected ending to an episode isn't a happy one.

Spoiler: *Originally, the story was to have a different outcome...

* but the show's star vetoed that.