The Outcast and the limits of metaphors

[Brennyren]

So people, Could it have been possible? Or in 1992 was it still too early to say, "You know, you shouldn't be mean to anyone who doesn't match your ideals of gender and sexuality"?

It wasn't too early, no. In 1971, All in the Family's bigoted Archie Bunker discovered an old buddy was gay. In 1977, Soap was the first American series to debut a gay regular character, Jodie Dallas, who later would consider gender reassignment. 1981's Dynasty featured a gay recurring character, Steven Colby, who eventually ended up in a stable relationship with another man. In 1992, thirtysomething showed two male characters in bed together. Those are just commercial-TV examples; PBS and cable had done much more by the time "The Outcast" aired.

Would TNG stating the pro-LGBT+ theme more explicitly have attracted controversy at the time? Probably; it was still early enough for that. But I'm not prepared to give the show credit for being progressive if it was so shy of controversy, especially considering that TNG was an established series by then, and in a position to take a few risks. More than two decades before, TOS, which had always been on much more precarious ground as far as ratings and popularity went, showed an interracial kiss and explicitly called out racism.

Hell, at the time Jonathan Frakes pointed out one way "The Outcast" could have been bolder, without even changing the script: cast male actors in the roles of Soren and the J'naii. That casting would have changed the entire tone of the episode. Imagine a male actor playing a character who demands that their female identity be acknowledged and respected. Now that would have been groundbreaking for the early 1990s! (And Frakes said yes, he would still have been fine with kissing Soren.)

 

[Oddish]

Let's try to remember that we're coming off a long and brilliantly executed campaign by the media to legitimize the gay community. This episode was 30 years ago, and the AIDS crisis was only a few years past. Same-sex marriage, the law of the land now, was something you only saw in a Loony Tunes rerun then (Elmer Fudd looked very fetching in that bride dress). Bottom line, homophobia was more powerful and prevalent then, and a lot scarier to challenge.

Regarding "The Outcast", I don't think we should look on it as a 1:1 analogy of anything. On this world, gender identity was a crime. In ours, it was expected. In our world, conversion therapy is snake oil. In theirs, it worked. But in both worlds, having a sexual or gender identity outside the "norm" subjected you to punishment. There, it was simple brainwashing. Here, it varied: family ostracism, expulsion from a community, and (in 13 states) jail time were all possible. Remember that this was a Star Trek episode, and it was allegorical. But I think that its intent was to teach tolerance of those who (like LGBT+ people) don't fit within certain norms. And I remember finding it very effective. As outraged as I am by the cruelty and injustice of the ending, and the horror of being brainwashed into condoning what you detested, to "love Big Brother"... I wouldn't change it. It makes its point too well.

 

[DonIago]

^Are you non-heteronormative?

I was in high school when the episode aired, and knew (or at least suspected that) I was non-heteronormative at the time, and if you feel the episode worked for you, then great, but for me and a lot of other people, it didn't make its point well at all.

 

[Brennyren]

Let's try to remember that we're coming off a long and brilliantly executed campaign by the media to legitimize the gay community. This episode was 30 years ago, and the AIDS crisis was only a few years past. Same-sex marriage, the law of the land now, was something you only saw in a Loony Tunes rerun then (Elmer Fudd looked very fetching in that bride dress). Bottom line, homophobia was more powerful and prevalent then, and a lot scarier to challenge.

I remember the era very well. I was an adult then, and I had gay friends and loved ones, and yes, the level of homophobia was scary. But I said it before and I'll say it again: you get no points for courage if you don't actually stand up. Other series did so; I gave a few examples above. TNG did not.

TNG did not show a single gay character in its entire run. There were no scenes in which background extras of the same gender could be seen holding hands. They did not mention gay or otherwise non-cishet people -- no, not even in this episode. (Yes, I know Hawk of the First Contact film is supposedly gay, but this was never established on screen.) What they did do in this episode was weaksauce allegory that conflated gender and sexuality, and invoked an embarrassing number of gender stereotypes.

I'll give Jeri Taylor credit for trying (though, as noted above, maybe a straight female writer wasn't the best choice), and I'll give the actors (especially Frakes) credit for wanting the episode to be better. That's as much as I can say.

 

[Oddish]

All of which speaks to Berman's homophobia. He projected his own prejudices onto the audience.

Or possibly, the man just didn't like taking risks. Dragon slaying is a risky business. And homophobia was a big scary dragon.

Hell, at the time Jonathan Frakes pointed out one way "The Outcast" could have been bolder, without even changing the script: cast male actors in the roles of Soren and the J'naii.

Very true. But I think the overall message might have gotten lost if people were focused on the male-on-male kissing.

^Are you non-heteronormative?

I'm basically aromatic and gray-sexual, but I think both are the consequences of my acceptance, over 30 years ago, that no woman would ever have me. Discovering that I was autistic ten years later at least helped me understand why, but my hardened and cynical attitude toward romance remains. I identify cis-het, because I think that I would have been, given the opportunity.

Be that as it may, I think that the heteronormative were the targets of the message. And yes, you're right, it was imperfect. The message that the condition could be "fixed" was especially worrisome, especially because some people at the time actually believed it. But Soren's message at the end, saying that she liked who she was and didn't need "fixing" showed that the show's heart was in the right place.

 

[DonIago]

I'm not sure I especially care whether a show's heart was in the right place if it ultimately delivers a weak and possibly even harmful message, and ultimately tilts further into the idea that there's no place for people like me in that world. Good intentions only go so far.

 

[Skipper]

Did TNG ever try to be controversial? Just High Ground comes to my mind and I'm not sure that saying "What some call 'Terrorists"' someone else might call 'Revolutionaries'" was a so ground-breaking concept in the 1990s...

 

[Brennyren]

Did TNG ever try to be controversial?

Well, I was told that "The Child" was pro-choice, in that once Troi decided to carry her mystery kid to term no one questioned her decision. (Though pro-choice where the choice was to give birth wasn't particularly controversial, as I recall.) I likewise remember hearing that "Up the Long Ladder" was pro-choice, in that Riker and Pulaski's right to terminate their unwanted clones was upheld, but considering what a mess that episode was generally, I can't say that point jumped out at me.

Other than those two and "High Ground," I can't think of anything.

 

[Guy Gardener]

It wasn't too early, no. In 1971, All in the Family's bigoted Archie Bunker discovered an old buddy was gay. In 1977, Soap was the first American series to debut a gay regular character, Jodie Dallas, who later would consider gender reassignment. 1981's Dynasty featured a gay recurring character, Steven Colby, who eventually ended up in a stable relationship with another man. In 1992, thirtysomething showed two male characters in bed together. Those are just commercial-TV examples; PBS and cable had done much more by the time "The Outcast" aired.

Would TNG stating the pro-LGBT+ theme more explicitly have attracted controversy at the time? Probably; it was still early enough for that. But I'm not prepared to give the show credit for being progressive if it was so shy of controversy, especially considering that TNG was an established series by then, and in a position to take a few risks. More than two decades before, TOS, which had always been on much more precarious ground as far as ratings and popularity went, showed an interracial kiss and explicitly called out racism.

Hell, at the time Jonathan Frakes pointed out one way "The Outcast" could have been bolder, without even changing the script: cast male actors in the roles of Soren and the J'naii. That casting would have changed the entire tone of the episode. Imagine a male actor playing a character who demands that their female identity be acknowledged and respected. Now that would have been groundbreaking for the early 1990s! (And Frakes said yes, he would still have been fine with kissing Soren.)

You're right, but TNG aired as first run syndication.

There wasn't one almighty network to approve or disapprove or to consult as the episode is made, about what is permissible. They had to present a finished product to hundreds(?) of rinky dink mom and pop local tv networks and then there was a fair chance that half of them would refuse to air the episode, if it was pushing the envelope.

 

[Skipper]

Well, I was told that "The Child" was pro-choice, in that once Troi decided to carry her mystery kid to term no one questioned her decision. (Though pro-choice where the choice was to give birth wasn't particularly controversial, as I recall.) I likewise remember hearing that "Up the Long Ladder" was pro-choice, in that Riker and Pulaski's right to terminate their unwanted clones was upheld, but considering what a mess that episode was generally, I can't say that point jumped out at me.

Other than those two and "High Ground," I can't think of anything.

It doesn't help that these two episodes are almost unanimously considered bad ones

 

[Oddish]

I'm not sure I especially care whether a show's heart was in the right place if it ultimately delivers a weak and possibly even harmful message, and ultimately tilts further into the idea that there's no place for people like me in that world. Good intentions only go so far.

I can understand the "weak" part, and even "harmful", because it implies that conversion therapy was effective. But I can't understand the "no place in the world" part. The smarmy and paternalistic attitude of the people who passed sentence on Soren made me sick.

 

[Maurice]

The AIDS crisis was far from over when "The Outcast" aired. Star Trek of any stripe has rarely been ahead of the curve on anything truly controversial. Heck, Paramount made the very gay show Brothers before TNG and sold it first to Showtime and then into syndication. But Trek was a cash cow by that era and they played it safe compared to some other shows.

 

[at Quark's]

But talking to a friend, he made me notice that, absurdly, the message of the episode could also be interpreted in another way. A right-wing extremist might say that alien planet society is a wet dream of woke/sjws people where sexes no longer exist, everyone is not-binary, and anyone who dares to claim that there is a rightful division between males and females is persecuted.

I could imagine it being interpreted that way today, by some conservative viewers that have fears the 'wokes' will completely take over. But I doubt that interpretation would have been in easy reach 30 years ago, when it aired.

 

[Trekker09]

Limited as it was, this episode probably paved the way for DS9 to show woman-woman intimacy – Dax kissing her former spouse, and mirror Kira kissing Ezri – as well as Garak’s attraction to Bashir. To me those examples make it even stranger that 7 years of VOY didn’t include a single gay moment; nor did ENT, if I recall. At least in DISC they clearly took a stance.

 

[Skipper]

Dax kissing her former spouse, and mirror Kira kissing Ezri – as well as Garak’s attraction to Bashir.

The first two examples don't really matter: hot women kissing hot women is not revolutionary, it is indulging the male gaze.

The last one was just in the eyes of the viewers, like all the Janeway-Seven thing.

 

[Oddish]

could imagine it being interpreted that way today, by some conservative viewers that have fears the 'wokes' will completely take over. But I doubt that interpretation would have been in easy reach 30 years ago, when it aired.

It wouldn't. The only time a person was genderless was when their mom was pregnant with them, before sonograms and amniocentesis were a thing. Once the OB/GYN pulled you out and looked at your naughties, you were either a boy or a girl from then on.

 

[Skipper]

I could imagine it being interpreted that way today, by some conservative viewers that have fears the 'wokes' will completely take over. But I doubt that interpretation would have been in easy reach 30 years ago, when it aired.

My friend wasn't really serious, it was more an example explaining the limits of metaphors

 

[Oddish]

The last one was just in the eyes of the viewers, like all the Janeway-Seven thing.

And in the eyes of Andy Robinson. He deliberately played Garak as having a romantic interest in Bashir. And that's actually strangely relevant. Gay people get crushes like everyone else, but they have the added difficulty that most people they crush on simply aren't interested because they're heterosexual.

Both Robinson and Alexander Siddig were on board with the concept, enough so that they actually did an online project with several other DS9 actors, featuring a later encounter between Bashir and Garak. I think it's on Mr. Siddig's YouTube channel.

 

[Trekker09]

The first two examples don't really matter: hot women kissing hot women is not revolutionary, it is indulging the male gaze.

Okay, but from the point of view of a straight woman who’s always been sympathetic to gays, those were a first for Star Trek-- recognizing and affirming one kind of homosexuality at least.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Limited as it was, this episode probably paved the way for DS9 to show woman-woman intimacy – Dax kissing her former spouse, and mirror Kira kissing Ezri – as well as Garak’s attraction to Bashir. To me those examples make it even stranger that 7 years of VOY didn’t include a single gay moment; nor did ENT, if I recall. At least in DISC they clearly took a stance.

Andrew decided that Garak liked Bashir.

Someone eventually had a word with Andrew and told him that that fruity shit was not welcome on the set.

Flesh and Bone was almost gay.

The doctor switched bodies/gender and still wanted to bang Megan Gallagher.

It's possible that writers didn't know what they were doing, or the writers were sneaking it past the producers?

Kes who had switched bodies/gender had a threesome in Warlord with a man and a woman.

1940s, a woman in a man's suit. Gayer than a handbag full of rainbows.

Cogenitor was the gay episode of Enterprise, but it's also more subtle than the threesome with a third gender... Archer in a bathysphere for three days with G'kar. They totally gave up on clothing, and snuggled.

There is an argument that T'Pol's husband Koss is gay, which is why he doesn't want fidelity from T'Pol. That and his "fuck me" eyes when ever Archer is around.

Phlox has two wives who have two more husbands who have two more wives who have two more husbands who have two more wives... Extended family reunions are probably group sex bonanzas.