• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News Trans character announced

Status
Not open for further replies.
Extrocomp said:
Novels count because they are officially licensed Star Trek stories. Canon is a dumb concept used by those Star Trek fans who want a small Star Trek universe instead of a big one.
Click to expand...

This post is ridiculously wrong.

The term Canon refers to those things that are sacrosanct with regards to telling stories in a given shared universe, and, for Star Trek, the Canon consists only of what is depicted onscreen.

In other words, an author telling a non-televised or non-filmic story in the Star Trek universe must be beholden to onscreen details (unless their story is specifically intended to be an alternate universe tale), but a writer telling a Star Trek story for television or film is not required to acknowledge anything that may have happened in a particular novel, comic, or video game and can actively and expressly contradict such things.
 
Specifically speaking on the subject of canon: I literally don't care about it if it means the creator is making something they think is interesting. Stories don't hurt people just because some details somewhere get ignored for the sake of a story an author really wants to tell.

Anyway, yeah, nobody gives a shit about the novels including a throwaway line, we care about the mass-reaching web series produced by a massive media conglomerate being used purely for our messages.
 
Serveaux said:
You can believe that as long as you're not going to be bothered when the owners and creators of the IP throw those "officially licensed stories" away in presenting new ones.
Click to expand...
It doesn't because the novels and comics don't actually disappear once they've been contradicted. They still happened, just in a different universe.
DigificWriter said:
This post is ridiculously wrong.

The term Canon refers to those things that are sacrosanct with regards to telling stories in a given shared universe, and, for Star Trek, the Canon consists only of what is depicted onscreen.

In other words, an author telling a non-televised or non-filmic story in the Star Trek universe must be beholden to onscreen details (unless their story is specifically intended to be an alternate universe tale), but a writer telling a Star Trek story for television or film is not required to acknowledge anything that may have happened in a particular novel, comic, or video game and can actively and expressly contradict such things.
Click to expand...
Canon isn't that clear cut. Diane Duane's novels and comics gave McCoy the middle name Edward, even though he was previously established to have the middle initial H in live-action Trek, which according to your definition of canon shouldn't happen.

There are also numerous instances where canon proved to be not "sacrosact" by being contradicted in later episodes. Leslie and Galloway dying, but being alive in later episodes; the Klingons joining the Federation, but then being merely allies of the Federation; the USS Yamato's spoken registry number and written registry number being different in different episodes; Yeoman Colt being human in TOS and a red-skinned alien in DSC.

There are also instances where live-action Trek has used information that originally appeared in the novels. Sulu's first name; Uhura's first name; Number One's real name and the names of Kirk's parents.

And it's not clear how far canon extends. Does TAS count as canon? It was televised but not live-action. Do the cutscenes from Star Trek: Starfleet Academy and Star Trek: Klingon Academy count as canon? They were live-action but not televised. When James Swallow was writing the novel Sight Unseen, he was required by CBS to use the name "Solanae" for the solanagen-based aliens because it was previously used in Star Trek Online. This effectively means that the name is canon despite never appearing in live-action or televised Star Trek.

Other franchises have shown that canon can change over time. The Star Wars Expanded Universe used to be canon but isn't anymore. The latest Halloween and Terminator movies ignore the numerous sequels that came before and present themselves as the 'true' sequels. The Doctor Who universe never had any kind of canon policy and is doing just fine.

Finally, you shouldn't let some corporation's idea of canon determine what counts and what doesn't. My personal canon includes not only the majority of Star Trek fiction but everything that is connected to it by crossovers. If some people don't want to read the novels, then it's their loss.
 
Canon sucks and should be blown out an airlock. Fans happily figured out how to explain away the holes in the story/universe long before canon was used to sell these things.
 
JulieYBM said:
Some people are just very dumb and think bi people are faking it or 'undecided'. No sweetie, sometimes I want to date Inoue Masahiro or Kubota Yuuki and other days I want to date Mizuki Nana. :p Sometimes it happens all in one day!

It's very insulting, especially when other queer people want to try and define your sexuality for you. I know bi people often have a hard time being accepted by gay people or outright get dumped when their attraction to other genders is revealed.
Click to expand...
No matter what the gender of the bi person most people assume you will end up with a man.
Bi girls are just experimenting or being alternative and will someday get bored of it and settle down with a man.
Bi men are just gay men and afraid to admit it to themselves and will some day settle down with a man.

These are not my opinions just stuff I hear alot. I also fell sorry for any out bi man because the insinuation is always that they are unfaithful on women due to a craving of penis
 
The concept of Canon is meaningless and irrelevant to anyone other than the creators of a given property (as it says in my signature).

Tie-in novels or comics being required to be adherent to Canon doesn't mean that contradictions don't occur or that there aren't changes made to what the Canon is based on something that was done in a novel or comic.

The official stated position on Star Trek Canon is that only what is shown onscreen matters, even if what is shown onscreen isn't entirely consistent with itself, and that an effort must be made to stay as consistent with what has been shown onscreen as possible when working outside of onscreen Trek as a medium.

Also, the "Star Wars EU used to be Canon" argument doesn't hold weight when you actually look at the way pre-Disney Lucasfilm Canon was structured with its 'tiered system'. The idea of 'everything being Canon' with regards to the old Star Wars EU was nothing more than a marketing ploy because, in reality, the only things that actually mattered, in the end, were the Prequel and Original Trilogy films and select television series.

Everything else was malleable and could be embraced or discarded by George Lucas - the ultimate arbiter of the Canon - on a whim.
 
Extrocomp said:
It doesn't because the novels and comics don't actually disappear once they've been contradicted. They still happened, just in a different universe.
Click to expand...
None of it ever happened, in any universe. It's made-up.
... If some people don't want to read the novels, then it's their loss.
Click to expand...

Most people. Most people who've ever watched Star Trek. That's true for almost all tie-in fiction to any book or movie property.

BillJ said:
Canon sucks and should be blown out an airlock. Fans happily figured out how to explain away the holes in the story/universe long before canon was used to sell these things.
Click to expand...

Canon serves the necessity for keeping any long-running narrative distinct in its major features. It matters a great deal to franchises, from the point of view of the IP owners, although I don't imagine they use the term "canon" nearly as frequently as fans do.
 
TimeIsAPredator said:
No matter what the gender of the bi person most people assume you will end up with a man.
Bi girls are just experimenting or being alternative and will someday get bored of it and settle down with a man.
Bi men are just gay men and afraid to admit it to themselves and will some day settle down with a man.
Click to expand...
No. Not that this doesn't happen, but it's not the absolute you're making it sound like.
 
Lord Garth said:
"Just stuff I hear a lot" sounds like a cover in the same vein as "Asking for a friend". If that's not the case, then I apologize.
Click to expand...
No it really is an issue I hear quite a bit from friends and was meant with sincerity.
It's a complaint I hear often from Bi girls whose parents are waiting for them to grow out of it and have also been approached by women concerned that their boyfriends might be bi which will eventually "lead them to cheat or eventually realize they are full gay" and I know quite a few bi guys who will never come out because they believe that a straight woman will never trust them
 
One need do little more than hop onto Reddit to see stories of bisexual people who have been told that they're not really bi and are just gay people in denial. This sentiment comes from both heterosexual people and homosexual people. I can only imagine how tough it is for cisbi men. Many are my friends are cisbi men and it sucks to see them not receive representation in media. Where are the stories of widowers finding comfort in surprise romantic one another? Of high school boys who get together on a whim and wind up enjoying it?

Too often media pats itself on the back for having a gay character but acting like they have Solved Bigotry?
 
With the Shatner thing the way I see it is that it doesn't matter so much whether or not Shatner is cis-male or not but more about if he doesn't want to be called that I feel that it's only common courtesy to at least respect his wishes when talking to him. What people say about others in private of course is outside of anybody's control but we can at least address people in they way they prefer in individual dealings. I suspect most of the criticism he is complaining about has been over some of his Republican beliefs and people went with the cis-male label as a means of trying to criticize him but that's not going to really go over well lots of the time because your not going after the opinions so much as saying those opinions have no value because of a label.

To me this is always a bad way to call something out because you basically saying somebody's views have no value do to identity where as I always feel it's better to try and go after the logic of a argument. If you want to say a tax increase on the rich for example is good and someone doesn't agree you don't have to say the person arguing for it only feels that way because he is a rich white male. The better argument is to basically point out that you need that money to help fund schools and roads or social security or balance the budget. That the rich receive all sorts of benefits from these things along with the issue of them simply not going to be missing the money because of just how rich they are. Never go to personal in a argument and how people identify and see themselves is very personal.


Jason
 
If Shatner is not cis then he's either non-binary or trans. All cisgender means is 'not transgender'. 'Cis' is not a slur, it cannot be used to oppressed cisgender people because they are not a marginalized people. Transgender and non-binary people are marginalized. When I get called a tranny, fairy or faggot by a cis person (whom I have not given a 'tranny pass' to, like I might a lover) I know they are doing it out of a place of hatred, ignorance and to keep me down.
 
Awesome Possum said:
Generally the people who think cis is a slur also think trans is a slur.
Click to expand...

Yup. Like, hoooooooooo boy, cis people really do be out here trying to imply trans people are mentally ill gremlins. Meanwhile, they're always trying to sleep with us and then after they do they fall back on their homophobia and transphobia to murder us. It's infuriating.
 
Last edited:
JulieYBM said:
If Shatner is not cis then he's either non-binary or trans. All cisgender means is 'not transgender'. 'Cis' is not a slur, it cannot be used to oppressed cisgender people because they are not a marginalized people. Transgender and non-binary people are marginalized. When I get called a tranny, fairy or faggot by a cis person (whom I have not given a 'tranny pass' to, like I might a lover) I know they are doing it out of a place of hatred, ignorance and to keep me down.
Click to expand...

I know that but do have doubts about Shatner knowing all of that . Also I think his man argument is that when people use the label on him it's being used to discredit whatever opinion he has as opposed to simply describing his gender. Like lots of people on social media. I think he has likely been triggered by engaging in some not so great debates over issues. Social Media is not exactly the best place for those kinds of discussions because frankly people just suck on Twitter when engaging debate. To many cliches, going after the person instead of opinion and then their is always a troll who comes in to stir up the pot. It's one of the reasons I never use Twitter. Everyone seems more pissed off than intellectual curious about things. Then that gives way to frustration and sadness. Frankly the Shat Man should get off it because he likely is becoming more unhinged and he was already someone with a huge ego to begin with. It's not going to end well if he doesn't get some perspective.


Jason
 
Jayson1 said:
I know that but do have doubts about Shatner knowing all of that . Also I think his man argument is that when people use the label on him it's being used to discredit whatever opinion he has as opposed to simply describing his gender. Like lots of people on social media. I think he has likely been triggered by engaging in some not so great debates over issues. Social Media is not exactly the best place for those kinds of discussions because frankly people just suck on Twitter when engaging debate. To many cliches, going after the person instead of opinion and then their is always a troll who comes in to stir up the pot. It's one of the reasons I never use Twitter. Everyone seems more pissed off than intellectual curious about things. Then that gives way to frustration and sadness. Frankly the Shat Man should get off it because he likely is becoming more unhinged and he was already someone with a huge ego to begin with. It's not going to end well if he doesn't get some perspective.


Jason
Click to expand...

The 89 year old millionaire can be expected to Google search the meaning of 'cisgender'. He's a big boy.

Also, yeah, cis people are not the bastions of knowledge they think they are when it comes to gender. Shatner doesn't know what he is talking about and is worse yet refusing to back down and actually research trans issues. I deal with this all the time because my parents are Boomers and they think they actually get to have an opinion on my being transgender. It's fucking ridiculous infantalizing of transgender and non-binary people, people that have to spend years constantly thinking about their gender. Meanwhile, cisgender people never have to give their gender a second thought, let alone a first.
 
For quite a lot of people why would normally never engage in or think about trans issues the only time they ever hear the word cis is when used in heated arguments online and the word can sometimes sound like it is being used similar to the way rightwingers use "woke" or SJW and most often used when making a negative statement regarding the attitudes or actions of cis people. Its one of those words like many recently that has become politicised beyond its scientific meaning.
Im cis but would never use the word to describe myself as Im not a fan of it but god its so rare I ever need to define myself by my gender or orientation that its really easy to get past it if I am called cis by someone and I dont believe for a second anyone who is crying about being called cis isnt doing it with a malicious agenda against trans people like the stupid argument against trans access to toilets
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Qonundrum
Run Amok to get there in Time
Replies
7
Views
1K
Denise
D
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top