I'm either gonna end up in Trek canon or prison for this. Either way: let's do this.
News Trans character announced
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
- Status
Firstly you have to move to Utah.
That is some Grade A faulty logic.
Especially since I could flip it around and say the exact same thing about any labels you do or do not want ascribed to yourself.
But I won't do that, because unlike you apparently, I would never use a label for someone after being told they considered it personally hurtful to be addressed with.
And no, you don't get to just write off people considering a thing hurtful by calling them bigots and uninformed. Because you don't know them.
This should be moot given we're hundreds of years into the Federation's future, but In Doctor Bashir, I Presume? it was Starfleet that had a problem with Bashir's illegal genetic editing, not Earth... I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility that there is a federal ban on the practice. Member states might only differ in what they consider to be birth defects to be fixed by genetic re-sequencing. Bashir's childhood condition was basically described as low-functioning autism - the Federation didn't allow his parents to 'correct' that, and rightly so. Autism is not an illness, nor is it a birth defect. Being trans isn't either, so why should they allow it? Of course, there would be some desperate and misguided parents who would try to look for a 'cure' outside the Federation like the Bashirs did. But it wasn't presented as a widespread practice. One would think that in a positive future like Star Trek, the parents of a trans child would let their child decide for themselves.
Ah. Enterprise was before the Federation was founded.
What an odd thing to (temporarily) forget.
I had a stroke a few months ago.
Moving on...
And...
Vs...
Human law is enforceable on humans, Federation wide?
Every specieses law is enforceable on each particular species, Federation wide?
It's the same police force Federation wide.
Last edited:
"Cishet" simply means both cisgender and heterosexual. It's kinda a head-scratcher to me what a person would have to be worried about upon being outed as that sort of thing, unless it's because it reminds them that there are people who aren't that.
Full disclosure: I'm cishet and proud of it.
It all depends on what was in the Federation charter, really. Denobula wasn't among the founding members; if the Big Four banned it among themselves in 2161, possibly at Earth's recommendation, then Denobula and other prospective future members would be required to harmonize their legal systems with the standards set up in the Charter, not unlike how joining the European Union is supposed to work. Presumably, Denobula would need to enact a ban on genetic engineering, at least partially.
Granted, Bashir himself specifically talks about genetically engineered humans. But it needs to be enforced on a federal level in some way. After all, the Bashirs were forced to look for an illegal operation outside Federation jurisdiction. If this were only an Earth-only ban, they could've just gone to another Federation member where it was legal. And I still think the law itself needs to be Federation-wide, Bashir's wording aside. After all, if someone was prosecuted by Hungarian authorities for drug offences because they smoked weed in Amsterdam where it is legal, it would be a legal and diplomatic nightmare.
Cishets are to blame for everything wrong and oppressive in the world.
It's been their watch for the last 3000 years.
So lets blame any given cishet, just pair one off, maybe a celebrity, and blame him for the Teapot Dome Scandal, the objectification of women, slavery and the ecological ruin bought on by the internal combustion engine.
"Hey Shatner, you gave my nana black lung!"
...
It's not what you say, it's why you say it.
....
Or Captain Kirk is a Homophobe, carefully choosing his words to inflict maximum emotional damage on a minority for no logical reason.
Klingon Augment Plague.
An example not to follow.
Treaty with first Earth, would extend reparations in exchange for not decimating humanity, that later would become the burden of the Federation.
It is privilege. Folks who have historically found that tagging people is useful to us, mainly for reasons of controlling them by marking them, intuit that being labeled is done for the benefit of the labeler rather than the labeled and resent it.
When a marginalized group of folks starts insisting on being tagged in a particular way it's part of asserting autonomy - "we choose our own labels now."
Honestly I don't care much. I would check the box on a form if necessary, but otherwise wouldn't think of it, because I don't have to. I have the privilege of ignoring most categories that others sort me into. If I actively object to one, it's useful for me to ask what I'm afraid that the purpose of putting me in that box is.
Last edited:
So that is where this hand gesture comes from.
And when did cisgender/heterosexuals collectively decide that this is how they wished to be referred to by?
But once Denoblan and others were in the federation, they would of course be able to change the federation charter to suit their long standing culture.
Actually I would think that each federatrion member would enter the federation under a individually unique agreement, and not a one size fits all. Having hundreds of alien species be require to conform is silly. It's not like the federation members are one people, with one culture, or one set of laws.
Would it be necessary for Denobans to adopt Human restrictions on genetic malnipulation, no. Would Human have to allow genetic malnipulation just because the Denobulan do, no.
In the case of Bashir, I think Starfleet was observing Human requirements, and not starfleet or federation ones.
A label isn’t a slur and cishet isn’t harmful unless you find the idea of being inclusive of LGBTQ+ people is harmful, which would make you a bigot.
That's not how language evolves.
There was a vote. You didn’t get told because your current username was referring to yourself as a black trans woman at the time.
Sorry, A label, by another person, who doesn't want it is just being an ass. You want to be called a "insert pronoun" fine , You do you, have at it, I don't care,I'll call you whatever you want. But forcing a label on somebody who doens't want to play the woke pronoun game is crap.
I don't give a rats anus on who you are, what you do, what you call yourself , who you marry, or what you do in the privacy of your own home. Welcome to freedom. Just don't force some BS on me cuz I don't want any of it.. I have only a finite amount of time on this Earth and I want to waste as little as possible on useless crap.
Edit: Sorry for the rant.
Edit 2:
Brings to mind an interview with Morgan Freeman on Race in 2005. and seems good now on most woke crap.
WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?
FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?
I don't give a rats anus on who you are, what you do, what you call yourself , who you marry, or what you do in the privacy of your own home. Welcome to freedom. Just don't force some BS on me cuz I don't want any of it.. I have only a finite amount of time on this Earth and I want to waste as little as possible on useless crap.
Edit: Sorry for the rant.
Edit 2:
Brings to mind an interview with Morgan Freeman on Race in 2005. and seems good now on most woke crap.
WALLACE: How are we going to get rid of racism until …?
FREEMAN: Stop talking about it. I’m going to stop calling you a white man. And I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man. I know you as Mike Wallace. You know me as Morgan Freeman. You’re not going to say, “I know this white guy named Mike Wallace.” Hear what I’m saying?
Last edited:
I think the biggest fear of the label along with others like white privilege is that even though it's not a slur it's basically being used as something created in order to dismiss whatever opinion they might have about anything. I mean most labels on their own are really just descriptions but when people start seeing them as things that can bring or lesson value to people's opinions then they get worried. Especially when you grow up with the idea of strong individualism. I am pretty sure over half of the arguments on twitter and social media more or less evolve or de-evolve into basically two people saying the other person's views are wrong because they are-insert the label.
People don't know how to argue the message or idea anymore so they fall back way to much on just going after the person and trying to win that way. That's because if you can discredit the person you can discredit the idea. If their was more trust between the people I think you wouldn't be seeing this kind of conflict but now everyone has been told that anyone who thinks differently is basically the enemy so you pretty much get this new mindset that any label is going to play like a slur to people at this point for many people.
Jason
People don't know how to argue the message or idea anymore so they fall back way to much on just going after the person and trying to win that way. That's because if you can discredit the person you can discredit the idea. If their was more trust between the people I think you wouldn't be seeing this kind of conflict but now everyone has been told that anyone who thinks differently is basically the enemy so you pretty much get this new mindset that any label is going to play like a slur to people at this point for many people.
Jason
Do we really want the Federation to be a place where the government is not merely allowed but literally legally required to discriminate based upon race/species and allow a denobulan legal on-demand access to a service that a human in the exact same situation could be sentenced to prison for using? What if a Federation member decided that defaming its royalty was a capital offence no matter where you were? Should the Federation simply stand by if the security services of that member kidnap the offender so that they could stand trial or should Starfleet be legally required to hunt them down?
Legal harmonization does not and should not mean a verbatim adoption of a unified legal code. The Federation is not the Soviet Union and its puppet states. There are only certain legal standards that a member state is required to meet if they wish to join the Federation; we've already seen a few, like the need to have a centralized government that controls at least one entire planet. The way the Angosians treated their war veterans was enough ground for Picard not to recommend them for membership. And so on. There will be negotiations and individual terms for specific contentious issues like when the UK was allowed to keep its economic ties to the Commonwealth or when Sweden and Denmark weren't required to join the currency union. But there has to be an enforceable legal minimum, otherwise the Federation would be about as effective as the United Nations.
To be fair, there have been many cases of labels which initially were not intended as slurs initially which dropped out of polite lexicon. Many clinical terms for people with disabilities (dumb, lame, idiot, imbecile, moron, and more recently retarded) became associated with general insults, to the point that the original origins of the terms have been forgotten by most people. Then there's the category of antiquated racial terms like negro, mongoloid, oriental, etc which seem to have fallen out of use even though they weren't explicitly seen as racist by most. Or there's the complicated case of (American) Indian/Native American, where the latter seems to have been more or less imposed by well-meaning white people even though the community as a whole preferred the former appellation. Kind of similar to how Latinx is increasingly used even though 90%-95% of people of Hispanic ancestry don't use it personally (kind of odd we don't use Hispanic if we don't want a gendered term, because it's not actually a Spanish word and thus has no grammatical gender).
Over the course of my life, I've seen the term homosexual go from describing all people who have same-sex attraction to describing men in particular, to increasingly being frowned upon as being "too clinical." I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a somewhat taboo term by the time I'm an old man.
- Status
