• 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.
The Federation is like the US in that the worlds are like States, they do whatever they want themselves in running there world. The federation is like a "Weak" federal government model as in there in charge of the "Big Picture" items. I believe the "Prime Directive" also works on member worlds as in, the federation can't interfere on domestic issues, unless called upon.
as for the Augment question, I believe that it as Earth policy, and is subject to all Earthers. Other aliens, your mileage may vary.
 
WHATLEY: Not sorry enough to return my comm. signals. All three of them. That could get an officer in a lot of trouble. Look, Ben, I need to know that I can count on you. Now, Bajor's admission is only the beginning. Now comes the hard part. Federation council members have to be chosen, the Bajoran militia has to be absorbed into Starfleet. There are thousands of details that have to be overseen and you're our point man here. That means we need to depend on you more than ever.

All police on all worlds are Starfleet security.
 
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.
It’s a bit hard to have a slur for the majority of the population who hold all of the power in society especially against a group that still faces oppression from governments, religious groups, and other structures. It honestly comes off as whining over not being able to call yourself “normal” and continue to other that minority group.
 
I believe the "Prime Directive" also works on member worlds as in,
The Prime Directive is only a Starfleet regulation, no one else in the Federation is required to adhere to it, as per TNG Angel One. Though those gray-jumpsuited civilian explorers we see throughout TNG apparently follow it as well.
All police on all worlds are Starfleet security.
Well, in the 24th century, anyway. The 23rd century Earth did still have civilian law enforcement, as per Trek XI.
 
Those Bajorans who would have joined Starfleet, provincial as they were would have been shipped all over the galaxy.

I'm sure we would have been mass resignations confronted with being ripped from their families.
 
Those Bajorans who would have joined Starfleet, provincial as they were would have been shipped all over the galaxy.

I'm sure we would have been mass resignations confronted with being ripped from their families.

Or they might have struck a deal where they are just stationed on DS9 or any Starfleet faculties on the planet. But only for current members. Future Bajorans of course would have to go the Academy and be subjected to transfers to wherever those higher up wish.

Jason
 
Those Bajorans who would have joined Starfleet, provincial as they were would have been shipped all over the galaxy.

I'm sure we would have been mass resignations confronted with being ripped from their families.
Maybe not. On Lower Decks we've seen at least three Bajorans serving on the Cerritos.
 
It’s a bit hard to have a slur for the majority of the population who hold all of the power in society especially against a group that still faces oppression from governments, religious groups, and other structures. It honestly comes off as whining over not being able to call yourself “normal” and continue to other that minority group.
Well its like saying a Person of color can't be raycist against a white person, thats Bs..
If a person doesn't want to be called "X" and you keep on calling them that, then to them that is a Slur, its like calling a Trans Man a woman, after they say hey, call me a guy, I'm a guy now. And to keep on calling said person something they don't like is being a Jackass.
Golden Rule, Do on to others, and by contrast, Don't do on to others stuff that you Don't want done to you.

“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” MLK.
 
It’s a bit hard to have a slur for the majority of the population who hold all of the power in society especially against a group that still faces oppression from governments, religious groups, and other structures. It honestly comes off as whining over not being able to call yourself “normal” and continue to other that minority group.

I don't think it's hard to have a slur for the majority of the population at all. Few people would argue that the historic use of the term cracker to describe white people by black Americans was a slur, for example. Or, to give a more contemporary case, calling an entitled older middle-class white woman a "Karen" is absolutely meant as an insult. I've known poly people who use "mog" as a derisive term for monogamous people, even though that comprises the vast majority of the population.

That isn't to say I see cisgender as being a slur in the slightest. And an insulting term used by a minority against the majority doesn't hold the same sting of course. But to say that insulting terms don't exist for the "norm" in society is pretty far beyond the pale.
 
When we are talking in the context of transgender issues, we can't do it without defining a term with which to refer to those who aren't trans. The discussion isn't focused on them. Why should we force trans people to use words like "normal" and "vanilla" to describe the majority group (and as a result, make themselves feel abnormal and unnatural) in a discussion about transgender issues simply because some people in that majority group don't like to hear the scientific term for their own gender identity?
 
I remember there was a kid at my junior high (middle school to you Americans) who actually had to spend science class sitting out in the hallway because his ultra religious parents didn't want him exposed to that particular form of blasphemy.
 
I don't think it's hard to have a slur for the majority of the population at all. Few people would argue that the historic use of the term cracker to describe white people by black Americans was a slur, for example. Or, to give a more contemporary case, calling an entitled older middle-class white woman a "Karen" is absolutely meant as an insult.

Yeah, and calling someone "Karen" is intended to be hurtful. It's tagging someone with a mocking stereotype. It's also remarkably childish in its hypocrisy. "Cis" and "cishet" aren't loaded or hurtful in conception.

Now of course in current dialogue it isn't just a question of whether a term is intended as a slur, or not. Intent may matter, but folks use a lot of hurtful terms for others in ignorance of the fact that they're hurtful or why. And we do live in a culture where the feeling aroused in an individual by an action is often understood to trump* the intent or content of the action as it might be seen by a non-participant who's not invested in the context.

Trying to apply the same rules to everyone is nice as "playground justice, " but at the end of the day, what matters most is the extent to which the person being labeled is vulnerable or can really be hurt by the thing they're objecting to. Being called a "cracker" never carries much threat with it, does it? Why should you care?

*God, we're going to need a new word, aren't we? Fuck him.
 
Last edited:
When we are talking in the context of transgender issues, we can't do it without defining a term with which to refer to those who aren't trans. The discussion isn't focused on them. Why should we force trans people to use words like "normal" and "vanilla" to describe the majority group (and as a result, make themselves feel abnormal and unnatural) in a discussion about transgender issues simply because some people in that majority group don't like to hear the scientific term for their own gender identity?

Thinking about it, no one is really insulted about being called heterosexual (though a lot probably prefer the slang term straight - arguably because it's less clinical). Maybe part of the the issue is that cisgender is such a new term?

I do think there's something that strikes me a bit wrong about using "cishet" as a conjunction/slang term (as opposed to using heterosexual or cisgender individually), because it implies that this class of people share certain commonalities which they may not. I suppose it's the flipside of the endless expansion of LGBTQ+, which can include intersex, asexual, enby, two-spirit, etc, which leaves cishet whatever's left over once all the interesting bits are taken out. What does an ace person, for example, actually have in common with someone who is LGBTQ? In all areas of life except perhaps the expectation that others have of dating/sexual contact, they can present as heterosexual and cisgender (though they don't have to).

Really though, everyone is somewhere on the spectrum when it comes to gender identity and sexuality, even if it's minimal for a lot of heterosexual and cisgender people, so I don't think this sort of metaphorical "circling the wagons" really helps with understanding. We should be tearing down the boundaries of gender and sexuality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top