The fact that they aren't EVER mentioned should be your first clue.
Transsexuals in Star Trek
- Thread starter Lord Garth
- Start date
- Status
The fact that they aren't EVER mentioned should be your first clue.
Medical advances in Trek are so far ahead of us, as well as social progress, that I could easily imagine Trans people being so well integrated, and their transition so complete, that there's no reason it would ever come up. A main character could've transitioned as a teen and we'd never know and it wouldn't be an issue anyone would be bothered by.
The novels are quite a bit better with LGBT diversity. There are many prominent gay/bi characters as well as non cishet aliens, such as the Andorians, and Burgoyne in New Frontier who is dual-gendered and whose sexuality includes men and women. I don't recall any actual Trans people in the books. You could even argue that the trans gene is identified in fetuses and they get pre natal gender reassignment. If McCoy can give someone a pill to grow a new organ in minutes, why not? I am disapointed the new movies haven't had even a token inclusion.
The novels are quite a bit better with LGBT diversity. There are many prominent gay/bi characters as well as non cishet aliens, such as the Andorians, and Burgoyne in New Frontier who is dual-gendered and whose sexuality includes men and women. I don't recall any actual Trans people in the books. You could even argue that the trans gene is identified in fetuses and they get pre natal gender reassignment. If McCoy can give someone a pill to grow a new organ in minutes, why not? I am disapointed the new movies haven't had even a token inclusion.
That's the problem though. It's one thing to be talking about alien sexuality that people aren't really concerned about take The Cogenitor (ENT) with a society otherwise highly evolved strangely oppressing one of its three genders. When people watch this episode I am sure they are not at all concerned by it beyond the fictional drama because it's hard to relate to that sort of thing. But do they ever mention in passing that one of the members of the crew is gay or bi? A big fat NO on that one and yet it wouldn't be hard to do. Just a casual remark like phlox does now and then. When he asks trip if two straight crewmen that were about to have sex would agree to let him watch. I mean, they have no problem saying this CRAP and yet a single remark about two gay people is beyond their possibilities. Oh come on!!!
yes, the fact that it would be so easy to do and yet they haven't is an indication that such an omission is probably deliberate. Of course they can include lesbians in the mirror-verse for titillation purposes.
That's just evidence of how the present-day creators of the shows choose to tell their stories. There's no need to project their biases onto the characters in-universe. I mean, Gene Roddenberry and a lot of TOS's writers had attitudes that were grossly male-chauvinist by today's standards, but generally these days we just ignore those aspects and assume that the 23rd-century Federation is not as sexist as the people who portrayed it onscreen. The same goes here. As borgboy said, those of us who write Trek novels have never taken the shows' omission of LGBT people as something that needs to be codified as an in-universe fact, but have instead used the tie-ins as an opportunity to fill in that outstanding gap and show that the Federation is indeed inclusive of alternative sexualities.
I agree with you kirkfan that they could and should have had gay characters. Enterprise especially gets flak from me about that, because they were the newest series and some of their main characters were pretty poorly developed anyways. By that time gay characters were popping up in mainstream tv regularly anyways.
And that's what stinks about "real life", and is much more appealing about Star Trek.
Happily, around here at least, there's no pressure to "acknowledge" anybody's sexual orientation. Oh, there's always the obligatory "shrieking faggot" or two who actually desire acknowledgement, and giving it is a delight all around.
But I'd challenge you to spend, oh, a month or a year in my social circles and dig out the various perverts and freaks among my fondest friends. I might even give you a decade to make it fair. "Acknowledgement" isn't something you would run into.Xctly. This LGBTXYZ craze is a bit akin to writing Trek stories where the heroes are all hot and bothered about dark matter or telomeres or, god forbid, chaos theory. Why should 23rd or 24th century people be the slightest bit impressed by the hot topics of the 20th or early 21st century? It's ancient and barbaric history for them, something their children's books might mention offhand the way ours may refer to Galileo Galilei or serfdom.
Timo Saloniemi
Exactly, and that's why ENT didn't have any excuses for not including... at least one example! Just as a "one step for man, one giant leap for ST franchise" kind of thing...
A
Amaris
Guest
And that's what stinks about "real life", and is much more appealing about Star Trek.
Happily, around here at least, there's no pressure to "acknowledge" anybody's sexual orientation. Oh, there's always the obligatory "shrieking faggot" or two who actually desire acknowledgement, and giving it is a delight all around.
Xctly. This LGBTXYZ craze is a bit akin to writing Trek stories where the heroes are all hot and bothered about dark matter or telomeres or, god forbid, chaos theory. Why should 23rd or 24th century people be the slightest bit impressed by the hot topics of the 20th or early 21st century? It's ancient and barbaric history for them, something their children's books might mention offhand the way ours may refer to Galileo Galilei or serfdom.
Timo Saloniemi
What in the tuna fucking hell, Timo? Shrieking f*ggot? LGBTXYZ craze?
Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Neither the shrieking faggots in question, nor the crazy LGBTXYZ folks I know, would take any offense. But many really, really annoying people with no business taking offense nevertheless do - and I sort of consider it my duty as a citizen to make them feel as offended about it as possible. 
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Neither the shrieking faggots in question, nor the crazy LGBTXYZ folks I know, would take any offense. But many really, really annoying people with no business taking offense nevertheless do - and I sort of consider it my duty as a citizen to make them feel as offended about it as possible.
Timo Saloniemi
This is most likely NOT the best course of action.
Well, it's also the course of action chosen by a certain element of the LB-whachamacallem "community" - to the extreme frustration and disgust of the rest of them...
This has been discussed above already. Some want to be identified as sexually X or Y - that's even the whole point of being X or Y for them. Sometimes X is even deliberately "deviant" or "perverse" or otherwise offensive, literally for the heck of it. Some don't. There's no way to further the cause of such a diverse lot by pretending that the cause even exists. But I see no reason to oppose those who want to make a lot of noise, positive or negative, about themselves. Or those who don't want to. It's their business. It's those whose business it very clearly is not that I'd like to show the business end of a phaser to. (On stun, of course.
)
Timo Saloniemi
This has been discussed above already. Some want to be identified as sexually X or Y - that's even the whole point of being X or Y for them. Sometimes X is even deliberately "deviant" or "perverse" or otherwise offensive, literally for the heck of it. Some don't. There's no way to further the cause of such a diverse lot by pretending that the cause even exists. But I see no reason to oppose those who want to make a lot of noise, positive or negative, about themselves. Or those who don't want to. It's their business. It's those whose business it very clearly is not that I'd like to show the business end of a phaser to. (On stun, of course.
)Timo Saloniemi
Skipping all the noise, in my opinion, there is no reason to use a derogatory or offensive term to describe another person, even if that person chooses to use it to describe themselves.
Oh, now that is utterly disgusting. Shame on you! Trying to tell somebody he can't call himself what he wants is not much short of applying a baseball bat on him for what he is. And not respecting him even as much as agreeing with his choice of desgination... Ugh.
Did you think these parades are called "Prides" because the participants are ashamed of themselves?
Timo Saloniemi
Did you think these parades are called "Prides" because the participants are ashamed of themselves?
Timo Saloniemi
Please re-read the post. I was clearly referring to my choice of words. I will not use a derogatory or offensive term to describe another person, even if that person chooses to use that term to describe themselves.
There is never any good reason to do so. We should treat other people's sexual orientation as respectfully as we hope they will treat ours. I for one have no problem doing that since I have friends that are as diverse as they come in that respect. And that means that even if some random person would disparage my way of life I couldn't even think of returning the compliment without attacking one of my friends as well.
I don't agree, Timo. Hateful speech needs to become extinct, and I won't propagate it any further. That attitude doesn't make me special, in fact it should be the default position for a decent human being.
I am gay and I'd rather not have to read homophobic slurs on this board even if it's meant with humor or whatever's going on here. If nothing else the homophobic language has derailed the conversation so that we're talking about the use of homophobic language instead of the conversation at hand.
But the speech is "hateful" basically solely because people like you define it as such. Clearly, people self-applying such terminology feel differently about it - but they can't change the world if people like you put up such a stiff resistance.
In time, the need for "terminology" overall might well disappear, and people could be people (save for those who specifically wish to stand out, that is). Perhaps it has already happened by the time of Star Trek's fictional future, explaining the lack of "terminology" there. But that won't happen as long as taboos are so mightily enforced.
Edit: aimed at Jedi Master this was.
Timo Saloniemi
In time, the need for "terminology" overall might well disappear, and people could be people (save for those who specifically wish to stand out, that is). Perhaps it has already happened by the time of Star Trek's fictional future, explaining the lack of "terminology" there. But that won't happen as long as taboos are so mightily enforced.
Edit: aimed at Jedi Master this was.
Timo Saloniemi
- Status
Similar threads
