Transsexuals in Star Trek

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

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.

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.

Yes I believe the omission is deliberate. Gays in Trek was an issue regularly discussed, by the time we got to ENT discussed ad nauseum.

 

[borgboy]

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.

Timo Saloniemi

As a gay man it can be exhausting to have to sort thru the meaning behind the use of slurs, when it's intended as an attack or when it's ironic. I don't think there's anything friendly about referring to someone as a "shrieking f@##$%". That kind of language at the very least feels pretty unfriendly.
I don't think using homophobic slurs is the way to eradicate prejudice. It would be pretty nice if we could instead just try treating people with equality, courtesy and kindness. It couldn't hurt to try anyways.

 

[Tim Walker]

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.

I quite agree.

 

[Tim Walker]

I recall when nanotechnology was a hot topic. One concept was the cell repair machine. In effect, microscopic robots injected into the human body to effect repairs.

The simplest application mentioned was selective destruction, such as of pathogens or cancer cells.

More complex repairs included: 1. Reaching into a cell to repair DNA 2. Herding cells from place to place.

One suggestion was that repair could become so good that the body could be rejuvenated. A technological fountain of youth.

I recall another suggestion-that such could become sophisticated enough to change the sex of your body.

 

[kirkfan]

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.

Timo Saloniemi

As a gay man it can be exhausting to have to sort thru the meaning behind the use of slurs, when it's intended as an attack or when it's ironic. I don't think there's anything friendly about referring to someone as a "shrieking f@##$%". That kind of language at the very least feels pretty unfriendly.
I don't think using homophobic slurs is the way to eradicate prejudice. It would be pretty nice if we could instead just try treating people with equality, courtesy and kindness. It couldn't hurt to try anyways.

I am all for that.

 

[kirkfan]

I recall when nanotechnology was a hot topic. One concept was the cell repair machine. In effect, microscopic robots injected into the human body to effect repairs.

The simplest application mentioned was selective destruction, such as of pathogens or cancer cells.

More complex repairs included: 1. Reaching into a cell to repair DNA 2. Herding cells from place to place.

One suggestion was that repair could become so good that the body could be rejuvenated. A technological fountain of youth.

I recall another suggestion-that such could become sophisticated enough to change the sex of your body.

Yes, I believe it has great potential, but we're likely still decades away from any significant breakthrough.

 

[BigJake]

But the speech is "hateful" basically solely because people like you define it as such.

I would just like to point out that this is the same basic brand of nonsense behind the old "reclaiming the N-word" saw (which the estimable Paul Mooney finally gave up on for good reason). Slurs are hateful because they were created for use by and for hateful people and purposes and will likely be predominantly used that way no matter how saucily you think you're "reclaiming" their "power" or whatever feeble excuse is in operation. So I don't think it's unreasonable for the Board to have rules against them and I don't see why it was necessary to drag them into your post and effectively torpedo the point you were making.

(Also, assuming it were true that you Totally Have Gay Friends and they all laugh when you call them "shrieking" this and "freaky" that and "pervert" the other thing, be careful: people who pretend to laugh along with you in real life aren't necessarily endorsing that behaviour. Sometimes it's just less work than having to explain, in the face of what would apparently be mountainous self-righteousness, why the world doesn't really need yet another straight white male who thinks it's their place to lecture the planet at large about what slurs it should or shouldn't be offended by. That sort of acting out is more tiresome by far than any scold.)

 

[Misfit Toy]

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

You know better than to use slurs like this to make your point. You were just cautioned about it recently. It's vile and would not be permitted even in TNZ!

Infraction for flaming/trolling.

I don't think at this time that it is possible to salvage this thread.

 

[1001001]

And that's what I'm offended about. If a person wants to be considered "My girlfriend's very own n*gger", I damn well will respect his (her?) choice.

Timo Saloniemi

You have also received an infraction for this. I was very clear about using that term. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time...I guess I shouldn't have...