Double post.
What behind-the-scenes detail(s) do you remember being particularly interesting or surprising to learn?
- Thread starter Positronic
- Start date
>50% is a ridiculously low threshold to set as an acceptable level for making claims that represent all humanity.The context of this conversation is just as important. The point I challenge is that her limitation is rare and not widespread. She literally says it's the ongoing changes with that uncertainty that is her problem. That Bev is straight doesn't change anything about that, but illustrates her problem. The point here is that such a problem is not just hers, and even it not 100% of people have the same issues, it would still be >50%. Is she to be blamed for being straight? Would an LG person be blamed for rejecting heterosexual partners? I think not, my opponent apparently thinks yes. For non-bi/pan people, the partner's sex does matter. It's how orientation is defined. >50% of gays and lesbians would reject a hetero partner. >50% of straights would reject a straight partner. Otherwise, they're all on the bi/pan spectrum and not gay, or lesbian, or straight. Somehow, in contrast to others, I find this makes sense...
By that standard, Earth is an ocean, all people are right-handed, and all humans in the US are women who wanted Trump as their president.
That implies things like gender attraction are unadvanced or in some way backward. Putting aside it was written in the 1990s and wouldn't have gone there... are you really thinking in a few hundred years we've all become non-gender oriented people romping around like the Edo planet?
I don't think that's likely. Most people are attracted to one gender, it's just innate not something to be fixed.
It still amazes me that the Outcast was their hamfisted attempted to go a story about gay people without saying gay. And it accidentally turned out to be an episode about non-binary people. It was a fortuitous accident.
I don’t think it’s in dispute that most people are attracted to the opposite sex. And I don't think anyone is saying Crusher didn’t have every right to say she was just interested in the opposite sex. What rubs some people the wrong way is that she makes it sound like in general humans are not capable of loving someone of the same sex. The dialog gives the impression that instead of just saying she wasn’t capable of being attracted to someone presenting in a female body, she was making a generalized statement about all of humanity.
On a personal level I just find it very hard to swallow that if I was genuinely and deeply in love with someone and through whatever circumstances they would suddenly be changed to a different body with a different sex, that I would suddenly lose all interest in being with them. The person I loved is still in there and hasn’t changed, so of course my love wouldn’t just magically be gone. I can understand that sexual attraction might be a whole nother issue, but just emotionally I would definitely still be in love. And what rubs me the wrong way about Beverly’s dismissal of Odan is that she didn’t even want to explore it or give it a hint of a chance. But no, she’s immediately like “I don’t want to fuck that, this relationship is over!”
On a personal level I just find it very hard to swallow that if I was genuinely and deeply in love with someone and through whatever circumstances they would suddenly be changed to a different body with a different sex, that I would suddenly lose all interest in being with them. The person I loved is still in there and hasn’t changed, so of course my love wouldn’t just magically be gone. I can understand that sexual attraction might be a whole nother issue, but just emotionally I would definitely still be in love. And what rubs me the wrong way about Beverly’s dismissal of Odan is that she didn’t even want to explore it or give it a hint of a chance. But no, she’s immediately like “I don’t want to fuck that, this relationship is over!”
Maybe that’s what you mean, but I see “The Outcast” more as an accidental trans episode. Soren is someone who realized early in life that she can’t live as the (non-)gender that was assigned to her when she was born and decides to instead live as a female. But yeah, non-binary and trans are closely related and many trans people will first come out as non-binary before declaring themselves as trans. Personally I think if you read the episode like that it’s rather powerful. Which is not to say it’s perfect, and I do think there’s several ways they could have improved it. Cast a cis-male actor for Soren, for one thing. And ditch the awkward scene where Beverly is talking about women using makeup.
For context, you're replying to CorporalCaptain's reply to your post:Uhhhh, are you from there? Surprise the socially aware on not disputing this.
"The kiss between Uharua and Kirk they banned it in most southern states."
That is incorrect. Some people at NBC didn't like it in the script, some southern stations expressed concerns about it, but it was not banned anywhere in the USA.
Don't know what you mean by "from there" or "socially aware".
Thank you for this. <3 It's frustrating to me that some people seem to have trouble understanding why Bev's reaction to Odan's new host and the way in which she articulates that reaction is at best suboptimal, and moreso when the out-of-universe considerations are factored in.
Regarding Bev's scene about women using makeup...at least she's consistently poor in how she discusses such things?
But coming from a medical professional, and especially a CMO, it kind of makes you question what exactly Starfleet is teaching its medics.
But this wasn't about love, she showed herself to be infatuated. If she had known him for ten years then it would be an entirely different thing. But this is someone that just arrived on the ship a few days ago.
But then... that's what gave us Rejoined IMO.
Having said that I doubt if Dax had become a man in DS9 Bashir or Worf would have got intimate with the new host. Close perhaps, cared for... but I think that would have been it.
No, that's not what I'm implying. I'm saying that the show simply needed to word things differently. If Crusher had said "some of my fellow humans are cool with this, but I'm not", it would have been fine and it would have served both sides of the coin, it would have said Crusher has issues with this but at the same time it would have fit in with TNG's "this is the fuuuuuture" attitude. Honestly tho? There ARE articles that suggest that a lot of humans who call themselves straight today are capable of being attracted to more than one gender. They just never really think about it until they're actually faced with it in some way. And there ARE a lot of people who CAN deal with their partner's transition. It happens. Even today. And the Edo comparison really isn't something I was going for. I'm not talking about only sexual attraction. I'm talking about being capable of being in love with someone, which is a LOT more than sexual attraction and/or running around in nothing more than loincloths. (Also, small note of irony, even the Edo only seem to have heterosexual relationships. At least I didn't see any gay couples making out in the background anywhere.)
TNG was ridiculous about this entire issue tho - it only portrayed heterosexuality when even back in the days when the show was made gay rights movements were there and emerging. The show and its writers prided themselves on their oh-so-cool future outlook and yet that outlook made sure not to show or even mention gay people. Which is why there's still a not-so-small portion of fans who claim "the gays were eradicated by the time TNG happened". They love to claim that sort of thing. This is the audience TNG catered to, whether it intentionally did so or not, and this is why I think it's very much legit today to say that the show didn't do enough back in the day.
It's not because they couldn't or because "it was the late 80s/early 90s" - it's because they didn't WANT to. All they did was made half-baked attempts that only made things worse (see "The Outcast" as another example of "omg what are they trying to DO here"). Also, I seem to remember a lot of criticism labeled at them even back in the day. I remember reading about Berman being exasperated like "I gave you that gay rights episode why are you people STILL complaining?" (Probably because it was an episode about gay rights without showing any actual gay characters? That might be what riled people up, Rick? Maybe, juuuust maybe?)
That's fair. We seem to to have sprung from an era (often in TV generally) to hide the fact gays existed - to now every damn show everyone is gay and Netflix in particular feels like it has an "inclusion spreadsheet" that must be filled in. Often with shitty results.
Gay representation was and is in many ways still bad. It's just gone from non-existent to tokenism.
You’re getting awfully personal here. A taste of trolling and a drop of flaming. Might be time for you to ignore this thread.
Nah... I am not getting personal since this person brought personal sexuality into fantasy. I was the one called making excuses re personal. See my Garak and Obrien thread and say that. No one cared what was being said. Also, the question it's not insulting in regards to sexuality unless you think it is. I genuinely wanted to understand. I have been on the internet so long I guess I don't recognize this as flaming since its changed.
Then no one cared that there was denial in this thread that the southerners never had a problem with the Kirk/Uhura kiss. Which I thought was pretty common knowledge? Also, this place is pretty personal; Some get noticed and others don't. Why is that? I may risk banning but calling yourself an adolescence with pride does not give me much faith.
Why are people ignoring the obvious? Just because there were OBVIOUSLY people being out proud and gay it is still separate from TV : Re: Ellen. The civil rights movement happened during the Kirk/Uhura kiss. And it was still controversial. They knew they risked cancelation. What about DS9 debuting later that Garak was obviously into Bashir and even the writers and the producers knew he played it that way. Robinson said this himself. I really feel this is more of a feud between knew trek versus old trek. like the post that started the whole thing. But episodes like the ones you are criticizing meant something to people like me. Or you can teach me the right way.
Last edited:
alright: show me where she said "all of humanity". or do you just interpret "we" and "us" as "100% everyone"?
Sex, not gender.
So she cannot have meant "most", but must have meant "all"? When people use "we" and "us", do they generally mean "everyone on the planet"? I don't think so.
(It was also the end of the episode, where the episodic reset button had to be pushed
)You might benefit from reading this, unless you'd care to provide sources of your own to substantiate your claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_and_Uhura's_kiss
She's the Chief Medical Officer of a Starfleet vessel and she said: "Perhaps it is a human failing, but we are not accustomed to these kinds of changes. I can't keep up. How long will you have this host? What would the next one be? I can't live with that kind of uncertainty. Perhaps, someday, our ability to love won't be so limited."alright: show me where she said "all of humanity". or do you just interpret "we" and "us" as "100% everyone"?
Sex, not gender.
So she cannot have meant "most", but must have meant "all"? When people use "we" and "us", do they generally mean "everyone on the planet"? I don't think so.
(It was also the end of the episode, where the episodic reset button had to be pushed
If she wasn't by implication speaking for all...or let's be generous, and just say the vast majority...of humanity when she used the words "we" and "our" and "human failing", then who do you believe she was speaking for? Just the humans on the E-D?
And as has already been established, the fact is that the way the episode presents it, Crusher seems quite willing to embrace another change to Odan's host until it turns out this host is a woman.
If this was some random citizen in the future the statement would still read poorly to me, but it's far worse coming from a medical professional; someone who we should be able to trust to choose words that reflect accurately upon the species she's speaking for. She absolutely and easily could have chosen wording that made it clear she wasn't intending to speak for all or the vast majority of humanity if she'd cared (or felt she had reason) to do so.
Oh, I love when people link things. Did not work for me in another post though. Though my links had exact quotes from actors. Also, I rather listen to people who actually worked on the show on camera. Even if you did not know this, I do not know why the knee jerk reaction would be to defend the south for being notoriously racist and fought to keep slavery. Can I even take the one seriously who pretended they did not know about social awareness which I assumed was the reason people were making a big stink about Dr Crusher being problematic. Please don't say you do not know what THAT word means.
No, of course not. But they usually do when they use them in the context of talking about “human failings”, the words almost immediately before the use of “we” in the dialog.
Are you suggesting that I defended the south? Because if you are, I would like you to quote me where I did anything of that nature. And if you can't quote me doing so, then I'd like an apology from you, as I would take such an accusation as a personal attack.
Seriously, what the fuck are you even talking about? None of that makes any kind of sense considering what this part of the discussion is about. You claimed the episode “Plato’s Stepchildren” was banned in most southern states. And someone provided evidence that it absolutely wasn’t. I don’t know what’s so complicated about that to understand and why that would lead you to throw around wild accusations that someone is defending fucking racists.
Really mean no offense. But what would saying just her do when the whole thing about trek is a commentary on human society in general? People would feel less comfortable with it just being about her. Better to be able to push these messages instead of outright getting cancelled. Thats not on them. ST was faced with this before. Its broad because I don't know... maybe because Roddenberry did not approve? If she went out and out, I am being a homophobe? Real gays? The general world at the time was homophobic. Whether you like it or not. you really think people just did not want to do things? Seeing the shoe on the other foot would be the best way to go with it like the other controversial episode where Riker falls for a woman where human ways were seen as unnatural. Pretty smart, I think. And should be appreciated for its time. These new shows had it easy.No, of course not. But they usually do when they use them in the context of talking about “human failings”, the words almost immediately before the use of “we” in the dialog.
Was she speaking as CMO, or as Odan's partner?
Was she struggling with the situation, trying to come up with an excuse, reason, explanation why she's uncomfortable?
That is is about her being straight has been made clear a few times now, and it is the point here: Most straight people would, like her, be less comfortable with a homosexual partner, than with a heterosexual partner. This does not need further time loops, so let's decompress that shuttlebay.
I get your point there. The way she struggles tells me that she was trying to explain it without harming Odan's feelings, and without presenting herself as a singularly bigoted or backwards person, and that admittedly imprecise part of "human failing" was simply a way to express it under those conditions. Certainly not a medical diagnosis, or truly speaking "for all mankind". There are many examples where everyday language is used like that. Vulcans don't lie. Starfleet doesn't lie. Klingons put honor above all else. etc.No, of course not. But they usually do when they use them in the context of talking about “human failings”, the words almost immediately before the use of “we” in the dialog.
Similar threads
