Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
That said, I'm curious as to how making her transsexual would go against canon? To my recollection of "The Cage," there's nothing there other than our assumptions that speaks one way or another.
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
It looks like the episode descriptions on imdb can be added by anyone, so I really don't think that one is official. Also, the image seems to be a random one from the promo pics and nowhere in the description does it mention Number One.
That being said, I would have absolutely no problem with a transsexual captain. But given that so far, over several decades, we've seen exactly two gay characters and very few bisexuals (all of which were evil), it will probably take another decade before we see any trans people on Star Trek.
I'd be curious how they would even work that into a storyline in a meaningful way that did not seem forced just to show acceptance of society. Maybe a relationship she tries form, and the other person realizes partway into it she used to be a he and has a problem with that? Sounds more like a sitcom than a Star Trek episode. It's not like they're going to show us anyone's private parts, so why does it matter what kind of parts the person has under their uniform, if they want to behave in a different typical gender fashion? We're accepting of aliens in the shows without specific genders! I don't see how this would matter at all.
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
It looks like the episode descriptions on imdb can be added by anyone, so I really don't think that one is official. Also, the image seems to be a random one from the promo pics and nowhere in the description does it mention Number One.
That being said, I would have absolutely no problem with a transsexual captain. But given that so far, over several decades, we've seen exactly two gay characters and very few bisexuals (all of which were evil), it will probably take another decade before we see any trans people on Star Trek.
I'd be curious how they would even work that into a storyline in a meaningful way that did not seem forced just to show acceptance of society. Maybe a relationship she tries form, and the other person realizes partway into it she used to be a he and has a problem with that? Sounds more like a sitcom than a Star Trek episode. It's not like they're going to show us anyone's private parts, so why does it matter what kind of parts the person has under their uniform, if they want to behave in a different typical gender fashion? We're accepting of aliens in the shows without specific genders! I don't see how this would matter at all.
It would indeed be tough but I think it would be possible. Battlestar Galactica (the 2004 version) did an excellent job of having gay/bi characters as just a normal part of everyday life without beating viewers over the head with their sexuality (or, as I call it, the Doctor Who approach). In books, Michael Z. Williamson’s Ripple Creek series has a trans woman as a major supporting character; if memory serves, the subject was broached by an antagonist who intended to insult her and the main characters’ response was something along the lines of “and your point is, exactly,” as if learning about that was as exciting as finding out someone had one of those $3000 vacuum cleaners. The “whatever works for you is fine by me” approach is so much better than the alternative, as I see it.
Star Trek has already had some of those moments...perhaps it is time for another?
I think transsexual is a meaningless term by the 23rd century -- heck, even by the 22nd century, if you consider the tech involved in Soong's augments. Switch out a chromosome here, adjust a gene there, presto -- either you can change genders, or you can make the person feel happy with the gender to which he/she was born. No one would need to do multiple surgeries, over months or years, supplemented by hormones or pharmaceuticals, and still maintain certain traits of the original gender. For those that change genders, they wouldn't be "trans," they'd simply be the new gender.
I'm quite content for Trek to have trans characters, but I'm not sure why they'd pick a pre-existing character that is practically guaranteed to trigger outrage in order to introduce one.
There is nothing canon stopping Number One being trans, it just seems an unwise choice if the intention is to continue Treks history of diversity and acceptance - after all, the TNG era tap-danced around trans metaphors on more than one occasion.
If the intention is to get some press and trigger responses, then I'm disappointed. I like DISCO, and what it needs is its flaws ironing out, not grabbing attention.
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
That said, I'm curious as to how making her transsexual would go against canon? To my recollection of "The Cage," there's nothing there other than our assumptions that speaks one way or another.
Do you know what does she represent?
That whole pilot was rejected because of her.
But now comes a retcon she was actually a guy who has changed... I don't even know what is actually happening in the procedure.
Because women can't be logical and stoic?
Well then, let's retcon Uhura into a transrace, transgender, that breakout character was actually a white male.
But given that so far, over several decades, we've seen exactly two gay characters and very few bisexuals (all of which were evil), it will probably take another decade before we see any trans people on Star Trek.
I don't know, TNG was more inclined to play with gender than sexuality - The Outcast was meant to parallel being trans, and The Host ended up doing so.
Compare that to what happened with Blood and Fire, with Berman and Maizlish going nuts over the prospect of gay people in space.
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
That said, I'm curious as to how making her transsexual would go against canon? To my recollection of "The Cage," there's nothing there other than our assumptions that speaks one way or another.
Didn't Pike make a comment about women on the bridge in "The Cage", and then tell Number One he was not referencing her, of course?
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
That said, I'm curious as to how making her transsexual would go against canon? To my recollection of "The Cage," there's nothing there other than our assumptions that speaks one way or another.
Didn't Pike make a comment about women in the bridge in "The Cage", and then tell Number One he was not referencing her, of course?
Yeah, referring to Yeoman Colt he says “She does a good job alright, it’s just that I can’t get used to having a woman on the bridge.” Then Number One turns and looks at him and he says “No offense, Lieutenant, you’re different, of course.”
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
You're right. I read it quickly and it's not my mother tongue, but it's quite obviously meant to be a parody.
And even if the content was more plausible, it still wouldn't make sense to have a description of one random episode on imdb before the show airs.
That being said, I still can't see what would be wrong about adding a transsexual character. Dirk Gunderson made some good examples of how they could do it.
For a progressive show that from its start has always focused on lots of different characters and touched issues around diversity, society, identities, the way culture or tradition play into relationships and sexuality and so on, I find it weird that there have been almost no LGBT+ characters in it before Stamets and Culber.
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
You're right. I read it quickly and it's not my mother tongue, but it's quite obviously meant to be a parody.
And even if the content was more plausible, it still wouldn't make sense to have a description of one random episode on imdb before the show airs.
That being said, I still can't see what would be wrong about adding a transsexual character. Dirk Gunderson made some good examples of how they could do it.
For a progressive show that from its start has always focused on lots of different characters and touched issues around diversity, society, identities, the way culture or tradition play into relationships and sexuality and so on, I find it weird that there have been almost no LGBT+ characters in it before Stamets and Culber.
I didn't notice until about the twelfth time watching "Magic..." but there is a same-sex couple dancing next to Burnham and Tyler at the party.
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
You're right. I read it quickly and it's not my mother tongue, but it's quite obviously meant to be a parody.
And even if the content was more plausible, it still wouldn't make sense to have a description of one random episode on imdb before the show airs.
That being said, I still can't see what would be wrong about adding a transsexual character. Dirk Gunderson made some good examples of how they could do it.
For a progressive show that from its start has always focused on lots of different characters and touched issues around diversity, society, identities, the way culture or tradition play into relationships and sexuality and so on, I find it weird that there have been almost no LGBT+ characters in it before Stamets and Culber.
Part of what makes a TV show (or any form of movie/theater/etc) entertaining is the ability to relate to the characters on a personal level. Since LGBT makes up a small minority of the population, if a show were to make a larger proportion of the characters LGBT, this makes it harder for the majority of the audience to find a character they relate to personally. I believe western society has become far more accepting in the past few decades, so including Stamets and Culber is less likely to alienate as many viewers in the past as well. In a show of perhaps 15 main characters? 2 of them being LGBT is a much higher proportion than in our current society. I think it makes sense to have 2 charaters though to have a relationship dynamic to make their sexuality more evident to make the point of the social commentary.
I feel that very few of the characters in Discovery have enough back story or episodes yet to know how much I like them, but even though I'm fine with Stamets and Culber being a couple on the show it still "feels" weird to me whenever they're having relationship moments to me because I can't relate to it. I have the same reaction with the Lesbian character in the Super Girl TV Show, it does not bother me but just seems strange for me. I am interested in Stamets character's engineering/science knowledge, but I'm not sure he'd ever be a favorite character for me because I relate better to more masculine characters. I'm sure this is a dilemma for the show creators to consider.
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
You're right. I read it quickly and it's not my mother tongue, but it's quite obviously meant to be a parody.
And even if the content was more plausible, it still wouldn't make sense to have a description of one random episode on imdb before the show airs.
That being said, I still can't see what would be wrong about adding a transsexual character. Dirk Gunderson made some good examples of how they could do it.
For a progressive show that from its start has always focused on lots of different characters and touched issues around diversity, society, identities, the way culture or tradition play into relationships and sexuality and so on, I find it weird that there have been almost no LGBT+ characters in it before Stamets and Culber.
Part of what makes a TV show (or any form of movie/theater/etc) entertaining is the ability to relate to the characters on a personal level. Since LGBT makes up a small minority of the population, if a show were to make a larger proportion of the characters LGBT, this makes it harder for the majority of the audience to find a character they relate to personally. I believe western society has become far more accepting in the past few decades, so including Stamets and Culber is less likely to alienate as many viewers in the past as well. In a show of perhaps 15 main characters? 2 of them being LGBT is a much higher proportion than in our current society. I think it makes sense to have 2 charaters though to have a relationship dynamic to make their sexuality more evident to make the point of the social commentary.
I feel that very few of the characters in Discovery have enough back story or episodes yet to know how much I like them, but even though I'm fine with Stamets and Culber being a couple on the show it still "feels" weird to me whenever they're having relationship moments to me because I can't relate to it. I have the same reaction with the Lesbian character in the Super Girl TV Show, it does not bother me but just seems strange for me. I am interested in Stamets character's engineering/science knowledge, but I'm not sure he'd ever be a favorite character for me because I relate better to more masculine characters. I'm sure this is a dilemma for the show creators to consider.
I wasn't really advocating for more LGBT characters among the protagonists (although, personally, I would like it a lot) or for more LGBT characters on Discovery. I just find it weird that there was already a lesbian couple raising a child in Friends in the early 90's and not a single occurence (as far as I can remember) of any LGBT character on Voyager, DS9 or Enterprise, while it may have been an interesting take on some of the recurring themes. There have been hundreds of secondary, marginal or one-off characters whose relationship status was revealed for one reason or another and they were all straight. This only changed with Discovery.
And I understand what you mean about the difficulty of identifying with a character very different from yourself, but when you have a show like this, with lots of protagonists and secondary characters, there's place for lots of different people. Even if there were 3 LGBT people among the protagonists, why should that put off viewers? Most of the crew would still be straight.
Personally, I never had a problem identifying with straight or male characters (I don't belong to either group), but I realize that it's a lot more enticing when you have someone similar to yourself to root for.
All that being said, one thing I hope for is that at some point, in some incarnation of Star Trek, they will have a non-evil bisexual character to make up for all of the Mirror Universe folks
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
You're right. I read it quickly and it's not my mother tongue, but it's quite obviously meant to be a parody.
And even if the content was more plausible, it still wouldn't make sense to have a description of one random episode on imdb before the show airs.
That being said, I still can't see what would be wrong about adding a transsexual character. Dirk Gunderson made some good examples of how they could do it.
For a progressive show that from its start has always focused on lots of different characters and touched issues around diversity, society, identities, the way culture or tradition play into relationships and sexuality and so on, I find it weird that there have been almost no LGBT+ characters in it before Stamets and Culber.
Part of what makes a TV show (or any form of movie/theater/etc) entertaining is the ability to relate to the characters on a personal level. Since LGBT makes up a small minority of the population, if a show were to make a larger proportion of the characters LGBT, this makes it harder for the majority of the audience to find a character they relate to personally. I believe western society has become far more accepting in the past few decades, so including Stamets and Culber is less likely to alienate as many viewers in the past as well. In a show of perhaps 15 main characters? 2 of them being LGBT is a much higher proportion than in our current society. I think it makes sense to have 2 charaters though to have a relationship dynamic to make their sexuality more evident to make the point of the social commentary.
I feel that very few of the characters in Discovery have enough back story or episodes yet to know how much I like them, but even though I'm fine with Stamets and Culber being a couple on the show it still "feels" weird to me whenever they're having relationship moments to me because I can't relate to it. I have the same reaction with the Lesbian character in the Super Girl TV Show, it does not bother me but just seems strange for me. I am interested in Stamets character's engineering/science knowledge, but I'm not sure he'd ever be a favorite character for me because I relate better to more masculine characters. I'm sure this is a dilemma for the show creators to consider.
I wasn't really advocating for more LGBT characters among the protagonists (although, personally, I would like it a lot) or for more LGBT characters on Discovery. I just find it weird that there was already a lesbian couple raising a child in Friends in the early 90's and not a single occurence (as far as I can remember) of any LGBT character on Voyager, DS9 or Enterprise, while it may have been an interesting take on some of the recurring themes. There have been hundreds of secondary, marginal or one-off characters whose relationship status was revealed for one reason or another and they were all straight. This only changed with Discovery.
And I understand what you mean about the difficulty of identifying with a character very different from yourself, but when you have a show like this, with lots of protagonists and secondary characters, there's place for lots of different people. Even if there were 3 LGBT people among the protagonists, why should that put off viewers? Most of the crew would still be straight.
Personally, I never had a problem identifying with straight or male characters (I don't belong to either group), but I realize that it's a lot more enticing when you have someone similar to yourself to root for.
All that being said, one thing I hope for is that at some point, in some incarnation of Star Trek, they will have a non-evil bisexual character to make up for all of the Mirror Universe folks
Star Trek was always about single people flying around in ships except for DS9
TNG
Picard - single
Riker - single horndog
Troi - single
LA Forge - single
Worf - single
Crusher - widow
Barclay - single
Voyager
Janeway - single...
Chakotay - single
Tuvok - married but her wife is far away
Neelix - single most of the time
Kim - single
Seven - single
Enterprise
Archer - single
Travis - single
Reed - single
Sato - single
And a common theme are people from estranged or destroyed families
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
Evene though I believe it was meant as parody, I don't see problem even if it was true, except that they change role of original Number One (which is really not ok). They could deploy any other character to be transexual or whatever. There was already member of third gender in STE Cogenitor. So why would this be a problem?
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
That said, I'm curious as to how making her transsexual would go against canon? To my recollection of "The Cage," there's nothing there other than our assumptions that speaks one way or another.
Didn't Pike make a comment about women in the bridge in "The Cage", and then tell Number One he was not referencing her, of course?
Yeah, referring to Yeoman Colt he says “She does a good job alright, it’s just that I can’t get used to having a woman on the bridge.” Then Number One turns and looks at him and he says “No offense, Lieutenant, you’re different, of course.”
Yup, then there's a canon reason not to do it. Although as written that line is already pretty sexist, so I suppose adding transphobic isn't outside the realm of possibility.
I'm confused by how many saying there are little to no LGBT characters in Trek.
For the most part (exceptions for Kirk and Riker who are obviously overly randy straight men compensating for something) characters do not have their sexuality explicitly stated. Uhura and Sulu being good examples of this (Sulu now being written as homosexual in the new movies to match with Takei's real life choices).
Many characters are mentioned with partners of the opposite gender in episodes or as past references, but many are given tendencies that suggest bisexuality (Dr. Crusher, Jadzia Dax, Reginald Barclay). Even Riker has a relationship with an androgynous alien at one point.
Sexuality is usually not rubbed in our faces unless it's either crucial to plot, or Kirk trying to get his rocks off again. Why would gender be any different? It's never mentioned that LaForge (for example) was born male, but neither is it mentioned that he wasn't. The audience just assumes. By the same token, he is shown to like the opposite gender but it's never stated whether or not he likes his own gender too. The audience just assumes.
If Number 1 turns out to be transgender, I just hope it is important to the plot and not just another TV show trying to be fashionable by rubbing political correctness in our faces. I have no objection to it being done, my objection will be about how it is done.
Writers are out of their mind if they will retcon Number One into transsexual.
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
You're right. I read it quickly and it's not my mother tongue, but it's quite obviously meant to be a parody.
And even if the content was more plausible, it still wouldn't make sense to have a description of one random episode on imdb before the show airs.
That being said, I still can't see what would be wrong about adding a transsexual character. Dirk Gunderson made some good examples of how they could do it.
For a progressive show that from its start has always focused on lots of different characters and touched issues around diversity, society, identities, the way culture or tradition play into relationships and sexuality and so on, I find it weird that there have been almost no LGBT+ characters in it before Stamets and Culber.
Part of what makes a TV show (or any form of movie/theater/etc) entertaining is the ability to relate to the characters on a personal level. Since LGBT makes up a small minority of the population, if a show were to make a larger proportion of the characters LGBT, this makes it harder for the majority of the audience to find a character they relate to personally. I believe western society has become far more accepting in the past few decades, so including Stamets and Culber is less likely to alienate as many viewers in the past as well. In a show of perhaps 15 main characters? 2 of them being LGBT is a much higher proportion than in our current society. I think it makes sense to have 2 charaters though to have a relationship dynamic to make their sexuality more evident to make the point of the social commentary.
I feel that very few of the characters in Discovery have enough back story or episodes yet to know how much I like them, but even though I'm fine with Stamets and Culber being a couple on the show it still "feels" weird to me whenever they're having relationship moments to me because I can't relate to it. I have the same reaction with the Lesbian character in the Super Girl TV Show, it does not bother me but just seems strange for me. I am interested in Stamets character's engineering/science knowledge, but I'm not sure he'd ever be a favorite character for me because I relate better to more masculine characters. I'm sure this is a dilemma for the show creators to consider.
To be honest, I don't think they give a crap about the relatability of their characters from that viewpoint, and I don't think Trek ever has. Roddenberry made one of the stars of the original show an alien, and in the second season added a Russian character at the height of the Cold War. Hardly characters that most Americans would have been able to relate to during the 60s. Star Trek has always been about exploring the human condition, which has always been one of the weirdest parts of its unwillingness to include LGBT characters. Maybe I just can't empathise with your position - as a gay man, I would've been hard-pressed to enjoy Star Trek (or any other show) growing up if I could only relate to characters who only experienced sexuality the same way I do. Yes, it's no coincidence that Stamets is my favourite character on Disco, but that doesn't mean I can't relate to Burnham, Tilly or even Saru for that matter. I've never been a Klingon who was transformed into a Human on the outside and in, but I can still identify with Tyler's PTSD and his search to discover who he is.
I'm confused by how many saying there are little to no LGBT characters in Trek.
For the most part (exceptions for Kirk and Riker who are obviously overly randy straight men compensating for something) characters do not have their sexuality explicitly stated. Uhura and Sulu being good examples of this (Sulu now being written as homosexual in the new movies to match with Takei's real life choices).
Many characters are mentioned with partners of the opposite gender in episodes or as past references, but many are given tendencies that suggest bisexuality (Dr. Crusher, Jadzia Dax, Reginald Barclay). Even Riker has a relationship with an androgynous alien at one point.
Sexuality is usually not rubbed in our faces unless it's either crucial to plot, or Kirk trying to get his rocks off again. Why would gender be any different? It's never mentioned that LaForge (for example) was born male, but neither is it mentioned that he wasn't. The audience just assumes. By the same token, he is shown to like the opposite gender but it's never stated whether or not he likes his own gender too. The audience just assumes.
If Number 1 turns out to be transgender, I just hope it is important to the plot and not just another TV show trying to be fashionable by rubbing political correctness in our faces. I have no objection to it being done, my objection will be about how it is done.
It's about representation. Although there are many characters whose sexualities have never been explored, homosexuality has never been explicitly represented. They've only ever touched on bisexuality through the guise of characters who change genders (the Trill) or through straight up sexploitation (Mirror Kira). For a show as blatantly progressive as Trek has been through the years, it's been a strange gap in their storytelling.
You could make an argument that a character like Uhura is one of the most influential characters in television history just because she was there, on that bridge. She wasn't a slave, an assistant, or a maid. She represented an important segment of the population and gave them something to aspire to by showing that they could be something more. Representation matters, as any member for any minority could confirm to you.
I'm confused by how many saying there are little to no LGBT characters in Trek.
For the most part (exceptions for Kirk and Riker who are obviously overly randy straight men compensating for something) characters do not have their sexuality explicitly stated. Uhura and Sulu being good examples of this (Sulu now being written as homosexual in the new movies to match with Takei's real life choices).
Many characters are mentioned with partners of the opposite gender in episodes or as past references, but many are given tendencies that suggest bisexuality (Dr. Crusher, Jadzia Dax, Reginald Barclay). Even Riker has a relationship with an androgynous alien at one point.
Sexuality is usually not rubbed in our faces unless it's either crucial to plot, or Kirk trying to get his rocks off again. Why would gender be any different? It's never mentioned that LaForge (for example) was born male, but neither is it mentioned that he wasn't. The audience just assumes. By the same token, he is shown to like the opposite gender but it's never stated whether or not he likes his own gender too. The audience just assumes.
If Number 1 turns out to be transgender, I just hope it is important to the plot and not just another TV show trying to be fashionable by rubbing political correctness in our faces. I have no objection to it being done, my objection will be about how it is done.
"Choices". Wrong terminology. People don't "choice" their sexual orientation. It's just who they are. Saying someone "chooses" to be gay is kind of condescending. No offense meant. Sure you meant none either.
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Star Trek was always about single people flying around in ships except for DS9
TNG
Picard - single
Riker - single horndog
Troi - single
LA Forge - single
Worf - single
Crusher - widow
Barclay - single
Voyager
Janeway - single...
Chakotay - single
Tuvok - married but her wife is far away
Neelix - single most of the time
Kim - single
Seven - single
Enterprise
Archer - single
Travis - single
Reed - single
Sato - single
And a common theme are people from estranged or destroyed families
Riker, Spock, Reed, Worf, Bashir, Kira, Paris
I don't get what you're trying to say. All of them (or almost all of them) had relationships, flirts, love interests and/or sexual encounters before and during the events of their respective series and sometimes in episodes showing alternate future timelines. They're all straight.
Or, if you want to keep it up for debate, they're all ranking very low on the Kinsey scale.
But I guess that a lot of people (you included?) would be really upset if the new Picard series started with Picard talking relationship stuff with his boyfriend. So let's just admit that they were supposed to be straight and that there were no openly LGBT characters before Discovery (except for the evil bisexuals in the Mirror Universe).
I'm confused by how many saying there are little to no LGBT characters in Trek.
For the most part (exceptions for Kirk and Riker who are obviously overly randy straight men compensating for something) characters do not have their sexuality explicitly stated. Uhura and Sulu being good examples of this (Sulu now being written as homosexual in the new movies to match with Takei's real life choices).
Many characters are mentioned with partners of the opposite gender in episodes or as past references, but many are given tendencies that suggest bisexuality (Dr. Crusher, Jadzia Dax, Reginald Barclay). Even Riker has a relationship with an androgynous alien at one point.
Sexuality is usually not rubbed in our faces unless it's either crucial to plot, or Kirk trying to get his rocks off again. Why would gender be any different? It's never mentioned that LaForge (for example) was born male, but neither is it mentioned that he wasn't. The audience just assumes. By the same token, he is shown to like the opposite gender but it's never stated whether or not he likes his own gender too. The audience just assumes.
If Number 1 turns out to be transgender, I just hope it is important to the plot and not just another TV show trying to be fashionable by rubbing political correctness in our faces. I have no objection to it being done, my objection will be about how it is done.
It's about representation. Although there are many characters whose sexualities have never been explored, homosexuality has never been explicitly represented. They've only ever touched on bisexuality through the guise of characters who change genders (the Trill) or through straight up sexploitation (Mirror Kira). For a show as blatantly progressive as Trek has been through the years, it's been a strange gap in their storytelling.
You could make an argument that a character like Uhura is one of the most influential characters in television history just because she was there, on that bridge. She wasn't a slave, an assistant, or a maid. She represented an important segment of the population and gave them something to aspire to by showing that they could be something more. Representation matters, as any member for any minority could confirm to you.
This is what I was trying to say, but my English wasn't good enough to express it properly. It's quite obvious why they didn't put any openly LGBT characters in TOS or TNG, but by the time VOY, DS9 and ENT aired they could have done it. I still find it a bit disappointing that they didn't, not even for a single one-off character over hundreds of episodes.
The ignorance on display here is nauseating, especially from the fandom that brags about how what sets us apart from everything else is how open-minded and inclusive we allegedly are.
Yup, then there's a canon reason not to do it. Although as written that line is already pretty sexist, so I suppose adding transphobic isn't outside the realm of possibility.
If anything, that quote opens the door to Number One being trans.
The whole "No offence, Lieutenant, you’re different of course" line could be an implicit reference to Number One not always having been female. Although trying to excuse your sexism to a superior officer by implying you don't think they're really a female probably isn't great for career advancement.
The TOS era was pretty sexist as it was representative of the time it was filmed - it's one of the reasons I don't get why people are perfectly willing to accept the cultural shift in prequel series', but go ga-ga at the technological changes.
This is what I was trying to say, but my English wasn't good enough to express it properly. It's quite obvious why they didn't put any openly LGBT characters in TOS or TNG, but by the time VOY, DS9 and ENT aired they could have done it. I still find it a bit disappointing that they didn't, not even for a single one-off character over hundreds of episodes.
You weren't going to get any explicit LGBT characters whilst Berman was running the show. Whilst his attitudes towards LGBT seem to have softened over the years, he's stated that at no point was he ever going to go beyond the use of metaphors.
Star Trek TOS-The Corbomite Maneuver
Star Trek DS9
Star Trek Enterprise-Acquisition
Discovery-Will You Take My Hand?
Never caught him on DS9. Who was he?
Grady
He's the guy that stole Jadzia's combadge in Past Tense part 2.
Watched it again last night. Very good episode with a strong message. Only problem is one that Phil Farrand pointed out in his "NitPicker's Guide for Deep Space Nine Trekkers". It is set in 2024, and has repercussions that supposedly resonated for hundreds of years and directly affected the formation of the Federation. However, some time between 2024 and 2063, there was a rather intense global thermonuclear war. Social change is great. But a lot of social change will get undone by nine megatonne airbursts over your major population centers. Th advances caused in society by the Bell Riots would have been undone by the war. Clearly, tensions are still high at the time of First Contact on 5 April 2063. The survivors in the camp think it is possibly an attack by "The Eastern Coalition" when things start. It is highly unlikely that any social and moral consciousness changes caused by the Bell Riots would have had time to return. The big deal that led to the Federation happened in early April 2063, and had nothing to do with Gabriel Bell or the Bell Riots.
Wanted to come back to this observation. I think it can be simultaneously true that the Bell Riots led to progress and that World War III still happened and set back that progress. And a setback is not necessarily the same as undoing. Sisko didn't say Utopia was established a week later, just that it was a watershed event.
The notion that progress is an ever-upward arc is misguided and, frankly, naive. We're talking about 39 years. We've seen a lot of back-and-forth over the last 39 here in reality. No reason to think there won't be more of that in the 39 between 2024 and 2063.
Star Trek TOS-The Corbomite Maneuver
Star Trek DS9
Star Trek Enterprise-Acquisition
Discovery-Will You Take My Hand?
Never caught him on DS9. Who was he?
Grady
He's the guy that stole Jadzia's combadge in Past Tense part 2.
Watched it again last night. Very good episode with a strong message. Only problem is one that Phil Farrand pointed out in his "NitPicker's Guide for Deep Space Nine Trekkers". It is set in 2024, and has repercussions that supposedly resonated for hundreds of years and directly affected the formation of the Federation. However, some time between 2024 and 2063, there was a rather intense global thermonuclear war. Social change is great. But a lot of social change will get undone by nine megatonne airbursts over your major population centers. Th advances caused in society by the Bell Riots would have been undone by the war. Clearly, tensions are still high at the time of First Contact on 5 April 2063. The survivors in the camp think it is possibly an attack by "The Eastern Coalition" when things start. It is highly unlikely that any social and moral consciousness changes caused by the Bell Riots would have had time to return. The big deal that led to the Federation happened in early April 2063, and had nothing to do with Gabriel Bell or the Bell Riots.
Wanted to come back to this observation. I think it can be simultaneously true that the Bell Riots led to progress and that World War III still happened and set back that progress. And a setback is not necessarily the same as undoing. Sisko didn't say Utopia was established a week later, just that it was a watershed event.
The notion that progress is an ever-upward arc is misguided and, frankly, naive. We're talking about 39 years. We've seen a lot of back-and-forth over the last 39 here in reality. No reason to think there won't be more of that in the 39 between 2024 and 2063.
To be fair, the Guide was written by a fan. Not sanctioned product. And there were points throughout it that did not always allow "flexibility". For instant, the writer insisted that the statement someone made in an episode of one of the shows that a Starfleet crew had never mutinied could not be true, because Garth said his crew had "mutinied" against him. Well, that was GARTH'S interpretation of the incident. {And he was in an asylum.} His crew had clearly implemented a military protocol that has already been in place for centuries today. He was legally and appropriately removed from command for being erratic, unfit, and insane...........
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Star Trek TOS-The Corbomite Maneuver
Star Trek DS9
Star Trek Enterprise-Acquisition
Discovery-Will You Take My Hand?
Never caught him on DS9. Who was he?
Grady
He's the guy that stole Jadzia's combadge in Past Tense part 2.
Watched it again last night. Very good episode with a strong message. Only problem is one that Phil Farrand pointed out in his "NitPicker's Guide for Deep Space Nine Trekkers". It is set in 2024, and has repercussions that supposedly resonated for hundreds of years and directly affected the formation of the Federation. However, some time between 2024 and 2063, there was a rather intense global thermonuclear war. Social change is great. But a lot of social change will get undone by nine megatonne airbursts over your major population centers. Th advances caused in society by the Bell Riots would have been undone by the war. Clearly, tensions are still high at the time of First Contact on 5 April 2063. The survivors in the camp think it is possibly an attack by "The Eastern Coalition" when things start. It is highly unlikely that any social and moral consciousness changes caused by the Bell Riots would have had time to return. The big deal that led to the Federation happened in early April 2063, and had nothing to do with Gabriel Bell or the Bell Riots.
Wanted to come back to this observation. I think it can be simultaneously true that the Bell Riots led to progress and that World War III still happened and set back that progress. And a setback is not necessarily the same as undoing. Sisko didn't say Utopia was established a week later, just that it was a watershed event.
The notion that progress is an ever-upward arc is misguided and, frankly, naive. We're talking about 39 years. We've seen a lot of back-and-forth over the last 39 here in reality. No reason to think there won't be more of that in the 39 between 2024 and 2063.
To be fair, the Guide was written by a fan. Not sanctioned product. And there were points throughout it that did not always allow "flexibility". For instant, the writer insisted that the statement someone made in an episode of one of the shows that a Starfleet crew had never mutinied could not be true, because Garth said his crew had "mutinied" against him. Well, that was GARTH'S interpretation of the incident. {And he was in an asylum.} His crew had clearly implemented a military protocol that has already been in place for centuries today. He was legally and appropriately removed from command for being erratic, unfit, and insane...........
I'm familiar with The Nitpicker's Guide. Only read the TOS volume. Don't remember anything from it, except being amused and feeling it was all in good fun. I just thought it was worth chiming in on the notion, particularly as it felt relevant to some of the tension and stress of today. And that, to my mind, is what makes all of Trek relevant--particularly episodes like "Past Tense".
Comments
Based on the tone of that summary, it seems like that whole part is a joke, written by an anti-SJW person.
That said, I'm curious as to how making her transsexual would go against canon? To my recollection of "The Cage," there's nothing there other than our assumptions that speaks one way or another.
I'd be curious how they would even work that into a storyline in a meaningful way that did not seem forced just to show acceptance of society. Maybe a relationship she tries form, and the other person realizes partway into it she used to be a he and has a problem with that? Sounds more like a sitcom than a Star Trek episode. It's not like they're going to show us anyone's private parts, so why does it matter what kind of parts the person has under their uniform, if they want to behave in a different typical gender fashion? We're accepting of aliens in the shows without specific genders! I don't see how this would matter at all.
It would indeed be tough but I think it would be possible. Battlestar Galactica (the 2004 version) did an excellent job of having gay/bi characters as just a normal part of everyday life without beating viewers over the head with their sexuality (or, as I call it, the Doctor Who approach). In books, Michael Z. Williamson’s Ripple Creek series has a trans woman as a major supporting character; if memory serves, the subject was broached by an antagonist who intended to insult her and the main characters’ response was something along the lines of “and your point is, exactly,” as if learning about that was as exciting as finding out someone had one of those $3000 vacuum cleaners. The “whatever works for you is fine by me” approach is so much better than the alternative, as I see it.
Star Trek has already had some of those moments...perhaps it is time for another?
Captain Level: 95
VIP Level: 12
Unique Crew Immortalized: 525
Collections Completed: Vulcan, Ferengi, Borg, Romulan, Cardassian, Uncommon, Rare, Veteran, Common, Engineered, Physician, Innovator, Inspiring, Diplomat, Jury Rigger, Gauntlet Legends
I'm quite content for Trek to have trans characters, but I'm not sure why they'd pick a pre-existing character that is practically guaranteed to trigger outrage in order to introduce one.
There is nothing canon stopping Number One being trans, it just seems an unwise choice if the intention is to continue Treks history of diversity and acceptance - after all, the TNG era tap-danced around trans metaphors on more than one occasion.
If the intention is to get some press and trigger responses, then I'm disappointed. I like DISCO, and what it needs is its flaws ironing out, not grabbing attention.
Do you know what does she represent?
That whole pilot was rejected because of her.
But now comes a retcon she was actually a guy who has changed... I don't even know what is actually happening in the procedure.
Because women can't be logical and stoic?
Well then, let's retcon Uhura into a transrace, transgender, that breakout character was actually a white male.
I don't know, TNG was more inclined to play with gender than sexuality - The Outcast was meant to parallel being trans, and The Host ended up doing so.
Compare that to what happened with Blood and Fire, with Berman and Maizlish going nuts over the prospect of gay people in space.
He favors Jeffrey Hunter. That may help people get past Bearded Spock.
Didn't Pike make a comment about women on the bridge in "The Cage", and then tell Number One he was not referencing her, of course?
EDIT: Findded it:
With IMDb being like Wikipedia, I think someone planted a fake summary off that.
Yeah, referring to Yeoman Colt he says “She does a good job alright, it’s just that I can’t get used to having a woman on the bridge.” Then Number One turns and looks at him and he says “No offense, Lieutenant, you’re different, of course.”
You're right. I read it quickly and it's not my mother tongue, but it's quite obviously meant to be a parody.
And even if the content was more plausible, it still wouldn't make sense to have a description of one random episode on imdb before the show airs.
That being said, I still can't see what would be wrong about adding a transsexual character. Dirk Gunderson made some good examples of how they could do it.
For a progressive show that from its start has always focused on lots of different characters and touched issues around diversity, society, identities, the way culture or tradition play into relationships and sexuality and so on, I find it weird that there have been almost no LGBT+ characters in it before Stamets and Culber.
I didn't notice until about the twelfth time watching "Magic..." but there is a same-sex couple dancing next to Burnham and Tyler at the party.
Part of what makes a TV show (or any form of movie/theater/etc) entertaining is the ability to relate to the characters on a personal level. Since LGBT makes up a small minority of the population, if a show were to make a larger proportion of the characters LGBT, this makes it harder for the majority of the audience to find a character they relate to personally. I believe western society has become far more accepting in the past few decades, so including Stamets and Culber is less likely to alienate as many viewers in the past as well. In a show of perhaps 15 main characters? 2 of them being LGBT is a much higher proportion than in our current society. I think it makes sense to have 2 charaters though to have a relationship dynamic to make their sexuality more evident to make the point of the social commentary.
I feel that very few of the characters in Discovery have enough back story or episodes yet to know how much I like them, but even though I'm fine with Stamets and Culber being a couple on the show it still "feels" weird to me whenever they're having relationship moments to me because I can't relate to it. I have the same reaction with the Lesbian character in the Super Girl TV Show, it does not bother me but just seems strange for me. I am interested in Stamets character's engineering/science knowledge, but I'm not sure he'd ever be a favorite character for me because I relate better to more masculine characters. I'm sure this is a dilemma for the show creators to consider.
I wasn't really advocating for more LGBT characters among the protagonists (although, personally, I would like it a lot) or for more LGBT characters on Discovery. I just find it weird that there was already a lesbian couple raising a child in Friends in the early 90's and not a single occurence (as far as I can remember) of any LGBT character on Voyager, DS9 or Enterprise, while it may have been an interesting take on some of the recurring themes. There have been hundreds of secondary, marginal or one-off characters whose relationship status was revealed for one reason or another and they were all straight. This only changed with Discovery.
And I understand what you mean about the difficulty of identifying with a character very different from yourself, but when you have a show like this, with lots of protagonists and secondary characters, there's place for lots of different people. Even if there were 3 LGBT people among the protagonists, why should that put off viewers? Most of the crew would still be straight.
Personally, I never had a problem identifying with straight or male characters (I don't belong to either group), but I realize that it's a lot more enticing when you have someone similar to yourself to root for.
All that being said, one thing I hope for is that at some point, in some incarnation of Star Trek, they will have a non-evil bisexual character to make up for all of the Mirror Universe folks
Star Trek was always about single people flying around in ships except for DS9
TNG
Picard - single
Riker - single horndog
Troi - single
LA Forge - single
Worf - single
Crusher - widow
Barclay - single
Voyager
Janeway - single...
Chakotay - single
Tuvok - married but her wife is far away
Neelix - single most of the time
Kim - single
Seven - single
Enterprise
Archer - single
Travis - single
Reed - single
Sato - single
And a common theme are people from estranged or destroyed families
Riker, Spock, Reed, Worf, Bashir, Kira, Paris
Evene though I believe it was meant as parody, I don't see problem even if it was true, except that they change role of original Number One (which is really not ok). They could deploy any other character to be transexual or whatever. There was already member of third gender in STE Cogenitor. So why would this be a problem?
Yup, then there's a canon reason not to do it. Although as written that line is already pretty sexist, so I suppose adding transphobic isn't outside the realm of possibility.
For the most part (exceptions for Kirk and Riker who are obviously overly randy straight men compensating for something) characters do not have their sexuality explicitly stated. Uhura and Sulu being good examples of this (Sulu now being written as homosexual in the new movies to match with Takei's real life choices).
Many characters are mentioned with partners of the opposite gender in episodes or as past references, but many are given tendencies that suggest bisexuality (Dr. Crusher, Jadzia Dax, Reginald Barclay). Even Riker has a relationship with an androgynous alien at one point.
Sexuality is usually not rubbed in our faces unless it's either crucial to plot, or Kirk trying to get his rocks off again. Why would gender be any different? It's never mentioned that LaForge (for example) was born male, but neither is it mentioned that he wasn't. The audience just assumes. By the same token, he is shown to like the opposite gender but it's never stated whether or not he likes his own gender too. The audience just assumes.
If Number 1 turns out to be transgender, I just hope it is important to the plot and not just another TV show trying to be fashionable by rubbing political correctness in our faces. I have no objection to it being done, my objection will be about how it is done.
To be honest, I don't think they give a crap about the relatability of their characters from that viewpoint, and I don't think Trek ever has. Roddenberry made one of the stars of the original show an alien, and in the second season added a Russian character at the height of the Cold War. Hardly characters that most Americans would have been able to relate to during the 60s. Star Trek has always been about exploring the human condition, which has always been one of the weirdest parts of its unwillingness to include LGBT characters. Maybe I just can't empathise with your position - as a gay man, I would've been hard-pressed to enjoy Star Trek (or any other show) growing up if I could only relate to characters who only experienced sexuality the same way I do. Yes, it's no coincidence that Stamets is my favourite character on Disco, but that doesn't mean I can't relate to Burnham, Tilly or even Saru for that matter. I've never been a Klingon who was transformed into a Human on the outside and in, but I can still identify with Tyler's PTSD and his search to discover who he is.
It's about representation. Although there are many characters whose sexualities have never been explored, homosexuality has never been explicitly represented. They've only ever touched on bisexuality through the guise of characters who change genders (the Trill) or through straight up sexploitation (Mirror Kira). For a show as blatantly progressive as Trek has been through the years, it's been a strange gap in their storytelling.
You could make an argument that a character like Uhura is one of the most influential characters in television history just because she was there, on that bridge. She wasn't a slave, an assistant, or a maid. She represented an important segment of the population and gave them something to aspire to by showing that they could be something more. Representation matters, as any member for any minority could confirm to you.
"Choices". Wrong terminology. People don't "choice" their sexual orientation. It's just who they are. Saying someone "chooses" to be gay is kind of condescending. No offense meant. Sure you meant none either.
I don't get what you're trying to say. All of them (or almost all of them) had relationships, flirts, love interests and/or sexual encounters before and during the events of their respective series and sometimes in episodes showing alternate future timelines. They're all straight.
Or, if you want to keep it up for debate, they're all ranking very low on the Kinsey scale.
But I guess that a lot of people (you included?) would be really upset if the new Picard series started with Picard talking relationship stuff with his boyfriend. So let's just admit that they were supposed to be straight and that there were no openly LGBT characters before Discovery (except for the evil bisexuals in the Mirror Universe).
This is what I was trying to say, but my English wasn't good enough to express it properly. It's quite obvious why they didn't put any openly LGBT characters in TOS or TNG, but by the time VOY, DS9 and ENT aired they could have done it. I still find it a bit disappointing that they didn't, not even for a single one-off character over hundreds of episodes.
If anything, that quote opens the door to Number One being trans.
The whole "No offence, Lieutenant, you’re different of course" line could be an implicit reference to Number One not always having been female. Although trying to excuse your sexism to a superior officer by implying you don't think they're really a female probably isn't great for career advancement.
The TOS era was pretty sexist as it was representative of the time it was filmed - it's one of the reasons I don't get why people are perfectly willing to accept the cultural shift in prequel series', but go ga-ga at the technological changes.
You weren't going to get any explicit LGBT characters whilst Berman was running the show. Whilst his attitudes towards LGBT seem to have softened over the years, he's stated that at no point was he ever going to go beyond the use of metaphors.
Wanted to come back to this observation. I think it can be simultaneously true that the Bell Riots led to progress and that World War III still happened and set back that progress. And a setback is not necessarily the same as undoing. Sisko didn't say Utopia was established a week later, just that it was a watershed event.
The notion that progress is an ever-upward arc is misguided and, frankly, naive. We're talking about 39 years. We've seen a lot of back-and-forth over the last 39 here in reality. No reason to think there won't be more of that in the 39 between 2024 and 2063.
To be fair, the Guide was written by a fan. Not sanctioned product. And there were points throughout it that did not always allow "flexibility". For instant, the writer insisted that the statement someone made in an episode of one of the shows that a Starfleet crew had never mutinied could not be true, because Garth said his crew had "mutinied" against him. Well, that was GARTH'S interpretation of the incident. {And he was in an asylum.} His crew had clearly implemented a military protocol that has already been in place for centuries today. He was legally and appropriately removed from command for being erratic, unfit, and insane...........
I'm familiar with The Nitpicker's Guide. Only read the TOS volume. Don't remember anything from it, except being amused and feeling it was all in good fun. I just thought it was worth chiming in on the notion, particularly as it felt relevant to some of the tension and stress of today. And that, to my mind, is what makes all of Trek relevant--particularly episodes like "Past Tense".