Star Trek To Welcome First Transgender and Non-Binary Characters (bbc.co.uk) 466
AmiMoJo shares a report from the BBC: Sci-fi franchise Star Trek is set to introduce its first transgender and non-binary characters. The characters are to appear in the third series of Star Trek: Discovery, producers said on Wednesday. The trans character, Gray, will be played by trans actor Ian Alexander, and likewise non-binary Adira will be portrayed by Blu del Barrio. "Star Trek has always made a mission of giving visibility to underrepresented communities," said a producer. The show's co-runner and executive producer Michelle Paradise added: "It believes in showing people that a future without division on the basis of race, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation is entirely within our reach."
First non-binary? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: First non-binary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexual orientation should be toned down in most cases since it rarely has any relevance for the story.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you like it to have been toned down in Discovery, for example?
Seems like they did it really well, the relationship was integral to the plot but the fact that it was a same-sex one was irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
although I doubt he would ever be considered "male". He's not even biological.
Really because he looks like a dude and is apparently "fully functional".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: First non-binary? (Score:4, Informative)
Data does not have a biological sex (since he is not biological), but he clearly has a gender. As you state, he has a masculine appearance and refers to himself as gendered. Gender is the social construct around sex, which Data clearly adheres to.
Re: First non-binary? (Score:5, Funny)
Data is definitely a binary character.
Re: First non-binary? (Score:5, Funny)
says who. He could be hexadecimal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: First non-binary? (Score:5, Insightful)
What would "toned down" look like?
We had a consultant at work who was a vegan. Each time at lunch, he somehow steered the conversation to that fact, and how eating meat was immoral, and how he was still OK with other people eating meat, but he himself couldn't because poor innocent animals, and even the smell made him sick, ... .
Today's LGBT representation in film and series is a lot like a vegan. It's in-your-face emo, and whenever such a character is introduced, the plot shifts to revolve around that. While that's OK for a show that is thematically about LGBT, it's very jarring when the show is about superheroes, SF, etc. By itself, it's OK, and sometimes even very well done, but it just feels out of place, as if the makers of the film/show tried to shoehorn it in (which is usually the case).
Combine that with the fact that there is usually over-representation of minorities lately. Meaning, to appear inclusive, the cast members are chosen to include at least one of each. Meaning, if there's for example 3 girls, one will inevitably turn out to be lesbian, one trans, and the straight one will have been abused as a child or some such. It's just drama for sake of the drama. And if they do it in a show like Trek, this can be very tiresome.
Toned down would mean that you casually reveal these characters to be LGBT, let them have interactions that match that, without going the vegan route and making a big deal about it.
Take for example Ian M. Banks, who wrote about a society where humans live hundreds of years, and during that time many chose to transition between male and female, have children as either, and transition back. It's portrayed as being completely normal and matter-of-fact. One would think that it would be the same in Trek.
On a final note, I think there already was a trans character in Trek, namely Jadzia Dax in DS9. While not completely the same, via her symbiont she had all the memories and feelings of the previous male host Curzon. It was handled very well, I think, and fit within the overal plot. I think SG1 did something similar with a To'kra symbiont.
Re: First non-binary? (Score:4, Funny)
Just wait, they'll tell you.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Admit it . You're the guy he was talking about...
I had a Vegan who lived upstairs from me when a group of us was working in Japan circa 2000. We often had to eat together during work conferences. EVERY. SINGLE.MEAL she would regale us with tales on how moral she was, how she couldn't possibly eat anything meat based, and how she would only eat with us if our "tainted" food didn't come in contact with her pure vegan food.
I know we didn't bring the subject up because we actively tried to avoid the annoyance o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sexual orientation should be toned down in most cases since it rarely has any relevance for the story.
What would "toned down" look like?
e.g. nobody can be married or in a sexual/romantic relationship, or they can be but no kissing, or they can kiss but only if heterosexual or what sort of thing?
Depends, is it relevant to the story or just shoe horned in for token reprentation? If its relevant do it. If it leads no where, cut it. And that counts for everything, not just sexuality.
Re: First non-binary? (Score:4, Funny)
Riker. Saxophone. I'm pulling your nerd card for that one.
Re: (Score:3)
You can bring gay charcters in without being all in your face about it. Say the captain is facing some problem of the week and says to one of his officers, "hey your partner used to do this stuff didn't they?" and the officer (male in this case) says "yeah he always when you x you gotta y" then the captain takes
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> The reality your chromosomes define your gender, xx or xy and that is that.
You mean how we have?
* XX -- are Female most of the time
* XY -- are Male most of the time
* XX -- 1 in 20,000 "males" have De la Chapelle syndrome
* XY -- 1 in 80,000 "females" have Sweyer Syndome
* XXY -- 1 in 1,000 males have Klinefelter syndrome
* XYY -- 1 in 1,000 males have XYY syndrome
--
A man mutilating his genitals doesn't make him a "smart" woman -- it makes him a dumb man for not respecting his body. "Fixing" an external sy
Re:First non-binary? (Score:4, Funny)
Wasn't the cogenitor in Star Trek Enterprise also non-binary?
Almost all the characters in Star Trek are non binary, with ST:TNG Season 1 Episode 15 being a notable exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Cogenitor was literally outside the nonbinary in that they were a third biological sex necessary for reproduction, just another day where people erase history to wrongfully claim a first.
Re: (Score:2)
Cogenitor was literally outside the nonbinary
Surely you mean "outside the binary", since otherwise the double negation doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: First non-binary? (Score:2)
Re:First non-binary? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Star Trek series is full of such characters, many of them recurring. Perhaps most notable was Dax from Deep Space Nine: an ancient character possessing multiple, simultaneous genders, which were put on display at various points in the show.
The Binars from TNG were electronically paired with each other, but were genderless.
The Outcast episode in TNG was a plain as day (beat you over the head with its obviousness) analogy about the treatment of homosexuals in then-modern society, as it had Riker having sex with a member of a genderless species who was then forcibly re-educated to conform to their society’s standards by denying their interest in him.
The shows unabashedly tackled sexual and gender topics on any number of occasions, but with the exception of the rather heavy-handed episode I just mentioned, most were handled deftly and matter-of-factly, just as you’d want if you were telling a good story that happened to incorporate such characters.
Broadcasting characters’ personal details that are in no way pertinent to the show or story is nothing more than pandering, and shoving those details into a show or story where they wouldn’t otherwise belong is nothing more than tokenization. Suggesting that this is the first instance of such characters is either a blatant lie or a statement made by someone with no awareness of the series’ history.
Oh My. (Score:5, Funny)
I thought Sulu had the 'sexually ambiguous' base covered already for the last 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Sulu was gay in the Kelvin timeline movies, shown on screen with his husband. In the original series they had to keep it toned down I guess, although I suppose you could infer that since he was shown to be romantically interested in women in TOS that might be a hint he was bisexual. It certainly wasn't intentional though.
Re: (Score:2)
In the original series they had to keep it toned down I guess, although I suppose you could infer that since he was shown to be romantically interested in women in TOS that might be a hint he was bisexual. It certainly wasn't intentional though.
It wasn't intentional since his character was never gay. Not even in the movies.
Re: (Score:2)
To quote Takei on the matter: 'Unfortunately, itâ(TM)s a twisting of Geneâ(TM)s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think itâ(TM)s really unfortunate.'
However Takei played Sulu, he does not seem to consider Sulu to be canonically gay. From the context of that interview, Takei is happy to see a gay character in Star Trek, but would have wanted a newly introduced gay character rather than a retcon of an existing character.
Re:Oh My. (Score:4, Informative)
Star Trek TNG did this as well (Score:5, Informative)
There was an episode of TNG called "The Outcast" where everyone in a specific race was supposed to be gender-neutral. Riker ended up sex with one of them, obviously, as was his custom as Captain Kirk's "screw every alien on the show" role replacement from the original series.
But, hey... it sounds like the next season of Star Trek: Discovery is dropping soon. The PR news story generation machine is running!
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda, the aliens in The Outcast were supposed to have no gender at all, rather than having gender but transitioning from one to another, or having gender but not feeling particularly attached to or conformal with the poles.
That episode was seen as being about gay rights. Depending on who you ask it was either pushing the boundaries of what could be done on TV or it was a bit of a let down. Apparently Roddenberry had wanted to have a gay character on the show but it wax nixed by the studio.
First question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First question (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, I never felt those characters being shoved down my throat, unlike more recent bunch of movies and series from all over.
Star Trek did a great job being gender-neutral and race-neutral. It somehow managed to wrap everything in a nice way, matching characters with actors.
They haven't put an emaciated nerd looking dude with glasses as chief of security or a weight lifting lady as the ship's empath.
Disney's Star Wars managed quite the contrary. Almost none of the actors made believable characters.
And I always go back to Xena and Gabrielle as the example. Imagine reversing the actors, and having Renee O'Connor play as Xena and Lucy Lawless being the sidekick. It would have been ridiculous, maybe worked as a stupid comedy, but that wasn't the intent.
In the end, believable characters in a believable story matter most.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First question (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like back then, *usually* the actual show and writers do a fine job of incorporating the sometimes more diverse than before characters without it being feeling awkward and forced. There are certainly exceptions, but they generally do ok.
What is different is all the meta-coverage. Directors, producers, writers, and actors so immensely pleased with themselves and take to now widely available social media outlets to shout to the rooftops how amazingly progressive they are, how they are so brave and no one in the history of humanity has been as progressive as they are. It somewhat cheapens the inclusiveness as they tend to make it more about how important they personally are for being 'brave' rather than the issues they think they are trailblazing about.
Re:First question (Score:5, Interesting)
My complaint with Rey wasn't that she was a woman, but that she had no motivation to go on the adventure to fight the space nazis. Luke has 5 explicitly stated motivations to go on the adventure: 1) he hates Tatooine, (planet farthest from the bright center of the galaxy), 2) he's interested in space politics ("you know of the rebellion against the empire?!"), 3) he wants to fly military ships (tells Owen and Beru he wants to "join the academy"), 4) he wants to bang his sister, 5) he wants to learn the ways of the force and learn more about his father. So when Obi-Wan says "you should come with me to Alderaan" his choice makes sense.
The only thing Rey ever expresses is her desire to stay on Jakku and wait for her parents. So when she rescues Finn and hears about the mission to get the droid back to the Resistance, she should say "oh, great, you take the robot I'mma go wait for my fam." Since she has no reason to go on the adventure, J.J. has the bad guys attack, forcing her into the next scene. Repeat when they get away and are safe with Han. She would go back to the planet and let Finn and Han go on with the droid if given the chance to choose, so J.J. has the gangsters attack.
She never gives any indication that she cares about space politics, or fighting, or the force. Nothing but her parents, and nothing she's doing has anything to do with her parents. She's doing the Star Wars stuff because she's in a Star Wars movie. It's bland and boring.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their transness or non-binairyness shouldn't be important. If you want to normalize a thing, that thing needs to be treated as normal. Uhura is black, but there are no stories around her being black. She's just there, doing her thing while being black, because being black is normal.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! These characters were just "there" because any other kind of commentary concerning their background would mean that their society was not yet entirely looking past those traits. Roddenberry showed us how it's done.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then it failed, on both accounts. I went back and watched The Original Series, and I have to say that I don't get how this show ever resulted in so much fandom. The stories are quite formulaic and repetitive. The characters are quite one dimensional. It's like watching episodes of Dora the Explorer. All the episodes follow the same basic plot line except the planet/aliens/danger slightly altered but the show is completely
Re: (Score:3)
Well then it failed, on both accounts. I went back and watched The Original Series, and I have to say that I don't get how this show ever resulted in so much fandom. The stories are quite formulaic and repetitive. The characters are quite one dimensional. It's like watching episodes of Dora the Explorer. All the episodes follow the same basic plot line except the planet/aliens/danger slightly altered but the show is completely predictable.
You say this now because you can't watch TOS in the context of when it was released and first went into syndication. Even in the 70s before the release of Star Wars it was considered to be pretty ahead of it's time.
Re: (Score:3)
It was the superb acting. /s
Re:First question (Score:4, Insightful)
The stories are quite formulaic and repetitive. The characters are quite one dimensional. It's like watching episodes of Dora the Explorer. All the episodes follow the same basic plot line except the planet/aliens/danger slightly altered but the show is completely predictable.
I wasn't around back then, but it may be a case of "Seinfeld Is Unfunny" [tvtropes.org] (TVTropes Warning)
Re: (Score:3)
I wasn't around back then, but it may be a case of "Seinfeld Is Unfunny"
I was around back then, and saw some Seinfeld first run. Seinfeld was unfunny, even in its own era. NYC humor is a peculiar animal at the best of times.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People who are trans or non-binary seem to think it's important, in the same way that Roddenberry thought it was important to have a mixed race crew back in the 60s. Representation on screen helps to normalize things like a black woman doing an important job.
Re:First question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, it needs to be done well, not just a token thing. It's been done well in some other shows.
TOS did make a big deal of some of the character's traits from time to time, most famously that scene where one of the bridge crew is a dick to Spock because he is half Vulcan and Kirk reprimands him. Usually though it was reserved for the guest stars, like those guys who were literally half black half white. They even had space Nazis, they were not afraid to take a position and preach it to the audience.
Later
Re: First question (Score:2, Insightful)
We need to be entertained and trained to accept supposedly natural homosexuality! Wtf ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gotta tick those SJW check-boxes
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It might not make any difference to you, but representation is important for human psychology.
That's nonsense, I've never been represented on the TV screen, and unless you are a cookie-cutter sitcom person, it's unlikely you have either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:First question (Score:4, Interesting)
and rubbed it in the face of 1960s, Jim Crow America.
Yes, they did, and please tell me how many times TOS made mention of that fact on the show? Did Uhura ever say "because I'm black"? Was it ever even mentioned? I don't remember it. Just like Sulu being Asian or Chekov being Russian or any number of other things. ST: TOS did these things SUBTLY and EFFECTIVELY.
I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Discovery will not only rub it in the face of 2020 America, but will try to force your mouth open and then shove it down your throat. THAT is the difference. Subtle but there versus overt and obnoxious. Don't scream "I'm X" at me; I'm an adult, intelligent, and have empathy -- I'll figure it out through your actions, my observations, and, in the case of TV, through good storytelling.
Nope there was one before (Score:2)
The Orville is the currently best Star Trek show (Score:5, Informative)
Who would have thought that Seth Mcfarlane would make a better Trek show than the people in charge of Trek.
What's the big effing deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we please move on from this childish non-sense? ... I fundamentally don't get it.
In the last 15 years or so a very small neurotic minority has been pushing a total non-issue into common laws and claiming to speak for everyone not having a generic hetero sexuality. We have cackling dimwits going on everybody's nerves, including those of trans-people, gays, lesbians, old-school feminists and still the whole world makes a big fuss about this point- and border-less moral panic.
I can't wait till this nonsense fad finally dies out.
And I'd like to add: Say what you will about straining the sometimes pitiful decadence of contemporary hip-hop and I get that taste is in the eye of the beholder, but if it needs two contemporary lady rappers and verbal porn to bring feminism full circle and back on track with reality, I'm all for it. That piece called "Wet Ass Pussy" that has gotten some attention might actually be the light at the end of the tunnel we've been waiting for. ... Think about it.
My 2 eurocents.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I... er... um, what?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the big effing deal? (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing about all the trendy new sexual types - gay, transgender, lesbian, asexual, pornaddict, etc is that they have less reproductive potential - none in some cases.
History has plenty of examples of people expressing their sexuality in these ways, like in Ancient Greece for starters. The fact that these forms of sexual expression have persisted in humans despite the negative pressures of reproductive potential would seem to point to something fundamental about our societies in a broad sense or us as humans that has caused these to survive despite being a small fraction of the total population.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You object to there being a trans and non-binary character on the show?
Nope. I object to making a big deal of it like it's the Second Coming of Christ or something and serving some desperate need for recognizing non-hetero sexuality. I remember when that was a perfectly normal thing in media and nobody made a big deal of it and everybody had a laugh, because sexuality usually is displayed in a humorous context.
To be honest, I think a lot of this non-binary whatever gender noise going on appears to be a gene
Even nonbinary people don't care - narcisissm (Score:5, Insightful)
To be honest, I think a lot of this non-binary whatever gender noise going on appears to be a general problem in society these days, concerning unfulfilled sexuality, identity insecurities and a general social-media-fuled desire to make a big fuss about nothing. Playing with gender and varieties thereof has always been present in art and movies. It seriously is no big deal. Including the fact that I and every other hetero male on this entire planet happens to enjoy looking at cute naked ladies. And that does not make them (or me) less worth.
People need to grown up about these things. In the US probably more so than in some other parts of the modern world.
That's what I was on about.
You're very right. We've long bent gender norms...and every time we've done it, I've been bored as shit. Remember the 80s metal hair bands? Ooohh...macho drug addict wears makeup, blouses, Farah Fawcett hair and gets laid more in one week than the rest of us can get in our lifetime...while earning a ton of money....if only I liked their music (I've always been a bigger fan of Motorhead than Motley Crue or Poison). Before that, we had lots of such stuff in theater.
I live in the belly of the progressive beast. I see non-binary people almost daily. They're not to be taken seriously. It's not like homosexuals or transgendered people who have long felt repression and are finally tasting freedom to be who they are. I respect them. They just want to live their lives like everyone else and don't seek attention. They want your acceptance, not to clash with you.
Every person I've ever seen who uses the term nonbinary to describe themselves is a narcissist. They're either conceptual artists like a few celebrities (Eddie Izzard or Genesis P Orridge) or young people compensating for a lack of personality "oooh...I'm so special your gender norms can't contain me!" Oooh, look at me, a beard, makeup, and a dress/heels....or heterosexual women who buzz their hair and get offended people just assume they're butch lesbians and complain most straight men overlook them. You've seen the same phenomena with anyone who clings to weird fashion and revels in being misunderstood....goths pretending they're vampires or satanists come to mind....also people with confrontational appearances, like wild green mohawks. It's usually just a phase
Small minds pretend this is exciting.
Those of us who have been around awhile know not to take them seriously. Some of us seek attention through positive traits...telling people who we are and what we've accomplished...others, who I don't care to be around, seek attention by telling you what they aren't "I can't be confined to your gender norms." "I reject meat and dairy...etc" "I reject your 2 party system."
The good (and bad) news is I'm getting old. I remember these people in college 20 years ago (I lived in a big city). It rarely lasts past their 20s...most give up once they hit 21 or so. Also, it's extremely rare for someone to be so confrontational in these areas, yet otherwise functioning. I remember meeting many of these people at parties early in college or grad school and almost all drop out....reality sets in and they need to change their ways if they want to earn a paycheck and have relationships.
So...I don't take narcissists seriously. I can see the world isn't changing. It's just those obnoxious 19 year olds I remember in college from parties who drop out, fail at life, and most eventually grow up. I know a bunch today on facebook. They used to be non-binary pansexals who reject ALL norms in society and spent all their time telling you what they aren't or what they don't like rather than what they do. Now they're suburban moms and dads...with a small wild streak...some unconventional clothes and decorations in their house...maybe get into community theater or a weird club, but most grow up, move to a house in the burbs, get a dull job (a lot become shitty programmers or tech writers) and
The binaries (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't TNG intruduce the Binaries in the first season? So I would have expected every other character to be non-binary....
Re: (Score:3)
The Binars, who for some reason tried to steal the Enterprise in the most ridiculous way possible instead of just asking for assistance. The first season was a bit of a mess.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Trek: Discovery will continue to suck regardless.
ok (Score:5, Funny)
New species discovered (Score:2, Funny)
Don't believe they hype (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, nobody show-running Star Trek these days ever was a Trekker, and if they watched an episode here and there it was homework for the job.
It's just another TV drama now, without the Roddenberry purpose behind it.
There's no five-year mission to seek out new controversies, explore taboo aspects of society, and to boldly go where no show has gone before.
Re:Don't believe they hype (Score:4, Insightful)
Though at least an alien could actually be "non-binary" without having a birth defect. For humans, that's just playing make-believe.
Dax? (Score:3, Informative)
I always considered Dax somewhat transgendered.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to advertise your diversity... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are NOT diverse. You are using minorities as an advertising model, which is not what is wanted or asked for.
What about skirt guy in TNG? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought the whole point was that everyone was "non-binary" in the future because gender roles are stupid and obsolete.
Of course the "non-binary" chick looks like a woman cross-playing Wesley Crusher. Which is to say, she looks exactly like teenage Wil Wheaton wearing more than the usual makeup.
The degree to which women wore makeup on Star Trek was particularly absurd. Either everyone would be doing it, or no one would, and it would die out like other absurdities, like wearing ties.
If the show were internally consistent, there would be no trans people, because their technology would be such that no one would be identifiable as trans without a genetic scan, and even that would be insufficient if they had their DNA rewritten. You might as well cast anyone and call them trans, otherwise it seems to be making the argument that trying to look like the opposite sex but failing is the point of being trans.
And I would love to see the outrage from both the SJWs and the alt-righters if the show were to feature people changing sex for the hell of it, and not to align to a gender identity, like in John Varley stories. That would be too woke for the woke.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a TV show. They're not going to abandon makeup any more than they've have everybody shave their heads, reasoning that people in the future will see shaved heads as more practical. It still has to be relatable to current-day normal people.
I can see topics like changing sexes or even bodies being explored in sci-fi, but not Star Trek. It's traditionally been a smart but fairly accessible family show. It's only in recent times Star Trek has become more a homage to Saw and gender studies.
No. Not first. (Score:2)
Star Trek actually has done this before and in a much better way. All this now is so much political pandering and virtue signaling to gain attention and seem relevant. I know I'm not the only who is giving the Star Trek of today a pass.
This video explains the problems quite well with this announcement and Star Trek in general these days. [youtu.be]
Derivative (Score:5, Informative)
The Orville already covered LGBTI issues with the Bortus and the Moclans.
Hence not as groundbreaking as ST would have you believe.
Great move from Kurtzman (Score:5, Funny)
This is definitely a good alternative to making something people want to watch.
Mchael (Score:3)
SJWs Ruined Star Trek!!11 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SJWs Ruined Star Trek!!11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite the opposite. Star Trek was always full of social commentary. Remember Lt. Uhura? That was a BIG deal back in the 1960s. You had episodes about racism (Let That Be Your Last Battlefield), about the cold war (Day of the Dove) and in TNG also about "wrong" sexual preferences (The Outcast).
The difference is that back then the social commentary was more subtle, and exactly because of that more powerful. You couldn't go in with pre conceived ideas because you didn't see it coming until you found yourself on the wrong side of your prejudice. Uhura was a normal officer on a ship, she was not showcased as "our inclusivity pet". Bele and Lokai looked identical to us until Bele actually pointed out the difference of their facial hemispheres, and I'm fairly sure a lot of people considered that ridiculous, only to eventually figure out that our form of racism is equally ridiculous.
Shoving it into the face of the viewer doesn't create understanding, it creates resistance.
Star Trek WAS inlusive. Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the original series? With a black communications officer? A female, black communications officer, back in the 1960s? You know what made her so special and what made the whole deal so incredibly powerful? That she was not special. That everyone treated her exactly like she should be treated: Like a normal officer on a normal ship. There was no "hey, viewer, look. LOOK! We have a black, female officer! You see that? How progressive we are? Look! She's black! And she's female! Female AND black!"
No. Instead she was an officer. That's what made this message really powerful. It was normal to have a black, female officer on a space ship. It was SO normal that we don't have to parade this out,
This now is just bullshit pandering. Want to bet we'll get another ham fisted episode or ten about just how oh-so-normal it is? Don't you get it that by doing that you're actually polluting the message you're trying to send?
Re: (Score:3)
Nichelle Nichols had resigned, and only rescinded her resignation when Martin Luther King talked her into it. She's discussed it openly in various interviews since then.
Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
The Old Series and the Next Generation were great for exploring social moors and societal issues from within the far future Star Trek perspective. That's what the series was celebrated for.
It's ironic that the series is now celebrated for conforming to the very social moors and issues it used to be a platform for exploring.
Do I mind? (Score:3)
Not really. Do I care. Not really either.
Minorities should be tolerated and accepted if non-extremist, but giving special attention to them is not warranted. Also, sexual and gender orientation is overrated.
Characters or actors? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Presumably by the era Discovery is set in gender confirmation treatments have been perfected and the individual is able to choose freely exactly what they want.
It will be interesting to see how the social side is portrayed. Star Trek claimed to be post-feminist in the past, i.e. there is no need for feminism any more because there is complete equality and all gender related issues have been resolved, but the way future society was portrayed that clearly wasn't actually the case.
Re:In the furture (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point, fighting biology makes people miserable so it's better for them if they can get gender confirmation treatment and be treated with dignity. Imagine you were forced to be the wrong gender because of some arbitrary biological standard that didn't account for your unique physiology, I imagine you would not enjoy that.
Re: In the furture (Score:3)
Re:In the future (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the point, fighting biology makes people miserable so it's better for them if they can get gender confirmation treatment and be treated with dignity.
I've met and worked with a lot of transgender people I always had the impression that it was their psyche reforming their biology.
Imagine you were forced to be the wrong gender because of some arbitrary biological standard that didn't account for your unique physiology, I imagine you would not enjoy that.
For many of the trans people I've met and worked with I often wondered if they were covertly abused so much that their model of relationships with their own gender was destroyed. Mental illness can be extreme enough for someone to obsess about anything, changing genders in an attempt to get a representation of love from the parent of same sex, could be another way of looking at it. The self destructive aspect perhaps a manifestation of not facing the anger with that parent.
Homosexuality occurs in nature, however Sequential hermaphroditism [wikipedia.org] is pretty rare in mammals.
I think it's only because human beings have access to technology that we are even able to consider such a feat. Perhaps allowing a child to decide their gender when their brain is still forming is taking that abuse to a new level. Boundaries exist between people so that people's individual identities can exist. When I see or hang around a trans person their identity is the most boundary breaking thing in the room which makes me wonder how their identity got broken.
I think a key aspect of any advanced civilization is knowing exactly who you are, that's what I learned from Star Trek.
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually a TNG episode about this:
The Masterpiece Society [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Genetic Engineering is a Taboo topic in the Trek Universe.
They will fix issues that have major health problems, but not things that would affect their normal growth and development.
I cannot see Doctors in the Federation Justifying "Removing the Gay" just because they could be some people who don't understand their preference.
Especially if you consider how many times people in Trek hook up with different species some that do not easily equate to creating a natural child.
Re:First they came .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah someone making yet another spinoff of a TV show in a way you don't approve of is exactly equivalent to genocide.
Re: (Score:3)
For most of the M-to-F trans "women" it's not gender dysphoria, but instead transvestic fetishism [wikipedia.org] and autogynephilia.
And studies have shown that a lot of the F-to-M teenage trans "boys" are lesbians that their parents are not happy with them being lesbian, but would rather they be males in a female body [thepostmillennial.com]. Kid you not. There is a lot of weirdness out there...
Also "gender dysphoria" has been shown to "infect" peer groups as a social contagion. TV shows normalising transgenderism, is likely to worsen this.
Very