Gays in Trek Mini-FAQ (draft)
Kate Orman
***
DRAFT COPY
Your comments, suggestions, questions and criticisms are
welcome! (Your flames will be ignored :-)).
***
CONTENTS
- Introduction
- Netiquette
- Why should there be a queer character in Star Trek?
- Myths about queers in "Trek"
- References
INTRODUCTION
This is a short version of the full "Gays in 'Star Trek' FAQ", which I'm
currently writing. The full FAQ will contain lots more information, and
will greatly expand on the points below.
All opinions in this FAQ are mine. I'll be emailing a copy to anyone who
obviously needs the benefit of my wisdom. :-) All feedback and discussion
are warmly welcome. I will *not* rewrite either FAQ to include homophobic
opinions, though I'm happy to correct mistakes of fact or logic. If you
don't like this FAQ, write your own.
NETIQUETTE
* Unless you're talking about a very recent episode, keep your postings in
rec.arts.startrek.misc.
* If your posting has nothing to do with Star Trek, please either email it
instead, or set the Newsgroups: or Followup-to: line (in the header) to a
more appropriate newsgroup, such as talk.politics.homosexuality.
* Morons who post obviously provocative messages probably don't read the
Trek newsgroups; email your response, or better still, ignore the little
jerks. :-)
WHY SHOULD THERE BE A QUEER CHARACTER IN STAR TREK?
* Because Star Trek is about a future in which bigotry has been overcome,
and everyone lives together in harmony.
* Because prejudice is never alright, no matter who it's directed against
- and that includes denying that someone exists.
* Because the producers have repeatedly promised to include one.
* Because Star Trek has always made an effort to include people of
different backgrounds - races, sexes, cultures, disabilities.
* Because Star Trek has always been ahead of its time in doing this; TOS
made a point of including a black woman, an Asian characters, and a later
a Russian character. TV's first interracial kiss happened in "Plato's
Stepchildren".
* Because it's pretty unlikely that gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and
other queer folk won't be around in the 24th Century.
* Because Star Trek has shown us a future for men and women without
sexism, a future for blacks, whites, and everyone else without racism.
Both queers and straights need to imagine a future without homophobia and
hatred, in which we work side by side.
MYTHS ABOUT QUEERS IN "TREK"
* "There are no gays in the 24th century because they've all died of
AIDS".
In fact, HIV/AIDS is mostly a *heterosexual* disease. Throughout the
world, about three-quarters of new infections result from straight
intercourse (in Australia, about 90% of new case arise from straight sex).
Lesbians are one of the lowest-risk categories for HIV transmission. The
number of new infections amongst gay men has declined dramatically, thanks
to safe sex.
* "There are no gays in the 24th Century because they can't breed, and
they've all died out."
Queers are not sterile; they can and do have children.
No-one knows for certain how people develop their sexual orientation, gay,
straight, or bi. It's very unlikely that sexual orientation has a simple
genetic cause, and could therefore be "bred out" of the population.
* "There are no gays in the 24th Century because they've all been cured."
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The American Psychiatric
Association removed homosexuality from its definitive list of
psychological disorders over twenty years ago. Homosexuality does not fit
the APA's definition of a mental disorder.
It's very unlikely that sexual orientation has a simple genetic cause, and
that it could therefore be "cured" by gene surgery or some other
technology.
* "There are no gays in the 24th Century because no-one chooses to be gay
any more."
Queers don't "choose" to be queer. Did you "choose" to be straight? :-)
* "There are no gays in the 24th century because the Bible says it's
wrong."
Many Christians disagree with this interpretation of the Bible. Many
Christians don't have any problems at all with homosexuality. Many queers
*are* Christian. And many Christians don't think that everyone must share
their beliefs and way of life - or that their beliefs should determine who
can and can't be shown on TV.
In any case, Starfleet doesn't seem to be using the Bible as its manual
for day-to-day operations. :-)
* "There are no gays in the 24th Century because it's unnatural."
So's flying around in a spaceship. :-)
Homosexual behaviour has been noted to occur *naturally* in many species,
including dolphins, octopi, and flamingoes. (A friend of mine's
grandmother had two lesbian dogs!)
* But they can't show two men in bed on Star Trek!
They don't need to. How often do we see a man and a woman in bed on Star
Trek? A kiss, two men holding hands, two women dancing together, a mention
of a same-sex partner... a very small gesture would make it clear that
queers are part of the Star Trek future.
REFERENCES
Brehm, Sharon S. and Kassin, Saul M. Social Psychology (2nd ed).
Houghton Mifflin Company, USA, 1993.
Byne, William. "The Biological Evidence Challenged". Scientific American,
May 1994, pp 26 - 31.
Cooke, Kaz. The modern girl's guide to safe sex. Penguin Books, Australia,
1993.
Jenkins, Henry and Tulloch, John. Science fiction audiences: watching
Doctor Who and Star Trek. Routledge, London and New York, 1995.
Le Vay, Simon and Hamer, Dean H. "Evidence for a biological influence in
male homosexuality". Scientific American, May 1994, pp 20-25.
Furnish, Victor Paul. The moral teaching of Paul: selected issues.
Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1985.
--
Kate Orman
"Mulder, toads just fell from the sky!" - Scully
George Reese
not a list of one person's opinions on an issue. This "FAQ" says that
the one true way to think is that Star Trek is obligated to show gays
in some way. Anything else is the product of bigoted, homophobic
minds. In fact, there is a third group, to which I belong, that
believs if Star Trek shows gays, good. If it does not, fine. It has
no obligation to show gays or any other *specific* minority group.
Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
: * Because the producers have repeatedly promised to include one.
This is the only argument which supports your premise.
Please, please do not pass off your personal opinions as FAQs.
--
George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) http://www.winternet.com/~borg/
phone/fax: (612) 829-5495 ftp://ftp.imaginary.com/users/borg
"No one ever conquered Wyoming from the left or from the right."
-Camper Van Beethoven
Paul Brown
[CLIP CLIP CLIP...]
Who cares? I find it to my advantage to ignore gays completely,
wherever they turn up. And I live in San Francisco.
I don't appreciate having to wade through this B.S. in a Star Trek
newsgroup. If you want to write this FAQ, that's fine. If you want
to announce it, that's fine too. But put it up on the Web, where
people can go and get it if they want to, instead of having to see it
in its entirety in the newsgroup.
Besides, what does this have to do with a recent episode (a
"netiqutte" point of yours)?
--
___ | Paul Brown | "My statements are
/ / / . ___ ___ | California State | political and correct,
/ /__ / / / / / | University Chico | but not necessarily
/____/ /_/_/____/__/__ | Computer Science | politically correct."
R. Tang
Paul Brown <buck...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>In article <3snlh9$5...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>,
>Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>Who cares?
A lot of people do.
>I don't appreciate having to wade through this B.S. in a Star Trek
>newsgroup.
Tell that to the bozos who bring it up.
>Besides, what does this have to do with a recent episode (a
>"netiqutte" point of yours)?
Note the followups, son.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
STILL just another theatre geek....
The most unAmerican thing you can say is "He/she makes too much money."
Luke J. Vassiliou
with them) before I ask some questions:
Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
: No-one knows for certain how people develop their sexual orientation, gay,
: straight, or bi. It's very unlikely that sexual orientation has a simple
: genetic cause, and could therefore be "bred out" of the population.
: It's very unlikely that sexual orientation has a simple genetic cause, and
: that it could therefore be "cured" by gene surgery or some other
: technology.
: Queers don't "choose" to be queer. Did you "choose" to be straight? :-)
And yet it is amazing how many people jump up and down screaming that it
is all in the genes. Anyway... Here are my questions.
Given that I would like to see a gay or lesbian character on ST
I have some points that worry me:
1. Who will write for that character? Will s/he be a token--stereotype
gay (perhaps loving the opera and listening to K.D. Lang) or lesbian,
or will s/he be a fully developed complex character?
2. Will the writers be able to use that character any way they see fit for
the series, or will control groups and activists demand creative control?
(i.e. : "You can't have the gay character help the Romulans, because you are
being evil. Only the straight character would do that). Will that character
become the Universal symbol of homosexuality and thus have people turn all
s/he'll do to conspiracies of a straight establishment?
Luke
--
Michelle Malkin
(Paul Brown) writes:
>
>In article <3snlh9$5...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>,
>Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>Who cares? I find it to my advantage to ignore gays completely,
>wherever they turn up. And I live in San Francisco.
>
>to announce it, that's fine too. But put it up on the Web, where
>people can go and get it if they want to, instead of having to see it
>in its entirety in the newsgroup.
>
>"netiqutte" point of yours)?
>
>
> ___ | Paul Brown | "My statements are
> / / / . ___ ___ | California State | political and
correct,
> / /__ / / / / / | University Chico | but not necessarily
>/____/ /_/_/____/__/__ | Computer Science | politically
correct."
Try skipping to another thread instead of trying to put your bigotry on
everyone else.
Mickey
Michelle Malkin
ljv...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Luke J. Vassiliou) writes:
>
>Some points that I agree with (although I am not sure why YOU agree
>with them) before I ask some questions:
>
>
>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
orientation, gay,
>: straight, or bi. It's very unlikely that sexual orientation has a
simple
>: genetic cause, and could therefore be "bred out" of the population.
cause, and
>: that it could therefore be "cured" by gene surgery or some other
>: technology.
:-)
>
>And yet it is amazing how many people jump up and down screaming that
it
>is all in the genes. Anyway... Here are my questions.
>
>Given that I would like to see a gay or lesbian character on ST
>I have some points that worry me:
>
>1. Who will write for that character? Will s/he be a token--stereotype
>gay (perhaps loving the opera and listening to K.D. Lang) or lesbian,
>or will s/he be a fully developed complex character?
>
>2. Will the writers be able to use that character any way they see fit
for
>the series, or will control groups and activists demand creative
control?
>(i.e. : "You can't have the gay character help the Romulans, because
you are
>being evil. Only the straight character would do that). Will that
character
>become the Universal symbol of homosexuality and thus have people turn
all
>s/he'll do to conspiracies of a straight establishment?
>
>Luke
>--
>
>
>
>
Mickey
Luke J. Vassiliou
.ilstu.edu> <3svn4t$o...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Illinois State University
Distribution: world
Michelle Malkin (malk...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Will someone please introduce this guy to K/S fandom!
: Mickey
Hilarious. Now if you would only learn how to edit before incorporating
a whole posting to respond with one line--and not a good one at that. You
might also notice that I was responding to a thread somebody else started.
Luke
To quote my personal hero: Your attempts at humour leave much to
be desired
--
Ian Michael Thal
I was thinking about your mini-FAQ list... I thought I would offer more
commentary....
In article <3snlh9$5...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
(Kate Orman) wrote:
>
> WHY SHOULD THERE BE A QUEER CHARACTER IN STAR TREK?
>
> * Because Star Trek is about a future in which bigotry has been overcome,
> and everyone lives together in harmony.
(Not quite-- but bigotry is usually condemned for what it is, bigotry.)
>
> * Because Star Trek has always been ahead of its time in doing this; TOS
> made a point of including a black woman, an Asian characters, and a later
> a Russian character. TV's first interracial kiss happened in "Plato's
> Stepchildren".
Note that the writers for TOS were more comfortable with presenting a
mixed racl character (Spock) of Human/Vulcan heritage, then they were with
an interacial kiss.
>
> * Because Star Trek has shown us a future for men and women without
> sexism,
I disagree, only the Romulons seem to give equal oportunity for females to
ascend to command positions. Females in command positions are still the
exception in Trek. I think the writers are at fault. On TNG, only Guinan
and Ensign Ro Larin were not presented in a traditional sexist manner,
but both were merely supporting characters. It was not until the
introduction of Major Kira Narys on DS9, that there was a central
character on a Trek show who was portrayed as feminine without following
sexist stereotypes.
a future for blacks, whites, and everyone else without racism.
> Both queers and straights need to imagine a future without homophobia and
> hatred, in which we work side by side.
>
>
> MYTHS ABOUT QUEERS IN "TREK"
>
Most of these myths are just that, myths. It is unfortunate that they
even have to be responded to.
>
> * "There are no gays in the 24th century because the Bible says it's
> wrong."
>
> ...In any case, Starfleet doesn't seem to be using the Bible as its manual
> for day-to-day operations. :-)
In fact, it should be pointed out that only one character on Trek has ever
been identified as a Christian-- Lt. Uhura, however, it does not seem
that her Christianity has anything to do with condemning other people.
What we in the 20th century call traditional religion seems to play a very
small roll in the life of the Federation (although we mainly see Star
Fleet) The only other Earth religion seemingly observed within the
Federation is the unidentified Native American religion that Chakotay
practices. Many Native American cultures actually view there as being
three genders, not two.
Picard, who seems to speak for the Federation's dominant ideology, seems
to be in the tradition of 18th century Enlightenment humanism-- regarding
divinely revealed moral prohibitions and imperitives to be superstition,
to be outgrown.
The Klingon cult of Kalyss is non-theistic (the Klingon language also has
no word for God) and is concerned mainly with honor and glory of the
Warrior class. Neither of which are necessarily incompatible with
sexuality in any form.
There is no indication that the Bajoran religion makes any pronouncements
on sexuality.
> * "There are no gays in the 24th Century because it's unnatural."
>
> So's flying around in a spaceship. :-)
>
> Homosexual behaviour has been noted to occur *naturally* in many species,
> including dolphins, octopi, and flamingoes. (A friend of mine's
> grandmother had two lesbian dogs!)
>
How come no one seems to object to Klingon/Romulon/Vulcan/Human/Bajoran
(inter species) couplings? Any 24th century bigot would call this
beastiality... is this realy easier to digest than same-sex relations?
> * But they can't show two men in bed on Star Trek!
>
> They don't need to. How often do we see a man and a woman in bed on Star
> Trek? A kiss, two men holding hands, two women dancing together, a mention
> of a same-sex partner... a very small gesture would make it clear that
> queers are part of the Star Trek future.
>
Actually, I suspect that 20th century Americans are less homophobic than
they pretend to be... and more racist.
-Ian
Thad Bissett
: THE (VERY UNOFFICIAL) GAYS IN TREK MINI-FAQ
: - Introduction
: - Netiquette
: - Why should there be a queer character in Star Trek?
: - Myths about queers in "Trek"
: - References
: WHY SHOULD THERE BE A QUEER CHARACTER IN STAR TREK?
: MYTHS ABOUT QUEERS IN "TREK"
: Queers are not sterile; they can and do have children.
: Queers don't "choose" to be queer. Did you "choose" to be straight? :-)
: Many Christians disagree with this interpretation of the Bible. Many
: Christians don't have any problems at all with homosexuality. Many queers
: *are* Christian. And many Christians don't think that everyone must share
: their beliefs and way of life - or that their beliefs should determine who
: can and can't be shown on TV.
You know, for someone who seems to have the right idea about
accepting gays, you sure does put it a strange way. Calling gay people
"queers" is like calling whites "honkies", or blacks "niggers", or even
calling gays "faggots." Queer is a derogatory term, not considered
polite, and for it to be included in your pro-gays-on-Star Trek FAQ shows
that either you have no idea what the words you're using mean, or you
simply think it's an acceptable label, or that you are in fact writing
this as a patronization of gays. Political correctness HAS gone too far,
but this isn't that. This is simply knowing what is offensive and what
is not. I would hope that you would alter the referrences in your FAQ
before you publish it.
Luke J. Vassiliou
Organization: Illinois State University
Distribution:
Thad Bissett (tbis...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu) wrote:
: : Kate Orman wrote:
: : Many Christians disagree with this interpretation of the Bible. Many
: : Christians don't have any problems at all with homosexuality. Many queers
: : *are* Christian. And many Christians don't think that everyone must share
: : their beliefs and way of life - or that their beliefs should determine who
: : can and can't be shown on TV.
: You know, for someone who seems to have the right idea about
: accepting gays, you sure does put it a strange way. Calling gay people
: "queers" is like calling whites "honkies", or blacks "niggers", or even
: calling gays "faggots." Queer is a derogatory term, not considered
: polite, and for it to be included in your pro-gays-on-Star Trek FAQ shows
: that either you have no idea what the words you're using mean, or you
: simply think it's an acceptable label, or that you are in fact writing
: this as a patronization of gays. Political correctness HAS gone too far,
: but this isn't that. This is simply knowing what is offensive and what
: is not. I would hope that you would alter the referrences in your FAQ
: before you publish it.
Excuse me one second while I am on the floor laughing because of someone
attacking Kate Orman for insensitivity and Political Incorrectness. Is
Poetic Justice great or what? Anyway, I am sure she can defend
herself easily so i am not doing that. I would just like to inform you
that there is a faction in the gay movement that insist they be called
queers. Maybe it is a pre-emptive strike of some sort, like "do to
yourself what the others wanna do to you" in which case by adopting a
derogatory term you actually purge it of any derogatory power. If
they call themselves queers, how much can you insult them calling them that?
So the term becomes useless as a term of abuse. I am not saying that
it works or not, it is just a reality for a part of the gay activists.
I am assuming this is why the term is used in the FAQ. I could be wrong.
In any case, I'd be interested in reading an "official" explanation about
it.
Luke
--
Jennikatra
ljv...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Luke J. Vassiliou) wrote:
> Thad Bissett (tbis...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu) wrote:
> : : Kate Orman wrote:
> : : Christians don't have any problems at all with homosexuality. Many queers
> : : *are* Christian. And many Christians don't think that everyone must share
> : : their beliefs and way of life - or that their beliefs should determine who
> : : can and can't be shown on TV.
> : accepting gays, you sure does put it a strange way. Calling gay people
> : "queers" is like calling whites "honkies", or blacks "niggers", or even
> : calling gays "faggots."
Which is why some gays have chosen to embrace the term, or didn't you know
that? Just as some blacks go by the labels, as in the rappers "Niggaz with
Attitude," or however they spell it. These things happen. Ever heard of
Queer Nation? They use the label as a point of pride. I guess people just
like jumping all over Kate for *something*. :-)
> : Queer is a derogatory term, not considered
> : polite, and for it to be included in your pro-gays-on-Star Trek FAQ shows
> : that either you have no idea what the words you're using mean, or you
> : simply think it's an acceptable label, or that you are in fact writing
> : this as a patronization of gays.
<snicker> Oh, I've got to shut up and let Kate answer this herself. I must
shut up...
> Excuse me one second while I am on the floor laughing because of someone
> attacking Kate Orman for insensitivity and Political Incorrectness. Is
> Poetic Justice great or what?
And what's your problem, darling? Acceptance of other lifestyles and
colors is getting to be a bit too much for your tender sensitivities? :-)
> there is a faction in the gay movement that insist they be called
> queers.
Good, someone does know that.
> If they call themselves queers, how much can you insult them calling them
> that? So the term becomes useless as a term of abuse. I am not saying
> that it works or not, it is just a reality for a part of the gay activists.
> I am assuming this is why the term is used in the FAQ. I could be wrong.
I don't think you are wrong. Glad to see someone with sense. <giggle>
--
jenni...@aol.com / rsha...@sirius.com
"Make way! For I am the official keeper of the Emperor's penguins,
and I must hurry because his majesty's laundry basket is on fire."
The Doctor, _Transit_
BlueGerbil
Could be that everyone's gone past the point of sexual labeling in the
24th century--there's really no such thing as "gay" or "straight" anymore,
just people tend to fall in love with whomever they choose...
I dunno. A theory.
(David Gerrold wrote an early TNG story entitled "Blood and Fire" that
involved two gay characters---also an AIDS-like epidemic involving Regulan
Bloodworms. It was never filmed, due to the usual reasons of money/time
constraints/might not look good in middle America/grumpy directors etc.)
|) | | | |_
|) |_ |_| |_
gerbil
"The truth is the most dangerous weapon
against authority"
Kate Orman
Luke J. Vassiliou <ljv...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu> wrote:
>Some points that I agree with (although I am not sure why YOU agree
>with them) before I ask some questions:
>
>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
>: straight, or bi. It's very unlikely that sexual orientation has a simple
>: genetic cause, and could therefore be "bred out" of the population.
>: that it could therefore be "cured" by gene surgery or some other
>: technology.
>
>And yet it is amazing how many people jump up and down screaming that it
>is all in the genes. Anyway... Here are my questions.
Yep. There's evidence that sexual orientation is partly genetic, but it
isn't conclusive.
>Given that I would like to see a gay or lesbian character on ST
But Luke, wouldn't that be Political Correctness? :-)
>I have some points that worry me:
>
>1. Who will write for that character? Will s/he be a token--stereotype
>gay (perhaps loving the opera and listening to K.D. Lang) or lesbian,
>or will s/he be a fully developed complex character?
Trek has sometimes been guilty of stereotyping - witness Picard's rather
embarrassing "Frenchness" in early TNG. Right now, though, they're guilty
of a sort of censorship.
>2. Will the writers be able to use that character any way they see fit for
>the series, or will control groups and activists demand creative control?
>(i.e. : "You can't have the gay character help the Romulans, because you are
>being evil. Only the straight character would do that). Will that character
>become the Universal symbol of homosexuality and thus have people turn all
>s/he'll do to conspiracies of a straight establishment?
Well, the blind community, the black community, the Asian community, and
so on, don't seem to have tried to "take over" characters in TNG and DS9.
We've had black heroes and black villains, for example.
Kate Orman
George Reese <bo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>IMHO, passing this off as a FAQ does a serious disservice. A FAQ is
>not a list of one person's opinions on an issue. This "FAQ" says that
>the one true way to think is that Star Trek is obligated to show gays
>in some way. Anything else is the product of bigoted, homophobic
>minds. In fact, there is a third group, to which I belong, that
>believs if Star Trek shows gays, good. If it does not, fine. It has
>no obligation to show gays or any other *specific* minority group.
In fact, the FAQ makes no such statements, and encourages comment and
debate.
>Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
>: * Because the producers have repeatedly promised to include one.
>
>This is the only argument which supports your premise.
What premise?
Intriguingly, this is the one point which others have said should *not*
be included, because the producers "have to right to change their minds".
>Please, please do not pass off your personal opinions as FAQs.
What opinion is included in the FAQ is clearly stated to be my own. The
*facts* in the FAQ are clearly sourced.
Kate Orman
Ian Michael Thal <Th...@bcvms.bc.edu> wrote:
>I was thinking about your mini-FAQ list... I thought I would offer more
>commentary....
Thanks, Ian - and to everyone else who's put in their $0.02!
>In article <3snlh9$5...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au
>(Kate Orman) wrote:
>>
>> WHY SHOULD THERE BE A QUEER CHARACTER IN STAR TREK?
>>
>> * Because Star Trek is about a future in which bigotry has been overcome,
>> and everyone lives together in harmony.
>
>(Not quite-- but bigotry is usually condemned for what it is, bigotry.)
Trek has seldom confronted bigotry head-on (I was dearly hoping Sisko and
Bashir would encounter it in "Past Tense", and be bewildered). Its
anti-bigotry message tends to be less preachy - "Look, the black people
and the white people are working together!"
>> * Because Star Trek has always been ahead of its time in doing this; TOS
>> made a point of including a black woman, an Asian characters, and a later
>> a Russian character. TV's first interracial kiss happened in "Plato's
>> Stepchildren".
>
>Note that the writers for TOS were more comfortable with presenting a
>mixed racl character (Spock) of Human/Vulcan heritage, then they were with
>an interacial kiss.
Good point, especially given the prejudice against mixed couples at the
time.
>> * Because Star Trek has shown us a future for men and women without
>> sexism,
>
>I disagree, only the Romulons seem to give equal oportunity for females to
>ascend to command positions. Females in command positions are still the
>exception in Trek. I think the writers are at fault. On TNG, only Guinan
>and Ensign Ro Larin were not presented in a traditional sexist manner,
>but both were merely supporting characters. It was not until the
>introduction of Major Kira Narys on DS9, that there was a central
>character on a Trek show who was portrayed as feminine without following
>sexist stereotypes.
Shelby. (Though you're right, they could have done better.)
[snip]
>> ...In any case, Starfleet doesn't seem to be using the Bible as its manual
>> for day-to-day operations. :-)
>
>In fact, it should be pointed out that only one character on Trek has ever
>been identified as a Christian-- Lt. Uhura, however, it does not seem
>that her Christianity has anything to do with condemning other people.
Hey, I didn't realise that - which episode?
>What we in the 20th century call traditional religion seems to play a very
>small roll in the life of the Federation (although we mainly see Star
>Fleet) The only other Earth religion seemingly observed within the
>Federation is the unidentified Native American religion that Chakotay
>practices. Many Native American cultures actually view there as being
>three genders, not two.
And there's the famous throw-away line about Hinduism in "Data's Day".
[snip]
Kate Orman
Thad Bissett <tbis...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>: WHY SHOULD THERE BE A QUEER CHARACTER IN STAR TREK?
[snip]
> You know, for someone who seems to have the right idea about
>accepting gays, you sure does put it a strange way. Calling gay people
>"queers" is like calling whites "honkies", or blacks "niggers", or even
>calling gays "faggots." Queer is a derogatory term, not considered
>polite, and for it to be included in your pro-gays-on-Star Trek FAQ shows
>that either you have no idea what the words you're using mean, or you
>simply think it's an acceptable label, or that you are in fact writing
>this as a patronization of gays. Political correctness HAS gone too far,
>but this isn't that. This is simply knowing what is offensive and what
>is not. I would hope that you would alter the referrences in your FAQ
>before you publish it.
I think you should read the soc.motss FAQ.
"Queer" is commonly used as a non-derogatory term for gays, lesbians,
bisexuals, and so on; I was trying to find a term which wouldn't leave
anyone out (though I've still ended up using "gay" all over the place).
It's difficult to find a satisfactory solution. But as the soc.motss FAQ
points out, no matter what term you choose, you're going to offend
*someone*. And I'm sorry to have offended you. Can you come up with a
better solution?
Todd Horowitz
Kate Orman <kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <Thal-30069...@cf58.bc.edu>,
>Ian Michael Thal <Th...@bcvms.bc.edu> wrote:
>>(Not quite-- but bigotry is usually condemned for what it is, bigotry.)
>Trek has seldom confronted bigotry head-on (I was dearly hoping Sisko and
>Bashir would encounter it in "Past Tense", and be bewildered). Its
>anti-bigotry message tends to be less preachy - "Look, the black people
>and the white people are working together!"
Which is an excellent argument for simply having a gay character,
rather than having a big Homophobia-is-Bad preachorama episode (look at
what a failure "The Outcast" was, for instance).
>>Note that the writers for TOS were more comfortable with presenting a
>>mixed racl character (Spock) of Human/Vulcan heritage, then they were with
>>an interacial kiss.
And even then he had to be human-alien, he couldn't have been
half-black,half-white, for instance (except in "Let That Be Your Last
Battlefield ;).
>Good point, especially given the prejudice against mixed couples at the
>time.
A prejudice which closely mirrors the prejudice against gays.
>>I disagree, only the Romulons seem to give equal oportunity for females to
>>ascend to command positions. Females in command positions are still the
>>exception in Trek. I think the writers are at fault. On TNG, only Guinan
>>and Ensign Ro Larin were not presented in a traditional sexist manner,
>>but both were merely supporting characters. It was not until the
>>introduction of Major Kira Narys on DS9, that there was a central
>>character on a Trek show who was portrayed as feminine without following
>>sexist stereotypes.
>Shelby. (Though you're right, they could have done better.)
In any case, modern-day Trek has given us roughly equal proportions of
men and women in the Admiralty, which makes a fairly strong statement that
women are as command-capable as men in the 24th century.
It is interesting, though, that the TNG characters were fairly
gender-stereotyped, while DS9 and Voyager indicate that the staff is perfect-
ly capable of writing decent, strong, female characters.
>>In fact, it should be pointed out that only one character on Trek has ever
>>been identified as a Christian-- Lt. Uhura, however, it does not seem
>>that her Christianity has anything to do with condemning other people.
>Hey, I didn't realise that - which episode?
I don't believe that Uhura was ever identified as Christian. In "Bread
and Circuses", however, she identifies the local "sun worshippers" as "Son
(of God) worshippers", which indicates that she is at least familiar with
Christianity (although how a bunch of exiles living in caves managed
radio broadcasts which could be picked up in orbit is beyond me).
However, I agree with the general sentiment; religion should be
dealt with in a more matter-of-fact manner on Star Trek. Some Earth humans
are going to have religion, and that could be mentioned as a matter of course
without focusing on it, just as homosexuality should be.
Remember, howeveer, that they've been perfectly willing to identify
people as _hetero_-sexual!
-todd "All Todd, All The Time"
Luke J. Vassiliou
Organization: Illinois State University
Distribution:
Kate Orman (kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au) wrote:
: Luke J. Vassiliou wrote:
: >Given that I would like to see a gay or lesbian character on ST
: But Luke, wouldn't that be Political Correctness? :-)
I guess you've converted me. After all, all it takes is a telephone and
an open mind (whoops, that is not your motto, is it?) :>
Luke
--
Murray C Park
>In article <1995Jul2.1...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu>,
>Thad Bissett <tbis...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu> wrote:
>> You know, for someone who seems to have the right idea about
>>accepting gays, you sure does put it a strange way. Calling gay people
>>"queers" is like calling whites "honkies", or blacks "niggers", or even
[SNIP]
>I think you should read the soc.motss FAQ.
>"Queer" is commonly used as a non-derogatory term for gays, lesbians,
>bisexuals, and so on; I was trying to find a term which wouldn't leave
>anyone out (though I've still ended up using "gay" all over the place).
I really don't think that it's reasonable to expect many of the
readers of the newsgroup to know this or to read the soc.motss FAQ. I
also have to say that I've never been comfortable with the term
"queer" and while agreeing that a universally acceptable term is
impossible I can't imagine the term "gay" being less acceptible to the
majority of us than "queer".
Murray
---
Murray C Park, West Drayton, England
http://www.catalog.com/mpark
Kate Orman
BlueGerbil <blueg...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Why no gays in Star Trek"
>
>Could be that everyone's gone past the point of sexual labeling in the
>24th century--there's really no such thing as "gay" or "straight" anymore,
>just people tend to fall in love with whomever they choose...
... which, curiously, is always someone of the opposite sex. So far as
we've seen, anyway. :-)
[snip]
Kate Orman
al...@mhv.net
> I always thought Barclay was supposed to be gay, but of course it was
> never spelled out, was it? Perhaps I'm stereotyping.
If Barclay was gay, what was with the "Goddess of Empathy" and the way he
made buffoons of the male characters?
If Barclay was bi, we might still have seen the Goddess of Empathy, but
surely we'd also have seen a male character in a smiliar role. But
Barclay's fantasies about the male characters seemed solely to deal with
putting them down and looking heroic in comparison to them. So I think
it's unlikely that Barclay is gay.
Sadly, though I'd much like to believe otherwise, there don't appear to
be *any* gay characters, and few that could even be called bi. Riker, I
think, might not have a problem with sleeping with men-- he had no
problem with a genderless androgyne, and also, Riker will screw anything.
:-) But his preference is obviously women. Data, being asexual in
orientation but programmed with sexual behaviors, could be seduced by a
man as easily as by a woman, but would never initiate. Q, I am convinced,
is in love with Picard. :-) But being an essentially genderless creature,
he doesn't count.
My hopes are still high for Harry Kim, though. :-)
--
Alara Rogers
al...@netcom.com
al...@mhv.net