Talk:LGBT characters in the Star Trek universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Star Trek Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.

Contents

[edit] POV dispute

Most of this lengthy article has been written by a single contributor, which means it should be subject to extra scrutiny. Several passages that I dispute as POV:

  • "The rare occasion that a character was introduced that was clearly gay or bisexual the character was a lecherous villain. In the episode titled The Most Toys (1990) Data is kidnapped by an effeminate art dealer that expresses a desire to see the Star fleet android naked. Thus the sexuality of the criminal collector is established by his effeminate mannerisms, his artistic friends, and his explicit desire to see his man prisoner, albeit an android, naked. Where as the refusal to put the script Blood and Fire into production suggested a reluctance to introduce gay characters as background heroes, Toys suggested that homosexuality could exist in the Star Trek universe as long as it was a characteristic found in the darker side of the universe."

First of all, this perpetuates a stereotype by assuming that a character with "effeminate mannerisms" must be gay. Second, it is implied that the villain may have had a (not entirely consensual) relationship with the servant girl who helps Data escape. Third, there is no reason to assume that he wants to see Data naked out of prurient interest. He has captured data because Data is a unique piece of craftsmanship. Is it homosexual to admire Michaelangelo's David?

  • "The problem was that all the non-gender aliens were played by female actors and thus a critic of homophobia becomes an episode about how fascist lesbians from outer space are trying to destroy heterosexuality. A related problem with the episode was that unlike the original Star Trek episode that criticized racism and sexism, this next generation episode has no gay crew members (thus it is something brought onto the ship by those militant lesbians) and no real discussion of the homophobia that used to exist on earth."

A critique of homophobia becomes a story of "fascist lesbians" making trouble for straight society? I think the writer may be seeing what he wants to see.

  • "The character named Elim Garak operated a tailor shop on the space station and had a shady, criminal past. Fans felt that the Garak sexuality was a hidden subtext revealed through his interest in fabrics, slightly effeminate mannerisms and friends, his lack of sincere interest in the opposite sex, a shady past with an older man (that seem rather Greco-Roman) and a growing friendship with the British doctor (Bashir) that was suddenly ended as rumors about the characters sexuality spread."

"Fans felt" that Garak was gay because he was a tailor? Which fans? Can the writer show that this is the interpretation of even a substantial minority of Trekkers? How exactly was Garak's relationship with his mentor "Greco-Roman"?

I could go on. Suffice to say this article needs a top-to-bottom makeover. Schmeitgeist 21:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

A couple of comments: 1) Yes, it's pretty gay to admire Michaelangelo's David. 2) The Garak/Bashir relationship had pretty blatant homoerotic overtones. Search Google for "Garak Bashir gay" and you'll find pages like this and probably the campaign to "out" Garak as well. 3) Depicting villains as having effeminate mannerisms is an ancient propagandistic technique that predates the medieval Mystery Plays where Herod was a screaming nancy-boy. The point is not that the character is gay, but that he is depicted with gay mannerisms. (That he may also have sex with a female servant isn't really the point.) 4) I agree with the fascist lesbian critique: they weren't even lesbians, they were simply of indeterminate gender. 5) The fact remains that Star Trek had no gay characters. - Outerlimits 21:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Most Toys

I've pulled this paragraph:

In the episode titled The Most Toys (1990) Data is kidnapped by an effeminate art dealer that expresses a desire to see the Star fleet android naked. Thus the sexuality of the criminal collector is established by his effeminate mannerisms, his artistic friends, and his explicit desire to see his man prisoner, albeit an android, naked. Where as the refusal to put the script Blood and Fire into production suggested a reluctance to introduce gay characters as background heroes, Toys suggested that homosexuality could exist in the Star Trek universe as long as it was a characteristic found in the darker side of the universe.

I've never read a single source that suggests Fajo was meant to be gay. If someone can find a source to back up this claim, then feel free to restore it. Although perhaps if it is restored, the stereotypes should be removed. They establish the characters sexuality by his "effeminate mannerisms" and the fact that he has "artistic friends"??? You have to be kidding. AlistairMcMillan 14:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be why they're stereotypes.... I haven't seen this episode, and don't disagree that there might be more "interpretation" here than appropriate in an encyclopedia. - Outerlimits 15:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that episode and he doesn't look at all gay, just a flamboyant collector. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ)

I've seen the episode too. I don't know what to "look gay" is supposed to mean, but I interpreted him as gay the first time I saw him. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I would hesitate before stating that the above-referenced author had any sort of axe to grind. Rather, I think the problem may more fundamentally be related to the lack of usable material. The topic of "gays in Star Trek" reminds me of the Airplane site gag with "famous Jewish athletes" publication being the size of a small pamphlet.

I have edited the article to include some slash-originated speculation related to the genetic engineering. More particularly, there may be no gay characters in Star Trek because there are no gay people. I recall reading about Rick Berman stating that this genetic reason could be the rationale and, if it were conclusively proven that homosexuality was genetic, then the show would deal with the topic. Jtmichcock

[edit] VFD debate

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too bad. Hopefully, in the future, some diligent researchers will do more work citing some sources rather than watching Trek and adding things like "Kivas Fajo was gay because he had loose wrists and effeminate mannerisms" or "Janeway looked to be eyeing up Seven's body" -- CaptainMike 22:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Fleet Academy comics

"Starfleet Cadet Yoshi Mishima was the first ever openly homosexual human in the Star Trek Universe. He was portayed as a smart, brave, caring young man who was a capable leader, a skilled officer, and an effective fighter. Sorry to see that the book was cancelled so soon after Yoshi was "outed"."

Source:

Found the above while researching a diffrent topic, provided if anyone wants to use it. --Tony Hecht 00:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voyager

It is true, there was strong subext between janeway and seven. I'd say in Voyager Conspiracy and Endgame it became even a bit maintext. It would be exhausting here to point out all the subtexty scenes. But the ones mentioned here, are wrong. In which dialog we get to know that Seven might be bisexual? I can't see it. Although we get the creepy feeling that janeway is harbouring romantic feelings for her, especially after Seven had left. (There is also a scnene that they cut out in the premier and video release, but that is on the DVD's) And in the end they might have a flirt. But no general hint about Sevens's sexuality. And whats about Killing Game? It's more a gender statement for Janeway (who wears a white tuxedo). In Vis A Vis we also see janeway possessed by some alien, what makes her rather omnisexual. The whole Voyager part in this article needs a make-over, I'd say.


Why must we use gay in lieu of homosexual? Why would someone threaten to ban someone for correcting such a mistake in the usage of the language?

[edit] Gay in lieu of homosexual.

Why is changing the word gay and replacing it with the correct term homosexual vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.1.98.136 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC.

  • "Gay" as a word for homosexual is NOT a mistake in the usage of language. You do realize that a word can have two different meanings, right? Gay is the most used term for homosexual in common language. In fact, I dare say most people don't use it to mean happy anymore. Gay is the most appropriate term to use here. Constantly changing it to homosexual is disruptive and unhelpful. --Etacar11 14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Unhelpful to whom?70.157.33.169 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the first same-sex kiss?

According to my research, "Rejoined" was not the first time a same-sex kiss happened on television. See the link below.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/subject1/a/lesbiansonTV.htm

I have changed the article accordingly. Please post any objections here before doing a revert. Ycaps123 18:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think the text before your revision was meant to imply that it was the first such kiss in TV history, just Star Trek. But your clairification is fine. --Etacar11 18:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh gawd please make it go away

(heading added by nathanrdotcom)

Good God. Is this necessary? Of all the things in the world to do with your time...this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.237.90.24 (talk • contribs) 04:38 8 April 2006 (UTC).

  • You might want to try actually signing your posts so that we know who's commenting. It requires very little effort and just four added characters to the end of your message ("~~~~").
If you don't agree with the subject matter, close your eyes and pretend you didn't see it. That's what I suggest for anyone with such an opinion. It's very much a part of Star Trek, why ignore it just because you don't agree with it? It's there, there's proof it's there and it's not going away because you want it to.
And actually, "God" has very little to do with this. I don't see what "God" has to do with Wikipedia. Comments go to the end of the page which is where I've moved yours. Please don't involve religion into this. It's one of those dicey subjects that invite conflict. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 13:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You folks are very intolerant. You force your views on others and will not allow opposing points of view. My articles have been vandalised.65.1.192.59 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't allow POV pushing from the religious right nor do I wish to be dictated to by them regarding what they think we should and should not have on this site. That does not make me intolerant. Those are two different things. I'm as open-minded as the next person (perhaps more so) and I do not appreciate the implication - please stop the personal attacks. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
My section of this article is not a personal attack, just another probable scenario to the franchise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.154.161.125 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC).
I hardly think that your supposed chain of events is "probable." MiraLuka 05:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your section of the article may not be a personal attack (that's not what I was talking about anyway), but the comment that I'm intolerant (if that was written by you) is, and such comments are unneeded. We can discuss this like rational people instead of hurling insults. Thanks. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I hardly believe that Garak was bisexual, but that is in the article as fact or very suggestive of fact, altough the character was far from that. He was hetrosexual and had a hetrosexual relationship in the series.68.154.161.125 05:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
That part may need work then, as does much of the article, but maybe you should work on clarifying that section instead of inserting your own original research? MiraLuka 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Your section has no basis in fact: first of all homosexuality is not "rampant". Gay people may be more open in our society but they are still and always will be a minority. And second GAY PEOPLE HAVE CHILDREN ALL THE TIME. You need to look at artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood if you don't believe this. These facts will insure that the "gay gene" will always survive if there is one (and there's no solid evidence that there is). --Etacar11 11:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kids, much as I absolutely adore seeing things blown far out of proportion, the original comment above was obviously not truly appealing to a deity when the phrase "Good God" was typed (and short of that, I really don't see where Nathan's speech about Wikipedia and God comes from). It is a common phrase used to express outrage, astonishment, and/or exasperation. Don't read stuff in that isn't there. It's not like the comment wasn't inappropriate enough without the assumption of religious intent. Going off on such a tangent is mildly irresponsible, as well as terribly worthless to the point at hand (in this case, the unnecessary expenditure of energy on such an article or the disrespectful nature of the comment). Argue about the point, not a random linguistic convention. I dunno, just my two cents (cue argument concerning currency?). 68.102.179.135 05:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed paragraph

I have removed the disputed paragraph and am placing it here to allow editors to discuss it. Please explain what you like/don't like about the paragraph and give sources/examples/reasons below. Exploding Boy 18:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"One possibility exists that homosexual behavior that is rampant in the 20th and 21st centuries may have been caused the species to underpopulated itself. The reaction would have been that social conservatives that despise homosexual behavior and continue to have marriage in proper form also have children, whereas social liberals that engage in homosexual behavior and do not marry do not have children. This would lead to a decline in homosexual behavior by the time of the 24th century. The homosexuals would have been devolved out of existence. There are several references in the series to point to the importance of evoution as a basis of the story line such as "Genesis"."

Since gay DOES NOT equal sterility, this paragraph makes no sense. If there is a "gay gene", gay people have many ways (including the old fashioned one) of passing it on (see my comment above) and indeed do all the time-- or else by the logic of the paragraph above why haven't gay people gone extinct by now? And of course, if there is no gay gene, whether or not gay people reproduce is a moot point. Plus the episode Genesis (if it's the one I'm thinking of) has the characters devolving into their ancestral species and makes no reference whatsoever (that I can recall) to sexual orientation. That's my take on all this. --Etacar11 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference to "Genesis" relates to the writers importance in their belief to the theory of evolution which in itself is just a theory. Since they used a theory in their writing then this is a plausible explanation why there is no homosexuality in the proper 24th century world, and where it "may" have existed in an alternate 24th century world. post added by User:70.157.33.55

[edit] 24th Century "Skirts"

I removed the following paragraph as it has no bearing on this homosexual article.

"Additionally, in many early episodes, it is common to see male extras in the background wearing the traditionally female skirt-uniforms, which some fans have read as implying a sexual preference, or at least that 24th century has evolved beyond differentiating between mens and womens clothing."

Clothing has changed and evolved throughout the ages. Look at the Scots Highlanders who wear kilts. I would hardly say that they are homosexual just because they wear a "skirt" or a article of clothing that looks like a skirt. That is just a plain attempt to notating NPOV material.70.149.135.187 00:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Not to mention in the early episodes of TNG, the dress uniforms or class "A" uniforms did have a dress-like appearance. I would hardly call Riker a homosexual from his behaviour in the series.70.149.135.187 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garak again

  • "Nevertheless, many fans felt that Garak was bisexual, if not gay (particularly considering he often indicated that he did not welcome Tora Ziyal's interest in him in anything other than a friend)."

Not welcoming Tora Ziyal's interest makes sense if you take into account that Ziyal is in her late teens early twenties, and Garak, though he may not look it, is well into middle age. He could've been her father! I find no evidence suggesting that Garak is gay or even bisexual. He is a cultured and intelligent character and his mannerisms may appear effeminate, but that doesn't mean anything. I agree with user Outerlimits that Garak being a tailor also is hardly conclusive evidence for him being gay. Also, in Andrew Robinson's book, a Stitch in time, there is no indication to warrant such a claim. If anything, it makes clear that the reason for his exile is his love for a woman. Vince 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • (1) The homoerotic subtext of Garek was written and talked about during the series run. In both films and television it has been a commonplace code to establish/hint at a male characters sexuality by having him 'act like a woman.' (2) 'Rejoined' was not the first lesbian kiss on network tv, but it was the first within the Star Trek tv franchise. (3) the article contains several references that discuss every single point made. (4) The gentic explantation for the lack of gay characters is the wet dream fantasy of communists or fascists. User:Browned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Browned (talk • contribs) 12:36, July 5, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

I always thought it a bit peculiar people haven't discussed all the other groups excluded from Trek as much. There is some mention online that there seems to be no Jewish characters in the Star Trek Universe. More than that there aren't even any real references to Anti-Semitism or Judaism despite the fact several of the actors are Jewish. There have also been no Muslims and Hispanics have been basically absent as well, but this is rarely discussed. I know there was some who hoped Star Trek would finally have a Christian character with Enterprise, but it didn't. Considering Trek is an American show with a large juvenile audience I'm not sure why the lack of LGBT characters is even notable. Characters identified as LGBT are also relatively rare or even non-existent in Batman: The Animated Series, Futurama, ALF, etc.--T. Anthony 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That might have seemed rambling. My point was first that this article doesn't seem to address what I think is a likely reason for the lack of LGBT characters, namely that Trek is seen as a show parents watch with their kids and such shows have to play by more "conservative" standards. The second being is there any other article on whether or how often characters of various religions, races, or mindsets are in Trek? For example autistic characters, Jewish people, South Americans, etc?--T. Anthony 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I think the point about other segments of society not represented in Star Trek may well be valid and could be discussed elsewhere, I don't get your point about Star Trek being for a family audience. No doubt there were people who thought Star Trek should not screen an inter-racial kiss because it was for 'family viewing'. Fortunately times have moved on. I don't see why the fact that a show will be viewed by families should prevent it from portraying gay characters in a sensitive and non-sensational manner. To suggest that seeing gay people is unsuitable family viewing rather helps to suggest that being homosexual is in some way deviant or part of a 'sub-culture' that should be kept hidden. 80.42.9.216 16:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh. Maybe I should've been clearer. "Family viewing" means things the majority of families in the US could feel comfortable watching with their kids. It does not mean "what I think the majority of Americans should feel comfortable watching with their kids." I'm thinking what TV programmers and writers have to actually consider for their demographic. In the US the people who have kids are often more conservative, go to church, and old people may visit them. These are groups more likely to deem homosexuality wrong or strange. However in 1966 no religion forbade interracial kissing, except maybe Mormons or some fringes among the Southern Baptists, and most states allowed interracial marriage[1]. Homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder until the 1970s and the majority of the world's major religious denominations disapprove of it. I know the "homosexuality=interracial relations" notion is useful for activism, but in real life the parallels are poor at best. Besides which how forward thinking was Trek on that really? Uhura only kissed Kirk because they were forced to by humanoid aliens.--T. Anthony 06:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality Accepted on Ferenginar?

I don’t know if this Rule was ever listed on the show or just in the books but the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition #113 states that “Always have sex with the boos.” Since Ferengi society at the time the Rules were written was highly misogynistic it would be impossible for either the employ or the boss to be a woman, the logic follows that both parties would be men. Therefore, gay sex, and by extension, homosexuality was accepted on Ferenginar.

I have absolutely no idea if this was done intentionally or not, but I thought that it was relevant. Scaper8 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/g/b/Talk%7ELGBT_characters_in_the_Star_Trek_universe_ff05.html"