Rike's actor actually wanted the alien in the Outcast to be played by a man rather than the woman they ultimately cast, reasoning it would of made the episode's message far more powerful.
I remember reading somewhere that Jonathan Frakes (Riker) really wanted Soren to be acted by a male, to get the story's point across. But the producers wouldn't have it or something..
***** "I can understand why the executives said no." Only if you think profit (pandering to the homophobes/religious extremists, to be specific) should supersede a message.
thats easy for you to say, but hundreds of people depended on that show as a job, they were there to work, lets say I'm an athiest (or whatever other group you want to pick) and own a store, and I demand that a political postion be filled by an athiest that earned it but was denied, and as a backlash the public refuses to use my store and I have to fire that person that works for me as a result, they can't bring a paycheck to there family anymore because I had a point to make, having said that your right too it's wrong to just cave into one group to the exclusion of the others especially considering how massivly populer Star Trek is. Star Trek dosnt have an "obligation" to push social boundries it's a choice it's creators make and they should'nt be punished no matter witch way they go on it, but I wish it did more then it has.
I don't know why one moment keeps getting glossed over in the Star Trek/homosexuality discussions. DS9 2x07, "Rules of Acquisition." Dax: (talking about Quark) I don’t care what anyone says. I love him. Pel: So do I. Dax: You really do, don’t you? Pel: What? Dax: Love Quark. Don’t bother trying to deny it, I’ve seen the way you look at him. Pel: Please, keep your voice down! Dax: Does he know? Pel: He doesn’t even know I’m a female. Dax: YOU’RE A WOMAN?? Dax had no idea that Pel was a woman in disguise when discussing Pel's love for Quark. To me this seems to indicate that homosexuality is not only accepted in the Star Trek universe, it's such a part of society they don't even give it much thought. The only reason we don't see it onscreen is because folks in the 20th and 21st centuries still have some issues to work through...
And when they go to the mirror universe they all just seem to accept that everyone is apparently bisexual there. They don't really bat an eye which suggests that homosexuality is normal In the future. Still it would have been nice to have had a proper gay couple in star trek at least once. Nothing in your face or anything but just as normal or even sideline characters.
+Christopher Payne Well, but again....aliens. The Trill are understood to be gender-fluid because the symbionts get put into hosts of different genders all the time. Dax has occupied both male and female hosts and even borne children! Pel was a Ferengi, as was Quark. You may also recall that Quark himself was not very receptive to Pel's interest when he thought that Pel was male. The implication being the homosexuality may not be all that welcome in Ferengi culture after all. Aliens with alien problems. That allowed for Trek to distance itself from the issue, because at least it wasn't *humans* that were experiencing these things!
+Kyle Butler Nobody bats an eye because the Mirror Universe is known to be a place where *depravity* is the *norm*, not the exception. Slavery, keeping concubines and many other practices that the Prime characters would consider abhorrent are also present. Don't you find it at all insulting that only in a universe where practically everyone is *evil* are named characters bisexual, whereas in the Prime universe those same characters are exclusively straight?
***** Yeah that is a fair point. It's like the depravity of the mirror universe gave the writers cover for having some hot lesbian action in the show. I also don't remember there being any man on man action happening in the mirror universe. I can only speculate that the show runners assumed women kissing would titillate the audience but men kissing would be off putting to the audience. That's just my take on it anyway. In defense of my original point, I don't remember any of the prime characters showing disgust or disapproval of bisexuality unlike slavery and concubines. But I admit that a lack of disaporval isn't really approval in and of itself so maybe its a stretch. Oh well, hopefully they get it right in the new series.
Kyle Butler Much like the "lesbian" romance in Rejoined was explicitly rationalized by the fact that the Dax and Kahn symbionts had previously occupied a husband-wife couple. Jadzia and Lenara were just acting out the emotions that the slugs inside their guts were feeling. Absent that special history, Jadzia otherwise preferred *very* manly men (e.g. Worf). Indifference is not approval. Especially when, as has been the case on Trek, it is commonly hand-waved as aliens doing alien things, or limited to parallel universes where everybody is explicitly immoral.
"What is he doing?" "Being fog, what does it look like?" Rene Auberjonois being able to say that with a straight face is a testament to some serious acting skill :D
People suggesting he be fog somewhere else where it doesn’t bother anyone is very familiar to me. I’m gay and have been told nearly the same thing on multiple occasions.
@@_robustus_ yep. It's a direct reference to all those morons who think they're being allies when they say "oh I'm fine with gay people, as long as they're not gay in public, I don't want to see them kissing in front of me, can't they do that in their own homes when nobody is around instead?“ Like these people are fine with straight public displays of affection. But just not gay demonstrations of public affection. If people aren't allowed to be themselves in public then it's still pretty much de facto illegal to be gay, even if it's de jure legal. That's the situation Russia is in right now. It's been made illegal to be gay in public. That's like making it illegal to be black in public. It's not something anyone chooses. You're just born that way.
Right? Just cause someone thinks or can agree someone is attractive doesn't have to mean they plan or want to move on it. The difference is in Phlox's society there is so much more openness and straightforward communication. :)
It would have been interesting if Andrew Robinson (Garek, DS9) had been allowed to pursue his early ideas on the sexuality of Garek: _"He's not gay, he's not straight, it's a non-issue for him. Basically his sexuality is inclusive. But - it's Star Trek and there were a couple of things working against that. One is that Americans really are very nervous about sexual ambiguity. Also, this is a family show, they have to keep it on the 'straight and narrow', so then I backed off from it. Originally, in that very first episode, I loved the man's absolute fearlessness about presenting himself to an attractive Human being. The fact that the attractive Human being is a man (Bashir) doesn't make any difference to him, but that was a little too sophisticated I think. For the most part, the writers supported the character beautifully, but in that area they just made a choice they didn't want to go there, and if they don't want to go there I can't, because the writing doesn't support it."_
I don't think that is what propoetide or Robinson are saying -- Garek isn't asexual at all, but (as implied by Robinson's descriptions) bisexual/pansexual. Gender/sexuality, to Garek, would be no different than a particular style or article of clothing: you don't wear the same thing all the time, nor do you think only one article (or even a set) of clothing is all there is. If he were asexual, he'd have no attraction nor sense of wanting to be attractive to anyone. That isn't what Robinson is saying, at all.
I think the example of obvious ommision that upsets me the most is in "Someone to Watch Over Me" from ST: Voyager. When the Doctor is teaching Seven of Nine about dating, not once does he mention that there are same sex couples.
julijakeit - Perhaps. But our brain nor our entire being stand in a vacuum. We are a communal (dare I say tribal?) species. We learn from one another. Our brain allows us to make choices- hopefully good ones. By that I mean choices that include more people into our community. In time, if we are fortunate, our community will embrace all people. I believe that was the intention of the original creators of Star Trek and maybe even the people who created many of the religions scattered around this planet.But that stern individualism, relying only upon ourselves and our individual brain, is a myth of our times and our particular and current predominant culture.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Garrak. Andrew Robinson thought that because he isn't human, he shouldn't conform to human gender standards. This is one of the reasons he had such a close relationship with Bashir. Also, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but Rules of Aquisition briefly gets into homosexuality and the fact that it is accepted in the federation (which it should be in a society like that). When the female ferrengi (I forgot her name) pretending to be male is talking to Dax about how she loves Quark, Dax seems excited about it. AFTER Dax learns that she has feelings for Quark, Dax is surprised to hear that she is female.
+RRW Absolutely. Garak was definitely a nod and wink toward an openly gay character. He was described as a "tailor" but discussed his opinions on style and fashion of many things besides the clothes. Yes this is a stereotype, but it was used to communicate the idea. The character also had enough cunning, courage and gile (one of his favorite words) to be in the intelligence service and to become a main character of the show. He was never attacked by any of the other characters for discussing his profession and was respected for his skill regardless of classic gender roles. Gay men were often recruited by intelligence services during our own Cold War as they were naturally experts at keeping secrets and acting during that era.
+RRW The writers always said the Bashir/ Garak attraction was only supposed to go one way ... but I find that hard to believe considering that their first meeting is exactly like a Meet Cute for any other couple and Bashir had this look on his face like ... well what I would look like if I met Alexander Siddig. Siddig even said that his reaction to that scene was, "So we're going to be Trek's first gay couple? Cool."
Based on what Robinson has said and A Stitch in Time (a novel that he wrote about Garak's backstory), I think he was playing the character as swinging both ways, probably with a female preference but open to male attraction. In the novel he has a female love interest but there's a passing mention of a young Garak having a crush on a male classmate.
I think the best thing Star Trek could do regarding gay or lesbian characters/storylines would be the addition of a character in any new cast who happened to be gay and had their spouse on the ship as well. No grand statements are needed; no running plot lines to show how they've triumphed over adversity. Simply make the relationship part of the fabric of the show and treat it like any other interpersonal relationship.
There are several gay characters in the apocrypha like that - but nothing in the canon storylines .... I'd like to see some canonical gays and then see them as being in no way unusual.
+Geoffrey Snyder I for one would like to see this, hell, I would even throw my hand up to take on one of these characters if I had any acting experience.
Holy crap!!! O.O *WE REACH!!!!!!!* i just made almost the exact same comment a few minutes before i read yours! i guess great minds (meaning Trekkies) think alike. ;D *\V/_*
I cannot tell you how important the STNG episode The Outcast was for me - it came out around the same time that I came out. I remember loving it and being so excited about it, but a lot of the older gay men I was friends with at the time (by older I mean late 20s at the time) seemed to think it was awful and that it was intended to encourage gay conversion camps/ideals. I definitely didn't see it that way, I saw it as an episode about what gay conversion does to people - it kills a part of them and denies them love. But context is everything - that was in the ACT UP! days and everything was a fight. People were dying left and right and there was no room for artistic interpretation or thoughtfulness. It was either nothing short of overly and expressly positive or it was damaging. I think the episode held up well, but I do think that they should have shown more affection and Jonathan Frakes has come out and said the same thing.
I have mixed feelings about that particular episode. It's great that it was a positive influence on you. I thought it was a somewhat decent, but flawed, attempt to make a statement for inclusiveness. The problem I have with the episode is that while it was an honest attempt to portray inclusiveness, the homophobia by the network and producers didn't let them explore the story as fully as they could. It was interesting because the cast and writers wanted to have positive gay messages, but had their hands tied by the network and producers.
I remember reading/hearing something about George Takei (Sulu) asking Roddenberry to approach the subject during TOS, to which Gene replies that if he did that they would most certainly pull the show off of the air and then they wouldn't have been able to discuss any subjects. So back in the 60s it was too radical for Gene to bring up on a struggling show, and I imagine that he didn't get around to it with TNG because of the recent AIDS issue before his passing. Why it wasn't broached in the later series, that is the question. If Star Trek was running today, it would definitely be a common subject. Great video! Keep it up :D
+Trekspertise Field of fire was another episode where there was a casual mention of a no -standard relationship. It involved a Bolian crewmen we who had a wife and co-husband. Not much else was mentioned. So sometimes I felt that they were trying get it in past some very timid producers. A shame they didn't include more so that we would have more meaningful discussion. I'm glad Caprica was a lot more bold.
One story I heard was, one of the executive producers constantly blocked any introduction of gay or lesbian characters. That is why is most dislike among gay Star Trek fans.
The TNG episode "Tin Man" has left me wondering ever since I first saw it if there was some part of it meant to be an allegory to homosexuality. In in, the character Tam Elbrun is a lonely, misunderstood Betazoid man with a particular affection for Data, at one point telling him (although it's obvious he's really saying it about himself): "Perhaps you're just different. It's not a *sin*, you know, though you may have heard otherwise." In the end, he ends up essentially becoming bonded with the creature/vessel "Tin Man" or Gomtuu, though no one else on the ship seems to fully understand it. Data and Deanna then have the following conversation: Data: "Individually they were both so..." Deanna: "Wounded, isolated." Data: "Yes, but no longer. Through joining, they have been healed. Grief has been transmuted to joy, loneliness to belonging."
I always saw that episode as an analogy for autism. Tam suffers from overstimulation, so he naturally drifts to Troi, who he doesn't have to explain and apologize to because she's a therapist, and Data, the one person on the ship who won't give him headaches just by being there. When Gomtuu arrives, it's like he finally found overstimulation medication and good company together.
I disagree about The Host. Dr. Crusher is happy to see the Trill again *until* she turns and see that it's a lady now. I mean, her turn from smile to frown is pretty telling and to me she's referring to not being able to continue her affair with the same person but in a female body. As for The Outcast.. it seems to me a bit of a hodgepodge of both gay and trans themes, more than firmly stuff about gay people in particular. "Stigma" was so obvious it was almost on the nose.
I thought it was an episode that clearly adressed transexual and transgender issues. And it was very beautiful when dr. CRUSHER said: "perhaps one day we will not be so limited in our ability to love".
Letícia Mori "Beautiful"? I thought it was appalling. Because who is "we"? It was Dr. Crusher who was limited in her ability to love, not "we". I found that line completely insulting.
Interesting point to add: In "The Outcast", the person playing Soren was originally supposed to be played by a man, in order to make the points the episode was covering more obvious. The character still would've identified as female though.
@@TheBlarggle No wonder he couldn't get that grin off his face when he met Captain Okona. Jack Harkness blended with Han Solo? That's a man after his own heart.
An excellent discussion. I love Star Trek, but had never looked beyond the stories as to why they resinated with me so much. I never consider that it was necessary to have a gay character. But after listening to your discussion, I think that it is vital. But the portrayal must be authentic and normalised. What I mean by this is that, the individual/ character who is gay, must not only be gay. They must be a whole character in themselves and their sexuality is 'nothing'. In that for a 'straight' character we don't refer to them as 'heterosexual Jean-Luc', but just Jean-Luc. They must be a valid, complete character and not just a 'token' to social/political commentary and /or pressure. Although I'm not gay, the impact of this would be as great as seeing a black man as a Commander; Benjamin Sisko, I am black. And even greater for me, seeing Kathryn Janeway as Captain. As a woman, it had a powerful effect on my conscious mind and sub-conscious actions. Janeway, in charge, respected, strong and loved by all around her and yet not restricted by her femininity and/or sexuality, opened my eyes to the fact that as a woman we've come a long way, but still have far to go. Only imagine the affect/ impact this could have on gay communities the world over. On young fans growing up unsure of their burgeoning sexuality. I applaud you for raising and presenting such a valid discussion. Well done.
A little tidbit. The actress who played Lenara Kahn, Susanna Thompson, also played the Borg Queen in a few episodes of Voyager, but not in the finale. She also played Oliver Queen's mother on Arrow. The Queen in Voyager's finaley was played by the original actress, Alice Krige.
I enjoyed the shout out in Beyond where we got to see Sulu's husband and little girl, however apparently there was also meant to be a kiss. The extended scene was shot during the filming, but edited out in the final cut. They have touched on the subject, but seem to keep pulling back from full commitment. Still, the scene they kept was a good first step and the emotion really came through, a man who deeply missed his family, as Sulu ran to embrace them.
Dont forget the episode on DS9 4x05 where Dax and another woman might begin a serious relationship and everyone finds it weird that they aren't going to because of another issue unrelated to homosexuality
One of the reasons I came to love star trek is their willingness to address controversial subjects like race and gay openly in defiance of the (acceptable) norm. As far as Janeway being a captain, it was a great day when a woman was portrayed in a command position and a woman that's a total badass on top of it.like Cisco being the first black man put in a position of command in a still semi racist film and television industry. it's things like this that sets the star trek genre in a class all by itself.
What I loved particularly about DS9 was the twist they later implied, that Benjamin Sisko might actually have been a 1950s black sci-fi writer who has to hide his race in order to publish his stories, and who creates this better future in which a black man can be in such a high command position. I never quite git the hang as to whether this was an actual reveal, or just Sisko's way of looking back into the past and realizing that humanity had come a long way (with or without the assistance of the wormhole aliens/Bajoran "Gods" who had given him this vision). And I think you cannot really separate the Gender questions from the racial question because it's all about the willingness to accept and accommodate difference. Not to mention that the Cardassians occupying Bajor is also one such hidden comment - I always thought the Cardassians looked like Chinese with their hair combed back, as if they had jumped straight out of a Mao Zedong propaganda placard...And the Bajorans were the Tibetans or something (any country that the Chinese might have occupied) at least their Kai (the office, not the woman finally occupying the post) always gave me strong Dalai Lama vibes..
When "Stigma" first aired, at the end of an episode was information about how AIDS sufferers can get help. The writers clearly wanted us to make that connection, and it was the first time I realized Star Trek's role in making us think about real world issues.
One of the things that I've always appreciated about Star Trek is not only its having diversity in characters and story, but the way that diversity is integrated. Star Trek never even mentioned Uhura's race, or Janeway's gender in the show. They assume (correctly, I hope) that by the 23rd/24th Centuries, those things no longer spark any sort of issue or controversy. This means that they don't have to put in "token characters" solely to appear forward thinking. Geordi is probably the furthest thing possible from a black stereotype, and Janeway is certainly no female stereotype. Star Trek is one of the few shows that nails diversity without trying, simply by not shouting "hey look, we're diverse!"
+Charles Earle that is great narration of Geordi and Janeway, they are without saying they are. Just are. and shows ten a penny are falling over themselves to shout 'Look look we are diverse' with a cheesy awkward grin, hoping not to get the shut down. Latest Star Trek Continues episodes deals with a Commander Garrett demanding her captaincy, in the time of TOS. Where the Federation being only a small collective of species and only 8 Constitution class ships. Being socially pressured by the other races ideals and expectations that their should not be female captains. Its a remarkable episode.
Divergent Droid Perhaps I misspoke. I really meant that those aspects aren't mentioned in reference to their ability to do their job, or mentioned in a way that shouts "Hey, look, we have a minority character!" Whenever it is mentioned, it's more of just a conversation piece, like O'Brien's Irish heritage.
+Divergent Droid Yeah, essentially while Uhura is Swahili, it's never brought up like, "Wow, for a black woman, you've done quite well for yourself" or whatever. Same with Janeway. "Oh, wow - a female captain? That's so impressive of you." No one ever says that. It's not shocking in anyway that these two people from these demographics are doing what they're doing.
Well, actually they do bring up the subject with Janeway - at least when she's discussing how she's to be adressed with Ensign Kim - Star fleet would require "Sir", She'd accept "Mam" in an emergency, but ultimately prefers "Captain" - "aye, Mam!" - "this is not an emergency, Mr. Kim!"
I know someone who, for his doctorate, defended the position of SciFi being where a lot of commentary of then contemporary social issues can be disguised by hiding them on other planets, or set in future utopian settings. My example is Star Trek original series episode "Let This Be Your Final Battlefield", a disguised discussion of 1960s Black vs. White equality, and a bad ending if the issue doesn't get settled in contemporary times. I also mention a Star Trek: Voyager episode, where a "final solution" to eliminate a planetary minority is discovered by USS Voyager.
I feel that the way classic Star Trek dealt with these issues was genius. Modern shows take these issues on in a more head-on kind of way, but I don't feel that it is nearly as effective as flipping the situation as these classic episodes do. There's a difference between directly stating an opinion and finding a way to open a debate and open people's minds to other possibilities.
This has always been my stance on discussing politically heated topics in science fiction. When you create a story that talks about a real-world problem directly, viewers can end up defaulting to their pre-conceived beliefs on that problem, meaning they can set up mental barriers to have their mind changed. By contrast, when you dress the problem under the veil of science fiction, viewers are less likely to form those barriers, meaning they get a chance to open their minds to new ideas. The trade off, of course, is the level of impact these stories have: having a story about an alien couple as a stand-in for homosexuals is easier to digest for a wider audience, but having a story about a bona fide gay couple address the struggles homosexuals face gives the viewer context. It's one thing to address social issues in a vacuum, developing beliefs of things "ought to be." It's another to address how to put those ideals into practice, and to recognize that things aren't as nice as we'd like to believe.
Despite all that's said in the video, the fact remains that they absolutely avoided homosexuality completely. You can claim that this episode or that storyline was kinda sorta somewhat related to homosexuality... maybe, if you cocked your head to the side and squinted. But they never had gay characters. Ever. They never had gay romances. Ever. They never had anything clear and blatantly gay, just outlandish alien situations. Roddenberry gave us the first interracial kiss and a black female as an officer.... Paramount completely and utterly ignored us. What I've found over the years is that for all the claims of open mindedness from the sci fi/ fantasy/ video games/ RPGs/ comics/ anime and all the rest of the "geek" community, there's a shit ton of homophobia amongst us. Sometimes it seems to be even greater than the public at large. Beamdog recently released the game Siege of Dragonspear, a new game in the Baldur's Gate series, only to be deluged in complaints from gamers because they dared to have a trans character in it, and how disgusting was that? I read countless comments from "fellow" gamers bitching about how they were so offended by it they planned on stealing the game, killing the character, and complaining everywhere about the game. I see people in the comments here essentially saying LGBTs are only okay if they're not too brazen about it. So long as they're kept in the background and "know their place", they'll be okay. Because having a million stories of heteros is perfectly fine, but a SINGLE story about a gay or trans is "shoving things in people's faces". Way to be fucking tolerant assholes.
Wow. so you wanted it just SHOVED down peoples throats. Yeah that's working out great in real society isn't? by the way you need to watch more Star Trek if you think there weren't gay romances. Example Dax on DS9
The studio heads were too scared to push the LGBT issues due to the supposed backlash. I find that rather stupid thinking, since the majority of Star Trek fans are rather forward thinking. For God sakes, the shows set in the future...
+Trumpet-01 Rocket I think it is really funny that you say that there are "enough spoil rotten ass people....telling people what to do." And then follow it up with telling people what to do.
Trumpet-01 Rocket I'm against forcing LGBT/Women into media, I want it to come naturally, rather than in a contrived sense. Star Trek proved it could create strong characters, especially in leadership roles, that just happened to be female. So it was easy for them to create a female captain in Voyager. They also proved that they could handle LGBT stuff, through their Jnaii episode, but it was a shame that the episode that explored gay relationships was canned by the studio.
+Trumpet-01 Rocket And by 'be part of society', what you actually mean is 'conform to my way of being/doing things, because anything else is wrong.' What a conceited, sad little individual you are.
One risk that sadly always looms over subjects such as this is that one-dimensional characters and their traits become increasingly common. If you meet someone in real life they (rarely) are only gay, or only some other trait, people are an amalgamation of everything and when something like a sexual preference becomes a defining character trait such as can be seen in some media it detracts from the character as a whole. When walking among people you know nothing about the strangers around you, you don't know about their sexual preferences, their relationships, their general view on life other than what their actions tell you about them as well as if you hear them say anything. You can't tell if the woman you just walked past is lesbian, or the man right behind you is bisexual. In society as a whole these aren't defining traits of a person, active choices are more important than something which the person has no control over and therefore it comes off as odd if someone attempts to showcase something like their sexual preference in an active way, not just naturally through their general interaction with other people. If you look at how Star Trek has handled things before ST:D they did so in a way that showed an aspect of a person, an aspect of their culture and how it affected them in turn without making that their entire personality. One of my favourite characters showing this is Worf, being a Klingon and being torn between being the stereotype of his species and following what his adoptive parents taught him when he grew up. It's a constant struggle for him to find himself and his own place in a time and place where other Klingons perverted the ideals of all that Klingon culture stood for in honour and valour. Worf wouldn't have worked if he was just Klingon, if he was stereotypically Klingon and explained everything he did by just being Klingon he wouldn't have been a good character, he'd be a character with no depth and he wouldn't be interesting. My fear is that the current directors, actors, and producers of Star Trek can't handle these questions anymore without being insulting to something which is a huge question in our society today, and them trying to do it would be a mockery of all the homosexuals and bisexuals they'd claim to represent. The only real people in that genre able to deal with it now are the ones handling The Orville, and if any show can tackle these issues and indeed does tackle them in a way that respects them, it's that one. TL;DR: Star Trek has gone to shit, all hail The Orville since they aren't huge sellouts who just want to pander.
It is interesting how the mirror universe (a corrupt and immoral version of our own universe) came the closest to homosexual contact. Kind of gives off the wrong signal, huh? :D
Trekspertise Yes. Also, wasn't Lt. Hawk in First Contact supposed to be a gay character? Maybe you mentioned it. I was sort of half watching your video while at work ;)
+Kleavers Not really it was meant to show off the predatory side of evil Kira. Now the actress Nana Visitor is 5'8" which makes her the second shortest main adult character on DS9 and so the physicality makes it difficult to show her as a predator if he's threatening 6" Alex Siddig Terry Farrell or 6'1" Avery Brooks. You can see how she acts petulant rather than predatory around evil Sisko, again because the height difference makes translating it difficult. The only other choice I think was either have to her go the full Joe Pesci route and make her willing to flip out at anything.
+Kleavers Right--but what, exactly, was the message. Was it, "These people are decadent because they have gay sex," or was it, "These people are decadent because they have casual sex?" My interpretation leans more towards the latter than the former.
It wasn't transgender at all. It was a 3rd gender necessary for reproduction with the other 2 genders. Male, female, and the 3rd gender added another enzyme necessary for reproduction. Nothing about transgender at all, because it is a part of their biology. Just like we have 2 genders, that species has 3. The issue dealt with in that episode was that they were 3% of the population and because of their rarity, were given less rights than the other 2 genders. Not because they were frowned upon for their behavior, but because of their necessity to the survival of their race.
I found your discussion interesting but whether by design or accident, ignored the transgender aspects of the stories discussed. From my own perspective the episodes "The Host" and "The Outcast" were mainly metaphors about gender transition, and the reactions that others have about that. In "The Host" Will Ryker can be seen as a transitive stage of transition, (perhaps a "pre-operative" one) whereby elements of the person being transitioned from are still evident and which in some ways reassures those around them. But the next stage, where Odan is finally transferred to the female trill host, can be seen to represent a completion of such a transition (perhaps "post-operative"), and one that can be more confronting to those around them, because it also represents a "point of no return". Of course not everyone reacts that way, though often some of the people who knew the person before transition the longest, have the hardest time adapting. Hence Cisco still calls Dax "old man" when clearly Jadzia isn't one. A real world equivalent is someone who persists in using a trans person's "deadname" even though that person may have changed their name legally. I deferred my own transition until I was 34, partly because of (an unfounded) fear that my family might institutionalize me. Hence Soren's fate in "The Outcast" was particularly horrifying to me. I realize that in general terms the story presents the hazards of coming out in a society with little tolerance for deviation, and thus can be a metaphor for LGBT experience in general but as it does concern GENDER surely it refers to transgender in particular. When I finally underwent my own gender transition, Jadzia Dax was, for me as a trek fan, a symbol of transgender success. Dax's body may have changed , and their balance of emotions (dependent upon the composite existence with the host) might be different, but they were still Dax, with memory and expertise that was carried through to a new life. So, I'm a bit disappointed that although you mention the "LGBT Community" at the end of this video, you seem to have only focused on the L and G (and once the B), and ignored the T elements in these episodes.
Laura Ess Thank you for seemingly putting my own thoughts into words, and I believe the intent of the writers for The Outcast was to bro up trans issues, but was told to tone it down, notably to the disappointment of Jonathan Frakes
The interesting thing I've heard about The Outcast is that it was intended initially to be a gay relationship, but the network told them to tone it down, leading to the trans rights episode. Whatever the origins though, I think it ended up being a very powerful piece on the topic, as a transwoman myself.
I hope that you found the support and love of your family going through a difficult stage in your life. My opinion on LGBT rights is that anyone should find his/her/its individual way to happiness and love, as long as it is consentual with a "fitting" partner. I have homosexual family members who I support and love and no mercy on the poor creature's soul if ever I witnessed someone harrassing my gay uncles. My uncle is now retired, but he had a rather high position in one of Europ's largest insurance companies and from what i heard of him, his sexual orientation was never perceived as an obstacle. Ofc, people are people and will always whisoer behind other people's back when they are perceived as "different". This goes for all kind of "difference", not only openly displayed sexual orientation. People whisoer when a very tall, fat, ugly, pretty person comes in. The only thing that bothers me though is that sometimes LGBT activists act very aggressively in defending their rights. I can understand the underlying frustration, coming from generations of persecution, but it too often leaves me with the feeling that I should have a guilty conscience for being heterosexual. That can't be right either.
99smite It's good to get family support. My transition was back in 1994 so it's all old history now. However, I was driven out from work by anonymous death threats, and after an incident on the streets of my neighborhood, realised that Perth wasn't safe for me. So, I went on a "geographical" and a trip to Sydney to figure out what to do. The result was moving across the continent to another city and beginning studies in fine art at the university there. I graduated from my Masters of Fine Art a few weeks back. The point I was making is that "LGBT" rights and experiences AREN'T all the same. A transgender experience is NOT primarily about sexuality, but gender, and the difference is often overlooked by outside critics and allies alike. And the bad of that is, it's also sometimes overlooked by lesbians and gays as well. I've had more than one lesbian or gay assume that I was "really a gay man" who took things too far! Rather, it's that like many straight people, they are fully into their own identity and just don't get the difference. Which is why perhaps, many trans people are now faced with horrendous legislation that seems directed at them and their use of toilets - the legislators haven't got it yet. Some of that is to a degree related to privilege. Historically straight folk have had that in different areas, and when others start to have it as well they get uncomfortable..
Laura Ess I can totally understand your points. I just had to smile when you wrote that even LGB people sometimes misunderstand transsexuality as being gay and going too far. It perfectly shows that gay and lesbian people are just that, people, humans that are not safe from having prejudices even against other gays and lesbians. It shows that everyone should pause and think hard of how to get a neutral view on specific issues instead of letting loose pavlov's reflex. Regarding daily experience of gay or transgender persons, I think it can be stressed enough to have a reliable male friend, preferably between 6 or 7 ft and eloquent who will stand up for his friends who are not physically fit to do so. My gay friends never ever ran into any trouble when we were going out together with some of my friends. It may have helped that we all were well over 6ft 6in... It sometimes was funny when one of my gay friends brought his new bf with us and they kissed at the table. Some random guys looked uncomfortably and we knew they were itching to make some nasty comments, but their eyes kept sweeping to me and my buddies, who smiled at them, as if saying, go ahead, make an insulting comment, make my day... I still can't understand why people bother with other people's sexual orientation, as if anyone could dictate others about who they want to live with....
See, I see Beverley's discomfort with Odan's host changes as an allegory for transgenderism. Even today, it's an issue that many people, however enlightened, are still uncomfortable with, and it is difficult for a lot of people to maintain a relationship with someone who transitions to another gender, even if they are fundamentally still the same person.
The STNG episode Outcast was a very transformative episode for me. Being a straight, black male and a teenager at the time, it helped me to understand all the hateful stereotypes about homosexuality that I had been exposed to in my life was complete bullshit.
"That is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars & studying nebula but, charting the unknown possibilities of existence" - Q from All Good Things.
Excellent conversation. As a writer, I tried three times to have Paramount read story treatments I submitted to the Star Trek franchise concerning this topic; all three times, it was shot down.
One of the main characters in Enterprise was originally meant to be homosexual; specifically, Malcolm Reed. Here's a good trivia quote from IMDB: "Although Malcolm Reed mentioned relationship with women in Star Trek: Enterprise: Shuttlepod One (2002) and even shows brief interest in T'Pol, Dominic Keating has always indicated in interviews that he saw and played Reed as gay (which may explain why, by Reed's own admittance, "none of [my relationships with women] worked out, because I could never get very close to them")."
Thank you! You're the best. Especially your summary / roundup about representation on screen. A really great video. And now that we have actual open LGBT relationship on Star Trek Discovery, it has finally happened. Thanks to the progressive producers of that show.
I like what they did with the newest Star trek movies. How they had Sulu and his husband/ lover and their child together on the space station. They don't treat it like an issue they treat them like every one else, it is just how they are and no comment is made or needed.
Great overview. The trill episodes especially are wonderful. I love The Outcast, and I greatly enjoyed Chimera. My one complaint, Crusher's dialogue I'm sure was simply toned down. We never get any hints that she's anything but straight, and just as gay and bi people don't choose their orientation, she didn't choose hers either. It was a simple issue of not being physically attracted to the new, female host. I don't think that's complicated, and I've never seen that episode as hinting that Crusher may be bi or pan or omni. As a fan, I'm still heartbroken we never got to see Garak of DS9 stretching his pansexuality in a casual, unremarked way. When we first see him, he's clearly interested in Bashir, and Robinson has even said that he played him as a pan character who was attracted to this fellow male. Not only did the studio tell Robinson to "tone it down," but they then proceeded to try and force the character into a het relationship by bringing in Ziyal. That idea didn't pan out, there were crazy casting issues, she was too young, the chemistry was off - I think due to her youth, but even more due to her issues with her father. I'd have been fine seeing Garak in a functional, adult, het relationship, and also gay and pan relationships, but they opted not to take advantage off the character's potential. I appreciate what the studio has included in Trek for lgbt content (except the blatantly offensive and sexist representations in the DS9 Mirror Universe episodes), but I also think that they could've done FAR more. Actors were willing, writers were willing, and the landscape was opening up. I think they should've pushed that envelope a little further, and it's disappointing that they never did.
I can imagine what an impact it would have had on us if, in the 90s they had an openly gay storyline told in a positive light. It would have been another way Star Trek changed the world.
I was so happy to see this as a topic of an episode, especially after seeing your previous works, and seeing Odo on the thumbnail made me even more excited. I'm a transwoman, and I identify with Odo more than any other character in the franchise, for one very important reason that I was a little disappointed to see left out of the episode. As a changeling, Odo is forced to build his identity independent of form, just like all trans people do, but not necessarily all gay, lesbian, or other non-heterosexual people. Even the episode you covered, Chimera, is one I commented on extensively in an article on my own website. I feel Odo is much more analogous for the trans community than the LGB community, which should not always be lumped together, for this and many other reasons. Aside from Chimera, the next most important episode that reflects this would be the DS9 episode The Forsaken, wherein Odo is forced to "come out" for the first time when trapped in an elevator with Lwaxana Troi. He's forced to revert to his fluidic state - he's forced to be his true self - in front of another person for the very first time, which causes him great shame and discomfort, and even called it "deeply personal." Odo feels this way about his true self not because of what he wants to do or who he wants to do it with, but rather because of who he is, because of his identity that is contained entirely within himself. I recently saw a viral post on Facebook that described the difference well; gay couples are afraid to be seen in public holding hands in fear of being assaulted, while trans people are afraid to be seen in public at all for fear of being assaulted. Like I said, I'm a bit disappointed that you seemed to lump trans issues in with gay issues, and I may just be sensitive to that because it happens much too often (just look into the criticism of the upcoming Stonewall movie), but overall it was still a great episode. If you'd like to read my commentary on Odo and the episode Chimera, here's the link: inthereddest.com/?p=3534
I love the confusion about 'host changes.' Having lived through transition myself, yes, that is exactly how selfish people can be when you dare to be yourself.
I'm straight, but I'm not afraid of those who aren't . I once offered to help my college's LGBTQA club by going to their area of the student union and taking down offensive messages. The president of the club asked me why I wanted to do it, and I shrugged and said, "because you exist". She was apparently stunned that a random straight guy wanted to help, but it didn't matter to me that they were " different"; they were people.
I know this purely about "Canon" subjects but as other have pointed out in comments there was some Apocrypha works that featured LBGTQ characters. Though completely made up fanon a lot of support over the ages has been shown for K/S(Kirk/Spock, Spirk, Space husbands). I think that its encouraging that even if the ST multiverse doesn't openly speak about it, The fandom is very diverse in nature of sexuality and lifestyles. Most ST fans I've know as I've heard it said "I have no problems who you have relations with off duty"
Gay/Lesbian/Trans/Straight, It doesn't matter at all as long as the entire episode isn't just focused on that one specific issue. If there is a mention of a person's spouse's gender, then nothing else needs to be mentioned. I am working on a Trek Novel that the ship's captain is lesbian and her engineer is a trans. But that will not, nor will ever be a main focus. It'll have a mention and conversations with the captain's wife, and just a mention of the engineer's husband, but that is all that's needed. If you focus solely on that one thing, then the entire episode/novel/comic/whatever's story will become about that.
I don't see why it cannot be the focus of the story arc that is being told. Take Miles O'Brien and his wife Keiko. They where often in stories that where the main point of focus. Where shown to have a loving family, a child, had common jobs (at least for Keiko) and wasn't a problem for this type of story. I remember one story of Miles going thru the process of a prision life span in something like 20minutes. He felt that life truely went past in this time span and require care from friends to correct this abuse. I am not sure why there is a problem then in providing such story arcs for same sex couples. Same sex couples have children, have common and not so common jobs, have a high standard of living, have problems, concerns and views on politics that are not the same for each person who uses the term homosexuality as a descriptor of themselves. There is something special in seeing a representation of yourself on tv, in books and other types of publications. It can quite be quite easy to explore homosexuality without even having a gay/lesbian couple. Propose the idea of a biological family and a logical family. This takes typically a relgious family against homosexuality, and says that while it would be wonderful to have a loving bilogically linked family within your life, sometimes this isn't possible and its easier and more productive to instead find friends, who in the course of time, become dependable, supportive and loving [non-sexual] as part of your extended or logical family. There are many ways to explore sex and sexuality without showcasing it. While it would be great to see it further explored, your Novel doesn't have to. Perhaps a novel exploring Sulu's sexuality could see his family being against not only the federation, but his sexuality. Not everything has to be made gay, not everything has to be a gay or straight think, but there is no harm in exploring this topic in greater details and show casing the good, bad, wonderful and ugly aspects of homosexuality.
*Personally I feel they should have just made an alternate trek LGBT show* Put blacks on a separate show so those who never want to see blacks don't have to? Great perspective. /sarcasm
Having watched Star Trek since 1967, this issue has never been overtly dealt with, thank goodness. This was best handled by Tim Russ at a German Star convention in the late 90's. When a more "assertive" gay audience member insisted on his opinion as to why there were no "gay" characters, he responded with (and I quote) ."by then (300+ years in the future) they would have found a cure".
I just rewatched DS9's "He Who is Without Sin" and didn't realize until now how subtly they snuck in an almost lesbian relationship. The Dax character really gave them freedoms to explore same-sex without raising the alarms of homophobes, since she'd been male before. In the DS9 documentary they regretted not exploring this beyond the single episode "Rejoined."
I love Trek, but growing up watching Trek as a gay kid I always felt like Trek was interested in telling every story, but mine and it was hard for me to find a space in Trek fandom because in general fandoms don’t like to get into subtext when it comes to sexuality.
I would argue that The Outcast talks more about being Transgender than being Gay or Lesbian. The Genai are androgenous (no specific gender). Soren comes out as being female, which is different than the character's assigned gender. As a transwoman, I so related to this episode!!
+Shauna O'Toole I think you are correct, and I wish I could have addressed this further, but was constrained by a longer-than-normal episode length. Perhaps in a future Trekspertise episode?
+Trekspertise BTW - for those people who say that homosexuality is a choice? A lifestyle? Not so fast: www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530 Behavior and biology walk hand in hand. That's why I love molecular biology!
IamTenzin: While the biology isn't the choice, how you respond to it is. For example, if there was a male that was attracted to other males, then they have two choices: Embrace it or ignore it. Either one is the lifestyle choice that the person makes, regardless of what they really are. Is either choice incorrect? Depending on the person, not society. A person has to be true to themselves, not to whatever society wants them to be. If a person is homosexual, yet hides it because of what society may think of them, then (depending on the person) the decision to hide their homosexuality is likely an incorrect choice. Granted, this is rather a simplistic view and there are always more variables involved, so the issue is more complex than I describe it here, but nevertheless, the decision on how to address homosexual or heterosexual feelings is always a decision. If any of this doesn't make sense, I apologize. I'm not as articulate in my words as I should be, so sometimes what makes sense to me may get lost in translation.
@@ki5aok No, your orientation, or any state of 'not repressing your orientation and instead pretending to have another' is not a 'The Gay Lifestyle.' (By this, bigoted propaganda wants to imply their portrayals of some hedonistic 'party people' lifestyle' even if you're helping raise a kid in blue collar neighborhoods, or being 'the academic's wife' in college towns, or farming, or flying around the world as a business consultant, or all the other things that *are actually lifestyles for anyone.*
Very good! I really enjoy your videos, they are well-conceived and executed. I like your unagitated, calm delivery as well. Also, the video makes me wonder and think again why Star Trek has always shied away from addressing LGBT topics, while it has always addressed racial or feminist, moral/ethical issues...
Interesting to read this 5 years on. Having just read the reviews of Picard and some people are incensed that in the last episode 2 female characters hold hands. The fact that one of them is actually a murderer seems to be a none issue for them though.
+Crowforge So he had the entire universe to find someone to become his "traveling companion" (ahem), and he chose "Crusher, acting Ensign Wesley Crusher"? Low standards indeed...
I would be more worried that they would pull a "Code of Honor" if they were to write an episode with an LGBT central theme. Trek is much better when it is more subtle and to be honest some of the worst episodes are the ones that are in your face about the issue they are addressing.
+Golvic I agree. if they did want to do anything in regards to the LGBT a recurring gay/lesbian character on a new show would be the best, rather than one random episode that gets all sanctimonious.
1. As long as Trek, a futuristic and Utopian show, remains heteronormative, in which gays are utterly invisible and unmentionable, you will have people - who are always plentiful when these discussions come up - who say that in the Utopian future Trek represents, homosexuality has been (happily) eliminated. 2. Love is part of the human experience. We watch shows, including Trek, because we like to see our experiences reflected (and expanded) in the show. Homosexual love is also part of the human experience; eliminating its portrayal systematically is a slap in the face to gay viewers of the show. 3. So, we can portray polygamous marriages, but never show two gay crew members kissing? Why would that be? 4. Nobody, as far as I know, has asked for 'an LGBT episode'. The _portrayal_ of same-sex relationships, as with other relationships, is something that people might reasonably expect. Please consider the difference.
+Golvic Some of Trek's best episodes are in-your-face about issues, too. While I think it's important for Trek's first major gay character to have his or her orientation as just one thing about them, it's also important that occasional episodes here and there make it a big theme. There have been dozens of Trek episodes that tackle major social themes -- and none of them on sexual orientation, not one. The most we have is a few that can loosely apply. The next series absolutely needs at least one episode in its first season where sexual orientation is a big deal, and it needs at least one major character on the ship to be in the LGBT community. It's time.
The Drumhead comes to mind but not because of the writing. It is all because of Patrick Stewart's acting skills. But that one episode colored my world view more than any other making me very wary of people who do evil while wrapping themselves in good intentions. Also The First Duty. Very good episode too. But Trek absolutely shines when it does not give you a clear answer and makes you answer the question it poses yourself. In The Pale Moonlight (DS9) is the perfect example of this (and the show that had hands down the best writing of all the shows) and why I say the best episodes were not as blunt about what their lesson was.
Ryeguy123a If Trek was on TV now you would have a point but it isn't so there is not much point to asking for one to be made and they are not going to make it the theme of a movie since it is no longer about social issues but about cashing in on nostalgia. Now the question you have to ask yourself is that if ST was on today do you think there would be an episode on homosexuality? I bet you anything there would be. Probably on Trans issues too. But it isn't about time they made an episode on it. The time is long up. There is not Star Trek anymore, at least in the way Gene Roddenberry wanted it to be, and the shows fell into times where homosexual relationships were at the forefront of social issues like they are now.
I'd also like to mention that, though it isn't mentioned in the show, Terry Ferrell (who played Jadzia Dax on DS9) has said that her character was pansexual. Sbe also has a line that is subtlety inclusive in s2e7. A female Ferengi crossdressing tells Dax that she is in love with Quark. In a line a minute later she mentions being a woman, and Dax reacts with, "You're a woman?!" This is pretty subtle but it does imply that Dax assumed a male Ferengi was in love with another male and didn't think anything of it. Another thing: Andrew Robinson, who played Garak, has said that Garak is attracted to / flirts with Julian. It's not canon as far as I know, but it's something. I know this all isn't much, but I take what I can get.
Also, even though rationally I know that having villains be gay/gay coded and no one else can be damaging and lead to the idea that being gay is bad, I still love the Intendant and all her bi/pan flare.
Excellent video! Well done, Trekspertise! Something that jumped out at me while watching was that although your vid does explicitly say it's about 'Gays and Lesbians' in Star Trek, a lot of what was shown might more accurately be labeled an examination of transgendered people and issues. 'Rejoined', 'The Host', and 'Profit and Lace' all deal on some level with the difference between gender and sex, with the latter specifically acknowledging the physical manifestations of it (albeit in a rather sophomoric manner, but that's another story). There are also several passing references, particularly surrounding the Dax symbiant, that engage with the fluidity of gender, sex, personality, and how people react to changes in those categories. You could even argue Trek, ironically and somewhat unwittingly, has been more comfortable addressing transgender people and issues than lesbian or gay ones. Maybe a further video could dissect this in more detail - I know I'd like to see more! Once again, well done and thank you. Keep up the great work!
Well, for a lot of people, gender and sexuality issues are harder to tell *apart* than they may be for LGB or T people, that's why these groups have to face common oppressions and prejudices. For straight people "I'm straight" is 'just part of being a man or woman.' That's why gay people get called 'not real men or women' and trans people get called anti-gay slurs, whoever they actually are oriented towards romantically.
9:10 This isn't related to homosexuality, but it sounds exactly like being transgender. It's a little annoying that when people discuss LGBT rep in shows they always leave out the T, even when it is so obviously what the media is talking about.
johnny best jojo No it’s not. Sexuality is completely different from deciding what gender you want to be. It’s more annoying that some people lump it in with attraction. One of the many problems with the lefts identity politics.
Matthew Corcoran Yeah it is annoying that they get lumped in together, but that ain’t a leftist problem lol. I see people on the right who are transphobic trying to conflate trans people with gay people all the time, never seen people on the left do that. Also, you do not choose what gender you want to be, we don’t get to choose our gender; trans people don’t become another gender, they realize what gender they actually are, and then can choose to come out and/or transition.
johnny best jojo completely agree with you on not being able to choose gender. I was giving an example of the lefts narrative, it’s certainly not the right that come up with this bollocks. I don’t know what transphobic means? Fear of flying transonic? Sounds like another made up word from the left. We’re paying too much attention to the vocal minority.
@@matthewcorcoran2891 Transphobia is bigotry towards transgender people, not fear despite the name. It is is to trans folk what homophobia is to gay folk. I do not understand which narrative you are referring to, and what this narrative is saying.
Nobody ever mentions the fact that Odo isn't actually a male. Changelings mimic the appearance of humanoid species (including gender), but they don't seem to have an actual gender. Odo chose to mimic the scientist that taught him, but he's actually a genderless species that fell in love with a Bajoran female. This seems even more unconventional than same sex relationships on Star Trek.
Growing up in the 80's and 90's there were few examples of gays in tv. They were mostly over the top campy comic relief. Representation matters. Well Done!
Thank you. Concise, complete, and thoughtful. I've been trying to say these things for ages, but you took the words right out of my mouth and did this topic real justice!
Excellent review. But why isn't there a mention of Bashir/Garak? The actors and writers wrote them out as a (coded) gay couple for a number of seasons, right under Paramount's nose. Eventually, the executives found out and put a stop to it.
I'd give O'Brien a bit of slack based on being the guy that has really been through it fixing the station environmental systems over and over. :) That does look a lot like a coolant leak. :)
Have you heard that there will be a gay character in Star trek Discovery. I imagine alot of these taboo's (if we can still call homosexuality a taboo in 2016) will be explored in the new series.
To boldly go where all the rest of TV has already been! Seriously, without Gene Trek has ceased to push cultural boundaries and is actually more timid then the rest of the industry, it's no longer leading but following. If you want something bold I recommend Steven Universe, it is literally the best show on television right now.
I think if they do another series, they should, but not as a big issue but rather as a background to a character where it logically makes sense. The creator, Gene, was very upset that he couldn't tackle the issue, George Takei said he was a good friend and felt bad he couldn't be help.
This channel will be the first thing this nerd has ever Patreon-ed, Kickstarted, etc. Your analysis is strong, your video production values are top notch, your pacing and episode length are perfect for a variety of uses (as a teacher, I appreciate this), and more. Though none of your videos are perfect (No Garak in this? Hrm.), they are above and beyond any effort and just keep getting better. Thank you for putting your effort into these gifts to the Star Trek community.
I love Star Trek. And I'm a gay man. And the one critique I have of Star Trek is the lack of unapologetic openly gay characters. It honestly makes me feel as though the writers believe that gay people won't exist in the future. Which I certainly hope is not true.
+Kelsey Beers Some writers may think that but I bet Gene Roddenberry probably just couldn't get away with gay characters back in the day. As a secular humanist Roddenberry was probably more than fine with gay people existing and existing in the future too. It's just that it's tv and you don't have a full control over everything.
+jktomas Very true and in fact Gene wanted Spock and Uhura to kiss. But, being the 1960s, the TV networks would not allow a black woman to kiss a white man.
Under the guise of mind control. The only way they could allow it was to have the characters not want to do it. Unfortunately, there's also so far you can push when portraying a futuristic utopian society. Frakes was willing to have the androgynous "woman" that Riker falls in love with be a man, but the idea got nixed.
Roddenberry was very pro bisexuality but has a history of making some very uncomfortable statements about homosexuality, along with some backhanded commentary about women's rights.
This is one of the first episodes of Trekspertise I have watched, and wow. The production quality, as well as directness with the subject matter is incredible. I am a little disappointed that you didn't mention Andrew Robinson's failed attempt at introducing an amibigiously bi-sexual character into the Trekverse through his portrayal of Elim Garak, but some of the episodes here, in particularly "Chimera" I had not even considered it as discussing LGBT issues. "Rejoined" is a very interesting one in this case, and one of my favourites when dealing with LGBT issues within Star Trek, as I think it was one of the bravest ones within the Trekverse, discussing Trans issues rather than Homosexuality, as it's main point was that love can transcend physical form, something that some people may have trouble with when their partner is transitioning. I think one important thing for any new Trek series when pushing this frontier on TV is not to allow a character's sexual preference override their character, instead keep it as a matter of fact thing, so it to be no different than how Jean Luc, Sisko, or Janeway would handle a relationship, setting a decent standard for other TV shows to handle.
+Tonks Moriarty (ZNickel) The best compliment I've gotten. Thank you. You'll find several of the videos here strive to reach this level. Of the things not mentioned in this episode, particularly Elim garak, time was the most likely culprit...in that I had to cut some material just to maintain the overall length of the video. So, there is material that had to be left out. However, for the most part, I tried to make this as concise and thorough as I could. Thanks for watching...and welcome aboard =)
Great video! One thing though, that I think is criminally underdiscussed, is just how straightforward The Outcast is as a story about trans experiences. It isn't even close to being a stretch to read the episode that way, and there is plenty of dialogue which is quite direct. I mean, just look at the clip at 9:25 which pretty succinctly provides a solid allegorical explanation of what being trans is like **in 1992.** While it clearly was originally meant to be about homosexuality, I wish more people discussed the episode in light of the gender aspects of the story as well. Particularly since her treatment at the end is even more similar to trans conversion therapy than it is to gay conversion therapy, and that it is all so coated in allegory anyway that arguments focusing on authorial intent become less important. I dunno, I just think it's one of those interesting moments where the plot ends up resembling reality more than the writers probably imagined. And it's a bit of a shame the way people seem to ignore that outside of an almost footnoted mention of gender when it's brought up.
There's kind of a reason it's hard to tell the *bigotries* apart, though, it's cause.... people that oppress any LGBT people don't even *make* the distinction. They think LGB people 'Aren't a real man or woman' and they think trans people are just 'very gay' or whatever their excuse of the week for transphobia is. (Whoever, if anyone, a given trans person even sleeps with.) But yeah, even for Riker, I'm pretty sure 'OK, androgynous species' would not have been that big a thing, except, 'Oh, this one's a 'she' and we're really into each other.' (And really, if Soren *weren't,* I doubt there'd be any attraction on Riker's end, just given who Riker seems to like as a type,)
In the Book "The Lost Years" homosexuality in the federation is addressed directly. It is explained within the first few pages that sexuality is irrelevant under the Starfleet ideals of personal freedom and self determination.The Kirk character explains that because the Vulcan word for friend and lover are the same word only the tone with witch it is spoken denotes the difference in meaning there was often a question of the nature of Kirk and Spock''s relationship. If we work under the assumption that sexuality is more fluid and thus irrelevant in the Trek UNIverse then there is circumstantial evidence that Tom Paris and Harry Kim were lovers for several years before Tom Married B'elana Torres.
Stigma is my favorite Enterprise episode and I think the best Trek has done at exploring an actual LGBT issue. Episodes like Stigma are a huge part of why Enterprise was so underrated.
Blood and Fire was changed in large part because BERMAN freaked out about showing a male homosexual relationship in even the most casual way as passing remark since he is a huge homophobe. He is also as evidenced by experiences reported by the female members of the cast more than a little sexist. Sure he was okay showing Dax still having feelings for a former partner while in a female body because even homophobic hetero males think girl on girl is hot, but the mere suggestion that two guys are together? Nope.
the "changing pride demonstration" line from Quark, was however actually Laz in disguise; it doesn't change the fact that Trek portrayed it, but it isn't Quark's character's opinion it was Laz trying to manipulate Odo.
Can't wait for modern audiences to complain about Star Trek Discovery being used for 'SJW propaganda' for discussing such issues, as if they never existed before. From the first interracial on-screen kiss to these examples and many more Star Trek has always had conversations about norms and traditions, as it should.
I hate that people bash the show for being sjw propaganda. I personally don't like the show but its not because of it being inclusive or shit, I think the writing is lacking.
I don't think that ODO is by any menas GAY or something like that. Remember that "HE" IS NOT A HUMANOID SPECIES to say the least. And the GREAT LINK is a see of them all combined. So I think that talking about beeing GAY by a LIQUID lifeform is a little strange. The DS9 series explores that theme extensivley. The other thng with DAX and his EX is another problematik that is not standard either.
+Trekspertise +Denes Miltenyi No what you did do is show that there is a parallel with what Odo faces in the episode with Laas there and the homosexual experience. Odo cannot be defined as gay as the concept of his species being absent of traditional sexual standpoints. The procreation is also not understood. What we see of Odo and indeed other changelings is how they want to be perceived or how they choose to appear. You can argue that the species of the changelings in their natural state is a mono-gendered or androgynous society. You could even argue that Odos decision to present himself as male over being female as a choice shows to a certain degree that gender has a social construct in addition to the biological one. The way Dax and Khan re-association is that it focuses more on the affection basis not the fact they are currently both females of the trill species. Again this is because the influence in this interaction is more the symbiote which was already covered to have no gender. What we see in the episode of both of DS9 Rejoined and Ent Stigma. Is how other certain societies feel they have the right to determine how people are intimate with each other. Yet ironically claim that they are tolerant of difference. As both of them are pointing to a taboo that they do not condone. Each presenting punishments of a sorts. One hand exile which is an effective death sentence and the other hand apathy to a form of suffering. The irony is both of these especially the Vulcans present that they are tolerant of differences and are accepting in the case of Vulcans and Trill both it shows them to have a hypocritical standpoint. The good thing is there are plenty of fan series out there that have also explored this issue and show that acceptance of difference is the standpoint that the federation society should be about. The good thing is the Vulcans have changed their minds from Stigma. But the trill have yet to. Honestly it is good that we are progressing in this vein because it makes a society look less hypocritical by saying we accept diversity then not doing it or even legislating against that. It is an on-going issue with many differences and a matter of time and education to fix.
As a fairly recently out (within the last four years) bisexual woman I can not begin to express enough how much it would have helped me to see a happy (or at least not a walking punchline/metaphor for decadence) bisexual person on my TV growing up... Every time this conversation re-starts I can just imagine young LBGT children sitting in front of the TV with their families feeling hopeful and safe, and that is SO important, especially in a show like trek.
When I first saw Voyager I often thought 7 was bisexual, its defintely there in her scenes with the Borg Queen. It also explains why she and Janeway (who is definitely straight) as somewhat antagonistic. Janeway cant have an affair with her sceond in command, but 7 who is not starfleet, has no such difficulty.
Agreed. It's not forced, it's just there. It didn't really spark a controversy. It's funny, but the only one who had a problem with Sulu being gay was George Takei.
first time i saw it i was like wait oh no fuck no but then disregarded it anyway since what's the point of hating about it. I still hate it though haha
+alesin1992 I agree with Takei on this one as it wasn't the character Gene created, even after seeing it I still think that way BUT.... out of all the crap the Reboots have done what they did there was very respectful and I don't have any problems with it
I always found that weird that they were bold enough to make women equal without any statements but couldn't just casually insert a gay character. The only thing I liked about new Star Trek Beyond was that they casually showed Sulu's husband. I hope we can get some gay people in Discovery.
you see, playing someone as straight is not the same as that person being straight. maybe, in both universes, hes bi, yet in the originals, hes more attracted to women, while the events of the JJ-verse made him meet someone he wouldnt have known in the other universe, whom he falls in love with, which is why we see him as gay here.
DS9’s “rejoined” was directly about homosexuality, they were just being sneaky about it. The trill stigma against hosts rejoining is a substitute for the stigma at the time of homosexuality. The initial scene with the magic trick in Quark’s bar is indirectly addressing the nature of the episode by joking about how the illusion was real in a different way, and the dialogue between Dax and her love interest directly addresses how they have to choose between their careers and the fallout they will feel by “outing” themselves, and their very real love for each other. The episode itself early on implies gay and lesbian relationships are totally normalized in the far future of Star Trek.
Rike's actor actually wanted the alien in the Outcast to be played by a man rather than the woman they ultimately cast, reasoning it would of made the episode's message far more powerful.
Mr Frakes is such a champion.
@@marnie4629 yep he's definitely an ally. He's a good bloke
And more unbelievable, based on how riker is portrayed THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF HIS TIME ON SCREEN.
@@duffman18 Cosmo Kramer is that you?
I remember reading somewhere that Jonathan Frakes (Riker) really wanted Soren to be acted by a male, to get the story's point across. But the producers wouldn't have it or something..
This is true. He became very angry because the show's executives wanted to play it safe.
Points to Frakes!
*****
"I can understand why the executives said no."
Only if you think profit (pandering to the homophobes/religious extremists, to be specific) should supersede a message.
He did say "I understand" not "I support"..
thats easy for you to say, but hundreds of people depended on that show as a job, they were there to work, lets say I'm an athiest (or whatever other group you want to pick) and own a store, and I demand that a political postion be filled by an athiest that earned it but was denied, and as a backlash the public refuses to use my store and I have to fire that person that works for me as a result, they can't bring a paycheck to there family anymore because I had a point to make, having said that your right too it's wrong to just cave into one group to the exclusion of the others especially considering how massivly populer Star Trek is.
Star Trek dosnt have an "obligation" to push social boundries it's a choice it's creators make and they should'nt be punished no matter witch way they go on it, but I wish it did more then it has.
I don't know why one moment keeps getting glossed over in the Star Trek/homosexuality discussions. DS9 2x07, "Rules of Acquisition."
Dax: (talking about Quark) I don’t care what anyone says. I love him.
Pel: So do I.
Dax: You really do, don’t you?
Pel: What?
Dax: Love Quark. Don’t bother trying to deny it, I’ve seen the way you look at him.
Pel: Please, keep your voice down!
Dax: Does he know?
Pel: He doesn’t even know I’m a female.
Dax: YOU’RE A WOMAN??
Dax had no idea that Pel was a woman in disguise when discussing Pel's love for Quark. To me this seems to indicate that homosexuality is not only accepted in the Star Trek universe, it's such a part of society they don't even give it much thought. The only reason we don't see it onscreen is because folks in the 20th and 21st centuries still have some issues to work through...
And when they go to the mirror universe they all just seem to accept that everyone is apparently bisexual there. They don't really bat an eye which suggests that homosexuality is normal In the future.
Still it would have been nice to have had a proper gay couple in star trek at least once. Nothing in your face or anything but just as normal or even sideline characters.
+Christopher Payne Well, but again....aliens. The Trill are understood to be gender-fluid because the symbionts get put into hosts of different genders all the time. Dax has occupied both male and female hosts and even borne children! Pel was a Ferengi, as was Quark. You may also recall that Quark himself was not very receptive to Pel's interest when he thought that Pel was male. The implication being the homosexuality may not be all that welcome in Ferengi culture after all.
Aliens with alien problems. That allowed for Trek to distance itself from the issue, because at least it wasn't *humans* that were experiencing these things!
+Kyle Butler Nobody bats an eye because the Mirror Universe is known to be a place where *depravity* is the *norm*, not the exception. Slavery, keeping concubines and many other practices that the Prime characters would consider abhorrent are also present. Don't you find it at all insulting that only in a universe where practically everyone is *evil* are named characters bisexual, whereas in the Prime universe those same characters are exclusively straight?
*****
Yeah that is a fair point. It's like the depravity of the mirror universe gave the writers cover for having some hot lesbian action in the show.
I also don't remember there being any man on man action happening in the mirror universe. I can only speculate that the show runners assumed women kissing would titillate the audience but men kissing would be off putting to the audience. That's just my take on it anyway.
In defense of my original point, I don't remember any of the prime characters showing disgust or disapproval of bisexuality unlike slavery and concubines. But I admit that a lack of disaporval isn't really approval in and of itself so maybe its a stretch.
Oh well, hopefully they get it right in the new series.
Kyle Butler
Much like the "lesbian" romance in Rejoined was explicitly rationalized by the fact that the Dax and Kahn symbionts had previously occupied a husband-wife couple. Jadzia and Lenara were just acting out the emotions that the slugs inside their guts were feeling. Absent that special history, Jadzia otherwise preferred *very* manly men (e.g. Worf).
Indifference is not approval. Especially when, as has been the case on Trek, it is commonly hand-waved as aliens doing alien things, or limited to parallel universes where everybody is explicitly immoral.
"What is he doing?" "Being fog, what does it look like?" Rene Auberjonois being able to say that with a straight face is a testament to some serious acting skill :D
People suggesting he be fog somewhere else where it doesn’t bother anyone is very familiar to me. I’m gay and have been told nearly the same thing on multiple occasions.
Ben Pearson
That is no substitute for inclusion in society.
@@_robustus_ yep. It's a direct reference to all those morons who think they're being allies when they say "oh I'm fine with gay people, as long as they're not gay in public, I don't want to see them kissing in front of me, can't they do that in their own homes when nobody is around instead?“
Like these people are fine with straight public displays of affection. But just not gay demonstrations of public affection. If people aren't allowed to be themselves in public then it's still pretty much de facto illegal to be gay, even if it's de jure legal. That's the situation Russia is in right now. It's been made illegal to be gay in public. That's like making it illegal to be black in public. It's not something anyone chooses. You're just born that way.
"she's your wife" "what does that have to do with it?" phlox is the best xD
That, and T'pol going though pon far.
I'm sure I misspelled both of those.
@@stevenwilliams1805 only males go through pon farr ,that was one of the many errors of Enterprise.
@@djackson4657 didn't know that but, she made it hot.
@@djackson4657
I think they did that on purpose, head on tackling the still pervasive myth at the time that women have no sex drive.
Right? Just cause someone thinks or can agree someone is attractive doesn't have to mean they plan or want to move on it.
The difference is in Phlox's society there is so much more openness and straightforward communication. :)
It would have been interesting if Andrew Robinson (Garek, DS9) had been allowed to pursue his early ideas on the sexuality of Garek: _"He's not gay, he's not straight, it's a non-issue for him. Basically his sexuality is inclusive. But - it's Star Trek and there were a couple of things working against that. One is that Americans really are very nervous about sexual ambiguity. Also, this is a family show, they have to keep it on the 'straight and narrow', so then I backed off from it. Originally, in that very first episode, I loved the man's absolute fearlessness about presenting himself to an attractive Human being. The fact that the attractive Human being is a man (Bashir) doesn't make any difference to him, but that was a little too sophisticated I think. For the most part, the writers supported the character beautifully, but in that area they just made a choice they didn't want to go there, and if they don't want to go there I can't, because the writing doesn't support it."_
I don't think that is what propoetide or Robinson are saying -- Garek isn't asexual at all, but (as implied by Robinson's descriptions) bisexual/pansexual. Gender/sexuality, to Garek, would be no different than a particular style or article of clothing: you don't wear the same thing all the time, nor do you think only one article (or even a set) of clothing is all there is. If he were asexual, he'd have no attraction nor sense of wanting to be attractive to anyone. That isn't what Robinson is saying, at all.
Garak is basically like Lord Varys from GoT, to that effect. They even have a similar demeanor.
Garek loved Zeal, if they change that I'm not accepting it.
There was sooo much sexual tension in Garak's first scene alone, I'm surprised rainbow sparks didn't start going off.
ds9 was the move to sjw and its a fail
I think the example of obvious ommision that upsets me the most is in "Someone to Watch Over Me" from ST: Voyager. When the Doctor is teaching Seven of Nine about dating, not once does he mention that there are same sex couples.
That because it was about how to behave on a date. As 7 might say, Who ( or what as its star trek) your date is ,is irrelevant.
I attribute my solid morals to watching star trek growing up. Fact. updated
+parodox22 "morals", not "morales".
+612Tiberius No, no, he's just in high spirits.
FallenEpic Or maybe he means "more or less" - somehow...
+parodox22 Maybe he was going for the Spanish surname?
+parodox22 ~ I attribute mine to "Scooby Doo"
I heard once: "If not fot religion, where do you get your morality?" The reply to which was "Captain Picard"
I second this.
freeman account more a Dr McCoy man myself
McCoy's a bit prejudiced against non-humans, though.
you get your morality from your brain. if you do not have a working one, no religion, and not even Captain Picard will help.
julijakeit - Perhaps. But our brain nor our entire being stand in a vacuum. We are a communal (dare I say tribal?) species. We learn from one another. Our brain allows us to make choices- hopefully good ones. By that I mean choices that include more people into our community. In time, if we are fortunate, our community will embrace all people. I believe that was the intention of the original creators of Star Trek and maybe even the people who created many of the religions scattered around this planet.But that stern individualism, relying only upon ourselves and our individual brain, is a myth of our times and our particular and current predominant culture.
I'm surprised you didn't mention Garrak. Andrew Robinson thought that because he isn't human, he shouldn't conform to human gender standards. This is one of the reasons he had such a close relationship with Bashir.
Also, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but Rules of Aquisition briefly gets into homosexuality and the fact that it is accepted in the federation (which it should be in a society like that). When the female ferrengi (I forgot her name) pretending to be male is talking to Dax about how she loves Quark, Dax seems excited about it. AFTER Dax learns that she has feelings for Quark, Dax is surprised to hear that she is female.
+RRW Absolutely. Garak was definitely a nod and wink toward an openly gay character. He was described as a "tailor" but discussed his opinions on style and fashion of many things besides the clothes. Yes this is a stereotype, but it was used to communicate the idea. The character also had enough cunning, courage and gile (one of his favorite words) to be in the intelligence service and to become a main character of the show. He was never attacked by any of the other characters for discussing his profession and was respected for his skill regardless of classic gender roles. Gay men were often recruited by intelligence services during our own Cold War as they were naturally experts at keeping secrets and acting during that era.
+RRW The writers always said the Bashir/ Garak attraction was only supposed to go one way ... but I find that hard to believe considering that their first meeting is exactly like a Meet Cute for any other couple and Bashir had this look on his face like ... well what I would look like if I met Alexander Siddig. Siddig even said that his reaction to that scene was, "So we're going to be Trek's first gay couple? Cool."
I never thought Garak was gay... and it seemed to me that he was tryin to bang Dukats daughter
Chronos127 I think Robinson was trying to make Garrak seem bi.
Based on what Robinson has said and A Stitch in Time (a novel that he wrote about Garak's backstory), I think he was playing the character as swinging both ways, probably with a female preference but open to male attraction. In the novel he has a female love interest but there's a passing mention of a young Garak having a crush on a male classmate.
I think the best thing Star Trek could do regarding gay or lesbian characters/storylines would be the addition of a character in any new cast who happened to be gay and had their spouse on the ship as well.
No grand statements are needed; no running plot lines to show how they've triumphed over adversity. Simply make the relationship part of the fabric of the show and treat it like any other interpersonal relationship.
+Geoffrey Snyder ST Phase 2 has. Kirk's nephew Peter, (George's son) is openly gay.
There are several gay characters in the apocrypha like that - but nothing in the canon storylines .... I'd like to see some canonical gays and then see them as being in no way unusual.
Geoffrey Snyder
Yes, you have a good point there.
+Geoffrey Snyder
I for one would like to see this, hell, I would even throw my hand up to take on one of these characters if I had any acting experience.
Holy crap!!! O.O
*WE REACH!!!!!!!*
i just made almost the exact same comment a few minutes before i read yours!
i guess great minds (meaning Trekkies) think alike. ;D
*\V/_*
I cannot tell you how important the STNG episode The Outcast was for me - it came out around the same time that I came out. I remember loving it and being so excited about it, but a lot of the older gay men I was friends with at the time (by older I mean late 20s at the time) seemed to think it was awful and that it was intended to encourage gay conversion camps/ideals. I definitely didn't see it that way, I saw it as an episode about what gay conversion does to people - it kills a part of them and denies them love. But context is everything - that was in the ACT UP! days and everything was a fight. People were dying left and right and there was no room for artistic interpretation or thoughtfulness. It was either nothing short of overly and expressly positive or it was damaging. I think the episode held up well, but I do think that they should have shown more affection and Jonathan Frakes has come out and said the same thing.
Sounds like you had a better perspective than your older friends.
I have mixed feelings about that particular episode. It's great that it was a positive influence on you. I thought it was a somewhat decent, but flawed, attempt to make a statement for inclusiveness. The problem I have with the episode is that while it was an honest attempt to portray inclusiveness, the homophobia by the network and producers didn't let them explore the story as fully as they could. It was interesting because the cast and writers wanted to have positive gay messages, but had their hands tied by the network and producers.
@@bobcarn i don't disagree necessarily but I was like 18 or 19 when this came out and so my perspective was different.
I remember reading/hearing something about George Takei (Sulu) asking Roddenberry to approach the subject during TOS, to which Gene replies that if he did that they would most certainly pull the show off of the air and then they wouldn't have been able to discuss any subjects. So back in the 60s it was too radical for Gene to bring up on a struggling show, and I imagine that he didn't get around to it with TNG because of the recent AIDS issue before his passing. Why it wasn't broached in the later series, that is the question. If Star Trek was running today, it would definitely be a common subject.
Great video! Keep it up :D
I have missed Trekspertise. I love watching these. Star Trek is my favorite thing. Ever.
+The Linux Gamer ahh I love Star Trek :)
+The Linux Gamer
Were you on a misty chronexia stream?
Not to my knowledge. :P
MINE TOO!!!
Let's not hold up Profit and lace as a good example.
+dimmddr1 Its...very much a mixed bag, agreed.
+Trekspertise Field of fire was another episode where there was a casual mention of a no -standard relationship. It involved a Bolian crewmen we who had a wife and co-husband. Not much else was mentioned. So sometimes I felt that they were trying get it in past some very timid producers. A shame they didn't include more so that we would have more meaningful discussion. I'm glad Caprica was a lot more bold.
+Anthony Green Pity CAPRICA only lasted 1 season!
One story I heard was, one of the executive producers constantly blocked any introduction of gay or lesbian characters. That is why is most dislike among gay Star Trek fans.
The TNG episode "Tin Man" has left me wondering ever since I first saw it if there was some part of it meant to be an allegory to homosexuality. In in, the character Tam Elbrun is a lonely, misunderstood Betazoid man with a particular affection for Data, at one point telling him (although it's obvious he's really saying it about himself):
"Perhaps you're just different. It's not a *sin*, you know, though you may have heard otherwise."
In the end, he ends up essentially becoming bonded with the creature/vessel "Tin Man" or Gomtuu, though no one else on the ship seems to fully understand it. Data and Deanna then have the following conversation:
Data: "Individually they were both so..."
Deanna: "Wounded, isolated."
Data: "Yes, but no longer. Through joining, they have been healed. Grief has been transmuted to joy, loneliness to belonging."
I always saw that episode as an analogy for autism. Tam suffers from overstimulation, so he naturally drifts to Troi, who he doesn't have to explain and apologize to because she's a therapist, and Data, the one person on the ship who won't give him headaches just by being there. When Gomtuu arrives, it's like he finally found overstimulation medication and good company together.
@The Critic fun fact! Did you know gay people can connect to each other and be friends without sex? Because apparently you don't know that!
I may or may not have squealed like a little girl when I saw a new Trekspertise video in my subscriptions...
Something I love about Star Trek is that it always seems to address issues society seems to fight against.
I disagree about The Host. Dr. Crusher is happy to see the Trill again *until* she turns and see that it's a lady now. I mean, her turn from smile to frown is pretty telling and to me she's referring to not being able to continue her affair with the same person but in a female body. As for The Outcast.. it seems to me a bit of a hodgepodge of both gay and trans themes, more than firmly stuff about gay people in particular. "Stigma" was so obvious it was almost on the nose.
luuuy
McFadden states in an interview I've seen somewhere that she had wanted to give the female host a goodbye kiss at least. She wasn't allowed.
I thought it was an episode that clearly adressed transexual and transgender issues. And it was very beautiful when dr. CRUSHER said: "perhaps one day we will not be so limited in our ability to love".
Letícia Mori "Beautiful"? I thought it was appalling. Because who is "we"? It was Dr. Crusher who was limited in her ability to love, not "we". I found that line completely insulting.
@@sharonminsuk "We" as in her and the culture of the late 80's early 90's for whom the content was produced, ya nimrod.
I am a History teacher. You are doing a great thing here with Trekspertise. Keep it up!
+Chris George Thank you very much for watching! A hearty endorsement =)
If you have any topic suggestions, please feel free to send them my way.
Interesting point to add: In "The Outcast", the person playing Soren was originally supposed to be played by a man, in order to make the points the episode was covering more obvious. The character still would've identified as female though.
God damn Riker,. He made me realise i was rikersexual
Literally everyone is Rikersexual, whether they know it or not.
@@TheBlarggle No wonder he couldn't get that grin off his face when he met Captain Okona. Jack Harkness blended with Han Solo? That's a man after his own heart.
As are at least half the characters in Star Trek.
An excellent discussion.
I love Star Trek, but had never looked beyond the stories as to why they resinated with me so much.
I never consider that it was necessary to have a gay character. But after listening to your discussion, I think that it is vital. But the portrayal must be authentic and normalised. What I mean by this is that, the individual/ character who is gay, must not only be gay. They must be a whole character in themselves and their sexuality is 'nothing'. In that for a 'straight' character we don't refer to them as 'heterosexual Jean-Luc', but just Jean-Luc. They must be a valid, complete character and not just a 'token' to social/political commentary and /or pressure.
Although I'm not gay, the impact of this would be as great as seeing a black man as a Commander; Benjamin Sisko, I am black. And even greater for me, seeing Kathryn Janeway as Captain. As a woman, it had a powerful effect on my conscious mind and sub-conscious actions. Janeway, in charge, respected, strong and loved by all around her and yet not restricted by her femininity and/or sexuality, opened my eyes to the fact that as a woman we've come a long way, but still have far to go.
Only imagine the affect/ impact this could have on gay communities the world over. On young fans growing up unsure of their burgeoning sexuality.
I applaud you for raising and presenting such a valid discussion. Well done.
Star Trek Disco has a gay engineer and CMO
A little tidbit. The actress who played Lenara Kahn, Susanna Thompson, also played the Borg Queen in a few episodes of Voyager, but not in the finale. She also played Oliver Queen's mother on Arrow. The Queen in Voyager's finaley was played by the original actress, Alice Krige.
I enjoyed the shout out in Beyond where we got to see Sulu's husband and little girl, however apparently there was also meant to be a kiss. The extended scene was shot during the filming, but edited out in the final cut. They have touched on the subject, but seem to keep pulling back from full commitment. Still, the scene they kept was a good first step and the emotion really came through, a man who deeply missed his family, as Sulu ran to embrace them.
Dont forget the episode on DS9 4x05 where Dax and another woman might begin a serious relationship and everyone finds it weird that they aren't going to because of another issue unrelated to homosexuality
One of the reasons I came to love star trek is their willingness to address controversial subjects like race and gay openly in defiance of the (acceptable) norm. As far as Janeway being a captain, it was a great day when a woman was portrayed in a command position and a woman that's a total badass on top of it.like Cisco being the first black man put in a position of command in a still semi racist film and television industry. it's things like this that sets the star trek genre in a class all by itself.
What I loved particularly about DS9 was the twist they later implied, that Benjamin Sisko might actually have been a 1950s black sci-fi writer who has to hide his race in order to publish his stories, and who creates this better future in which a black man can be in such a high command position. I never quite git the hang as to whether this was an actual reveal, or just Sisko's way of looking back into the past and realizing that humanity had come a long way (with or without the assistance of the wormhole aliens/Bajoran "Gods" who had given him this vision). And I think you cannot really separate the Gender questions from the racial question because it's all about the willingness to accept and accommodate difference.
Not to mention that the Cardassians occupying Bajor is also one such hidden comment - I always thought the Cardassians looked like Chinese with their hair combed back, as if they had jumped straight out of a Mao Zedong propaganda placard...And the Bajorans were the Tibetans or something (any country that the Chinese might have occupied) at least their Kai (the office, not the woman finally occupying the post) always gave me strong Dalai Lama vibes..
When "Stigma" first aired, at the end of an episode was information about how AIDS sufferers can get help. The writers clearly wanted us to make that connection, and it was the first time I realized Star Trek's role in making us think about real world issues.
One of the things that I've always appreciated about Star Trek is not only its having diversity in characters and story, but the way that diversity is integrated. Star Trek never even mentioned Uhura's race, or Janeway's gender in the show. They assume (correctly, I hope) that by the 23rd/24th Centuries, those things no longer spark any sort of issue or controversy. This means that they don't have to put in "token characters" solely to appear forward thinking. Geordi is probably the furthest thing possible from a black stereotype, and Janeway is certainly no female stereotype. Star Trek is one of the few shows that nails diversity without trying, simply by not shouting "hey look, we're diverse!"
+Charles Earle that is great narration of Geordi and Janeway, they are without saying they are. Just are. and shows ten a penny are falling over themselves to shout 'Look look we are diverse' with a cheesy awkward grin, hoping not to get the shut down. Latest Star Trek Continues episodes deals with a Commander Garrett demanding her captaincy, in the time of TOS. Where the Federation being only a small collective of species and only 8 Constitution class ships. Being socially pressured by the other races ideals and expectations that their should not be female captains. Its a remarkable episode.
I'm not understanding your comment.. Uhura was Swahili and Janeway was female..? Those are both mentioned many times in the show.
Divergent Droid Perhaps I misspoke. I really meant that those aspects aren't mentioned in reference to their ability to do their job, or mentioned in a way that shouts "Hey, look, we have a minority character!" Whenever it is mentioned, it's more of just a conversation piece, like O'Brien's Irish heritage.
+Divergent Droid Yeah, essentially while Uhura is Swahili, it's never brought up like, "Wow, for a black woman, you've done quite well for yourself" or whatever. Same with Janeway. "Oh, wow - a female captain? That's so impressive of you." No one ever says that. It's not shocking in anyway that these two people from these demographics are doing what they're doing.
Well, actually they do bring up the subject with Janeway - at least when she's discussing how she's to be adressed with Ensign Kim - Star fleet would require "Sir", She'd accept "Mam" in an emergency, but ultimately prefers "Captain" - "aye, Mam!" - "this is not an emergency, Mr. Kim!"
We need Borg Tribbles
resistance is futile. you cannot resist the cute fluffyness.
Borg tribbles are called kittens.
When the Borg finally assimilate some Tribbles, all hell will break loose!
It should be the final Star Trek episode ever.
+Aeroldoth3 that explains alot!! lol
Borggles? Or Triborg?
I know someone who, for his doctorate, defended the position of SciFi being where a lot of commentary of then contemporary social issues can be disguised by hiding them on other planets, or set in future utopian settings.
My example is Star Trek original series episode "Let This Be Your Final Battlefield", a disguised discussion of 1960s Black vs. White equality, and a bad ending if the issue doesn't get settled in contemporary times.
I also mention a Star Trek: Voyager episode, where a "final solution" to eliminate a planetary minority is discovered by USS Voyager.
The ending tied in the moral of "If you don't get your issues sorted out, there will the nothing left but the fishes."
That's an excellent point. I would love to read the dissertation
I feel that the way classic Star Trek dealt with these issues was genius. Modern shows take these issues on in a more head-on kind of way, but I don't feel that it is nearly as effective as flipping the situation as these classic episodes do.
There's a difference between directly stating an opinion and finding a way to open a debate and open people's minds to other possibilities.
This has always been my stance on discussing politically heated topics in science fiction. When you create a story that talks about a real-world problem directly, viewers can end up defaulting to their pre-conceived beliefs on that problem, meaning they can set up mental barriers to have their mind changed. By contrast, when you dress the problem under the veil of science fiction, viewers are less likely to form those barriers, meaning they get a chance to open their minds to new ideas.
The trade off, of course, is the level of impact these stories have: having a story about an alien couple as a stand-in for homosexuals is easier to digest for a wider audience, but having a story about a bona fide gay couple address the struggles homosexuals face gives the viewer context. It's one thing to address social issues in a vacuum, developing beliefs of things "ought to be." It's another to address how to put those ideals into practice, and to recognize that things aren't as nice as we'd like to believe.
Despite all that's said in the video, the fact remains that they absolutely avoided homosexuality completely. You can claim that this episode or that storyline was kinda sorta somewhat related to homosexuality... maybe, if you cocked your head to the side and squinted. But they never had gay characters. Ever. They never had gay romances. Ever. They never had anything clear and blatantly gay, just outlandish alien situations.
Roddenberry gave us the first interracial kiss and a black female as an officer.... Paramount completely and utterly ignored us.
What I've found over the years is that for all the claims of open mindedness from the sci fi/ fantasy/ video games/ RPGs/ comics/ anime and all the rest of the "geek" community, there's a shit ton of homophobia amongst us. Sometimes it seems to be even greater than the public at large. Beamdog recently released the game Siege of Dragonspear, a new game in the Baldur's Gate series, only to be deluged in complaints from gamers because they dared to have a trans character in it, and how disgusting was that? I read countless comments from "fellow" gamers bitching about how they were so offended by it they planned on stealing the game, killing the character, and complaining everywhere about the game.
I see people in the comments here essentially saying LGBTs are only okay if they're not too brazen about it. So long as they're kept in the background and "know their place", they'll be okay. Because having a million stories of heteros is perfectly fine, but a SINGLE story about a gay or trans is "shoving things in people's faces".
Way to be fucking tolerant assholes.
Pretty obvious you missed the point of this vid
Wow. so you wanted it just SHOVED down peoples throats. Yeah that's working out great in real society isn't? by the way you need to watch more Star Trek if you think there weren't gay romances. Example Dax on DS9
The studio heads were too scared to push the LGBT issues due to the supposed backlash. I find that rather stupid thinking, since the majority of Star Trek fans are rather forward thinking. For God sakes, the shows set in the future...
No I'm just talking about the storyline that was canned. I mean shit, if it comes naturally as a story and character, then wtf is the problem.
+Trumpet-01 Rocket I think it is really funny that you say that there are "enough spoil rotten ass people....telling people what to do."
And then follow it up with telling people what to do.
Trumpet-01 Rocket I'm against forcing LGBT/Women into media, I want it to come naturally, rather than in a contrived sense. Star Trek proved it could create strong characters, especially in leadership roles, that just happened to be female. So it was easy for them to create a female captain in Voyager. They also proved that they could handle LGBT stuff, through their Jnaii episode, but it was a shame that the episode that explored gay relationships was canned by the studio.
+Trumpet-01 Rocket And by 'be part of society', what you actually mean is 'conform to my way of being/doing things, because anything else is wrong.' What a conceited, sad little individual you are.
+Trumpet-01 Rocket I couldn't possibly try rephrasing that. It's barely English. I assume you meant 'hear', not 'here', for example.
"Yes.. ah, no, she's your wife!"
"What does that have to do with it?"
Love it...
I hope this video can be updated to reflect Star Trek: Discovery's Lt. Stamets and Dr. Culber.
Or Seven Of Nine and Rafi.
Shawn Owens I don’t
@@roguelead72 Apparently.
Star Trek Discard is not canon
@@crackwitz Whiner
One risk that sadly always looms over subjects such as this is that one-dimensional characters and their traits become increasingly common. If you meet someone in real life they (rarely) are only gay, or only some other trait, people are an amalgamation of everything and when something like a sexual preference becomes a defining character trait such as can be seen in some media it detracts from the character as a whole.
When walking among people you know nothing about the strangers around you, you don't know about their sexual preferences, their relationships, their general view on life other than what their actions tell you about them as well as if you hear them say anything. You can't tell if the woman you just walked past is lesbian, or the man right behind you is bisexual. In society as a whole these aren't defining traits of a person, active choices are more important than something which the person has no control over and therefore it comes off as odd if someone attempts to showcase something like their sexual preference in an active way, not just naturally through their general interaction with other people.
If you look at how Star Trek has handled things before ST:D they did so in a way that showed an aspect of a person, an aspect of their culture and how it affected them in turn without making that their entire personality. One of my favourite characters showing this is Worf, being a Klingon and being torn between being the stereotype of his species and following what his adoptive parents taught him when he grew up. It's a constant struggle for him to find himself and his own place in a time and place where other Klingons perverted the ideals of all that Klingon culture stood for in honour and valour. Worf wouldn't have worked if he was just Klingon, if he was stereotypically Klingon and explained everything he did by just being Klingon he wouldn't have been a good character, he'd be a character with no depth and he wouldn't be interesting.
My fear is that the current directors, actors, and producers of Star Trek can't handle these questions anymore without being insulting to something which is a huge question in our society today, and them trying to do it would be a mockery of all the homosexuals and bisexuals they'd claim to represent. The only real people in that genre able to deal with it now are the ones handling The Orville, and if any show can tackle these issues and indeed does tackle them in a way that respects them, it's that one.
TL;DR: Star Trek has gone to shit, all hail The Orville since they aren't huge sellouts who just want to pander.
It is interesting how the mirror universe (a corrupt and immoral version of our own universe) came the closest to homosexual contact. Kind of gives off the wrong signal, huh? :D
+Kleavers Gives off exactly the wrong kind of message, yes. But, it is completely representative of the time period, yes?
Trekspertise Yes. Also, wasn't Lt. Hawk in First Contact supposed to be a gay character? Maybe you mentioned it. I was sort of half watching your video while at work ;)
+Kleavers Hawk was gay but it was only properly confirmed in the novels.
+Kleavers Not really it was meant to show off the predatory side of evil Kira. Now the actress Nana Visitor is 5'8" which makes her the second shortest main adult character on DS9 and so the physicality makes it difficult to show her as a predator if he's threatening 6" Alex Siddig Terry Farrell or 6'1" Avery Brooks. You can see how she acts petulant rather than predatory around evil Sisko, again because the height difference makes translating it difficult. The only other choice I think was either have to her go the full Joe Pesci route and make her willing to flip out at anything.
+Kleavers Right--but what, exactly, was the message. Was it, "These people are decadent because they have gay sex," or was it, "These people are decadent because they have casual sex?"
My interpretation leans more towards the latter than the former.
I'm surprised the Enterprise episode, "Cogenitor" wasn't mentioned
I agree! I was waiting for it to be mentioned too. Another episode that ends sadly, but approaches these delicate issues very well.
Tom Jenson you are absolutely correct! Great episode
That one made me cry.
Exactly! To me Cogenitor was the closest that Trek ever got to discussing transgender issues and it was omitted from the list.
It wasn't transgender at all. It was a 3rd gender necessary for reproduction with the other 2 genders. Male, female, and the 3rd gender added another enzyme necessary for reproduction. Nothing about transgender at all, because it is a part of their biology. Just like we have 2 genders, that species has 3. The issue dealt with in that episode was that they were 3% of the population and because of their rarity, were given less rights than the other 2 genders. Not because they were frowned upon for their behavior, but because of their necessity to the survival of their race.
I found your discussion interesting but whether by design or accident, ignored the transgender aspects of the stories discussed. From my own perspective the episodes "The Host" and "The Outcast" were mainly metaphors about gender transition, and the reactions that others have about that.
In "The Host" Will Ryker can be seen as a transitive stage of transition, (perhaps a "pre-operative" one) whereby elements of the person being transitioned from are still evident and which in some ways reassures those around them. But the next stage, where Odan is finally transferred to the female trill host, can be seen to represent a completion of such a transition (perhaps "post-operative"), and one that can be more confronting to those around them, because it also represents a "point of no return". Of course not everyone reacts that way, though often some of the people who knew the person before transition the longest, have the hardest time adapting. Hence Cisco still calls Dax "old man" when clearly Jadzia isn't one. A real world equivalent is someone who persists in using a trans person's "deadname" even though that person may have changed their name legally.
I deferred my own transition until I was 34, partly because of (an unfounded) fear that my family might institutionalize me. Hence Soren's fate in "The Outcast" was particularly horrifying to me. I realize that in general terms the story presents the hazards of coming out in a society with little tolerance for deviation, and thus can be a metaphor for LGBT experience in general but as it does concern GENDER surely it refers to transgender in particular. When I finally underwent my own gender transition, Jadzia Dax was, for me as a trek fan, a symbol of transgender success. Dax's body may have changed , and their balance of emotions (dependent upon the composite existence with the host) might be different, but they were still Dax, with memory and expertise that was carried through to a new life.
So, I'm a bit disappointed that although you mention the "LGBT Community" at the end of this video, you seem to have only focused on the L and G (and once the B), and ignored the T elements in these episodes.
Laura Ess Thank you for seemingly putting my own thoughts into words, and I believe the intent of the writers for The Outcast was to bro up trans issues, but was told to tone it down, notably to the disappointment of Jonathan Frakes
The interesting thing I've heard about The Outcast is that it was intended initially to be a gay relationship, but the network told them to tone it down, leading to the trans rights episode. Whatever the origins though, I think it ended up being a very powerful piece on the topic, as a transwoman myself.
I hope that you found the support and love of your family going through a difficult stage in your life. My opinion on LGBT rights is that anyone should find his/her/its individual way to happiness and love, as long as it is consentual with a "fitting" partner. I have homosexual family members who I support and love and no mercy on the poor creature's soul if ever I witnessed someone harrassing my gay uncles. My uncle is now retired, but he had a rather high position in one of Europ's largest insurance companies and from what i heard of him, his sexual orientation was never perceived as an obstacle. Ofc, people are people and will always whisoer behind other people's back when they are perceived as "different". This goes for all kind of "difference", not only openly displayed sexual orientation.
People whisoer when a very tall, fat, ugly, pretty person comes in.
The only thing that bothers me though is that sometimes LGBT activists act very aggressively in defending their rights. I can understand the underlying frustration, coming from generations of persecution, but it too often leaves me with the feeling that I should have a guilty conscience for being heterosexual. That can't be right either.
99smite It's good to get family support. My transition was back in 1994 so it's all old history now.
However, I was driven out from work by anonymous death threats, and after an incident on the streets of my neighborhood, realised that Perth wasn't safe for me. So, I went on a "geographical" and a trip to Sydney to figure out what to do. The result was moving across the continent to another city and beginning studies in fine art at the university there. I graduated from my Masters of Fine Art a few weeks back.
The point I was making is that "LGBT" rights and experiences AREN'T all the same. A transgender experience is NOT primarily about sexuality, but gender, and the difference is often overlooked by outside critics and allies alike. And the bad of that is, it's also sometimes overlooked by lesbians and gays as well. I've had more than one lesbian or gay assume that I was "really a gay man" who took things too far! Rather, it's that like many straight people, they are fully into their own identity and just don't get the difference. Which is why perhaps, many trans people are now faced with horrendous legislation that seems directed at them and their use of toilets - the legislators haven't got it yet.
Some of that is to a degree related to privilege. Historically straight folk have had that in different areas, and when others start to have it as well they get uncomfortable..
Laura Ess
I can totally understand your points. I just had to smile when you wrote that even LGB people sometimes misunderstand transsexuality as being gay and going too far. It perfectly shows that gay and lesbian people are just that, people, humans that are not safe from having prejudices even against other gays and lesbians. It shows that everyone should pause and think hard of how to get a neutral view on specific issues instead of letting loose pavlov's reflex.
Regarding daily experience of gay or transgender persons, I think it can be stressed enough to have a reliable male friend, preferably between 6 or 7 ft and eloquent who will stand up for his friends who are not physically fit to do so. My gay friends never ever ran into any trouble when we were going out together with some of my friends. It may have helped that we all were well over 6ft 6in...
It sometimes was funny when one of my gay friends brought his new bf with us and they kissed at the table. Some random guys looked uncomfortably and we knew they were itching to make some nasty comments, but their eyes kept sweeping to me and my buddies, who smiled at them, as if saying, go ahead, make an insulting comment, make my day...
I still can't understand why people bother with other people's sexual orientation, as if anyone could dictate others about who they want to live with....
See, I see Beverley's discomfort with Odan's host changes as an allegory for transgenderism. Even today, it's an issue that many people, however enlightened, are still uncomfortable with, and it is difficult for a lot of people to maintain a relationship with someone who transitions to another gender, even if they are fundamentally still the same person.
The STNG episode Outcast was a very transformative episode for me. Being a straight, black male and a teenager at the time, it helped me to understand all the hateful stereotypes about homosexuality that I had been exposed to in my life was complete bullshit.
"That is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars & studying nebula but, charting the unknown possibilities of existence" - Q from All Good Things.
Excellent conversation. As a writer, I tried three times to have Paramount read story treatments I submitted to the Star Trek franchise concerning this topic; all three times, it was shot down.
Did you see the newest film and the "moment"?
One of the main characters in Enterprise was originally meant to be homosexual; specifically, Malcolm Reed.
Here's a good trivia quote from IMDB: "Although Malcolm Reed mentioned relationship with women in Star Trek: Enterprise: Shuttlepod One (2002) and even shows brief interest in T'Pol, Dominic Keating has always indicated in interviews that he saw and played Reed as gay (which may explain why, by Reed's own admittance, "none of [my relationships with women] worked out, because I could never get very close to them")."
Thank you so much for this.
Recent episodes of Star Trek Online show a lesbian Klingon pair.
+Persephone Sixty-Six Indeed it was nice to see, although a bit sideways on the delivery. Hoping we get some more of that in the future.
Well, we finally got a more than subtle nod with Beyond.
Thank you! You're the best. Especially your summary / roundup about representation on screen. A really great video. And now that we have actual open LGBT relationship on Star Trek Discovery, it has finally happened. Thanks to the progressive producers of that show.
And what a load of bollocks it is,stopped watching because of this shit.
I like what they did with the newest Star trek movies. How they had Sulu and his husband/ lover and their child together on the space station. They don't treat it like an issue they treat them like every one else, it is just how they are and no comment is made or needed.
"Chimera makes for a pretty *solid* entry"
:D
Sorry, I can't stop making these jokes.
Great overview. The trill episodes especially are wonderful. I love The Outcast, and I greatly enjoyed Chimera. My one complaint, Crusher's dialogue I'm sure was simply toned down. We never get any hints that she's anything but straight, and just as gay and bi people don't choose their orientation, she didn't choose hers either. It was a simple issue of not being physically attracted to the new, female host. I don't think that's complicated, and I've never seen that episode as hinting that Crusher may be bi or pan or omni.
As a fan, I'm still heartbroken we never got to see Garak of DS9 stretching his pansexuality in a casual, unremarked way. When we first see him, he's clearly interested in Bashir, and Robinson has even said that he played him as a pan character who was attracted to this fellow male. Not only did the studio tell Robinson to "tone it down," but they then proceeded to try and force the character into a het relationship by bringing in Ziyal. That idea didn't pan out, there were crazy casting issues, she was too young, the chemistry was off - I think due to her youth, but even more due to her issues with her father. I'd have been fine seeing Garak in a functional, adult, het relationship, and also gay and pan relationships, but they opted not to take advantage off the character's potential.
I appreciate what the studio has included in Trek for lgbt content (except the blatantly offensive and sexist representations in the DS9 Mirror Universe episodes), but I also think that they could've done FAR more. Actors were willing, writers were willing, and the landscape was opening up. I think they should've pushed that envelope a little further, and it's disappointing that they never did.
I can imagine what an impact it would have had on us if, in the 90s they had an openly gay storyline told in a positive light. It would have been another way Star Trek changed the world.
I was so happy to see this as a topic of an episode, especially after seeing your previous works, and seeing Odo on the thumbnail made me even more excited. I'm a transwoman, and I identify with Odo more than any other character in the franchise, for one very important reason that I was a little disappointed to see left out of the episode. As a changeling, Odo is forced to build his identity independent of form, just like all trans people do, but not necessarily all gay, lesbian, or other non-heterosexual people. Even the episode you covered, Chimera, is one I commented on extensively in an article on my own website. I feel Odo is much more analogous for the trans community than the LGB community, which should not always be lumped together, for this and many other reasons. Aside from Chimera, the next most important episode that reflects this would be the DS9 episode The Forsaken, wherein Odo is forced to "come out" for the first time when trapped in an elevator with Lwaxana Troi. He's forced to revert to his fluidic state - he's forced to be his true self - in front of another person for the very first time, which causes him great shame and discomfort, and even called it "deeply personal." Odo feels this way about his true self not because of what he wants to do or who he wants to do it with, but rather because of who he is, because of his identity that is contained entirely within himself. I recently saw a viral post on Facebook that described the difference well; gay couples are afraid to be seen in public holding hands in fear of being assaulted, while trans people are afraid to be seen in public at all for fear of being assaulted.
Like I said, I'm a bit disappointed that you seemed to lump trans issues in with gay issues, and I may just be sensitive to that because it happens much too often (just look into the criticism of the upcoming Stonewall movie), but overall it was still a great episode.
If you'd like to read my commentary on Odo and the episode Chimera, here's the link: inthereddest.com/?p=3534
I love the confusion about 'host changes.' Having lived through transition myself, yes, that is exactly how selfish people can be when you dare to be yourself.
I'm straight, but I'm not afraid of those who aren't . I once offered to help my college's LGBTQA club by going to their area of the student union and taking down offensive messages. The president of the club asked me why I wanted to do it, and I shrugged and said, "because you exist". She was apparently stunned that a random straight guy wanted to help, but it didn't matter to me that they were " different"; they were people.
"Blood and Fire" I saw it recently. It takes a fan fiction to take the ball and run with it. I was uncomfortable watching it at first but it worked.
I know this purely about "Canon" subjects but as other have pointed out in comments there was some Apocrypha works that featured LBGTQ characters. Though completely made up fanon a lot of support over the ages has been shown for K/S(Kirk/Spock, Spirk, Space husbands). I think that its encouraging that even if the ST multiverse doesn't openly speak about it, The fandom is very diverse in nature of sexuality and lifestyles. Most ST fans I've know as I've heard it said "I have no problems who you have relations with off duty"
Gay/Lesbian/Trans/Straight, It doesn't matter at all as long as the entire episode isn't just focused on that one specific issue. If there is a mention of a person's spouse's gender, then nothing else needs to be mentioned. I am working on a Trek Novel that the ship's captain is lesbian and her engineer is a trans. But that will not, nor will ever be a main focus. It'll have a mention and conversations with the captain's wife, and just a mention of the engineer's husband, but that is all that's needed. If you focus solely on that one thing, then the entire episode/novel/comic/whatever's story will become about that.
I don't see why it cannot be the focus of the story arc that is being told. Take Miles O'Brien and his wife Keiko. They where often in stories that where the main point of focus. Where shown to have a loving family, a child, had common jobs (at least for Keiko) and wasn't a problem for this type of story. I remember one story of Miles going thru the process of a prision life span in something like 20minutes. He felt that life truely went past in this time span and require care from friends to correct this abuse. I am not sure why there is a problem then in providing such story arcs for same sex couples. Same sex couples have children, have common and not so common jobs, have a high standard of living, have problems, concerns and views on politics that are not the same for each person who uses the term homosexuality as a descriptor of themselves.
There is something special in seeing a representation of yourself on tv, in books and other types of publications. It can quite be quite easy to explore homosexuality without even having a gay/lesbian couple. Propose the idea of a biological family and a logical family. This takes typically a relgious family against homosexuality, and says that while it would be wonderful to have a loving bilogically linked family within your life, sometimes this isn't possible and its easier and more productive to instead find friends, who in the course of time, become dependable, supportive and loving [non-sexual] as part of your extended or logical family.
There are many ways to explore sex and sexuality without showcasing it. While it would be great to see it further explored, your Novel doesn't have to. Perhaps a novel exploring Sulu's sexuality could see his family being against not only the federation, but his sexuality. Not everything has to be made gay, not everything has to be a gay or straight think, but there is no harm in exploring this topic in greater details and show casing the good, bad, wonderful and ugly aspects of homosexuality.
*Personally I feel they should have just made an alternate trek LGBT show*
Put blacks on a separate show so those who never want to see blacks don't have to? Great perspective. /sarcasm
in the latest Star Trek film you see Sulu at the space station with his daughter and husband
George Takei (Who is gay himself and the original actor for Sulu) was very against doing that
Having watched Star Trek since 1967, this issue has never been overtly dealt with, thank goodness. This was best handled by Tim Russ at a German Star convention in the late 90's. When a more "assertive" gay audience member insisted on his opinion as to why there were no "gay" characters, he responded with (and I quote) ."by then (300+ years in the future) they would have found a cure".
I just rewatched DS9's "He Who is Without Sin" and didn't realize until now how subtly they snuck in an almost lesbian relationship. The Dax character really gave them freedoms to explore same-sex without raising the alarms of homophobes, since she'd been male before. In the DS9 documentary they regretted not exploring this beyond the single episode "Rejoined."
I really how in the new DS9 documentary they cover the use of sexuality. How they could have done more and they could have let garek be gay.
I love Trek, but growing up watching Trek as a gay kid I always felt like Trek was interested in telling every story, but mine and it was hard for me to find a space in Trek fandom because in general fandoms don’t like to get into subtext when it comes to sexuality.
This is very much true.
I would argue that The Outcast talks more about being Transgender than being Gay or Lesbian. The Genai are androgenous (no specific gender). Soren comes out as being female, which is different than the character's assigned gender. As a transwoman, I so related to this episode!!
+Shauna O'Toole I think you are correct, and I wish I could have addressed this further, but was constrained by a longer-than-normal episode length. Perhaps in a future Trekspertise episode?
+Trekspertise BTW - for those people who say that homosexuality is a choice? A lifestyle? Not so fast: www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530
Behavior and biology walk hand in hand. That's why I love molecular biology!
IamTenzin: While the biology isn't the choice, how you respond to it is. For example, if there was a male that was attracted to other males, then they have two choices: Embrace it or ignore it. Either one is the lifestyle choice that the person makes, regardless of what they really are.
Is either choice incorrect? Depending on the person, not society. A person has to be true to themselves, not to whatever society wants them to be. If a person is homosexual, yet hides it because of what society may think of them, then (depending on the person) the decision to hide their homosexuality is likely an incorrect choice. Granted, this is rather a simplistic view and there are always more variables involved, so the issue is more complex than I describe it here, but nevertheless, the decision on how to address homosexual or heterosexual feelings is always a decision.
If any of this doesn't make sense, I apologize. I'm not as articulate in my words as I should be, so sometimes what makes sense to me may get lost in translation.
@@ki5aok No, your orientation, or any state of 'not repressing your orientation and instead pretending to have another' is not a 'The Gay Lifestyle.' (By this, bigoted propaganda wants to imply their portrayals of some hedonistic 'party people' lifestyle' even if you're helping raise a kid in blue collar neighborhoods, or being 'the academic's wife' in college towns, or farming, or flying around the world as a business consultant, or all the other things that *are actually lifestyles for anyone.*
Great video, brilliantly researched, excellent editing and clip selection. Just perfect. xx
Thank you so much!
Very good! I really enjoy your videos, they are well-conceived and executed. I like your unagitated, calm delivery as well. Also, the video makes me wonder and think again why Star Trek has always shied away from addressing LGBT topics, while it has always addressed racial or feminist, moral/ethical issues...
Interesting to read this 5 years on. Having just read the reviews of Picard and some people are incensed that in the last episode 2 female characters hold hands. The fact that one of them is actually a murderer seems to be a none issue for them though.
I'm pretty sure Wesley Crusher was gay. His little tryst with The Traveller left a lot to be questioned.
+Blasted Heath
He gave Ashley Judd her 1st on screen kiss. Not an issue I think.
+John Owens Maybe he just wasn't picky?
+Crowforge
You can't get much more female then Ashley Judd; back then, or now.
612Tiberius I meant the Traveler.
+Crowforge So he had the entire universe to find someone to become his "traveling companion" (ahem), and he chose "Crusher, acting Ensign Wesley Crusher"? Low standards indeed...
I would be more worried that they would pull a "Code of Honor" if they were to write an episode with an LGBT central theme. Trek is much better when it is more subtle and to be honest some of the worst episodes are the ones that are in your face about the issue they are addressing.
+Golvic I agree. if they did want to do anything in regards to the LGBT a recurring gay/lesbian character on a new show would be the best, rather than one random episode that gets all sanctimonious.
1. As long as Trek, a futuristic and Utopian show, remains heteronormative, in which gays are utterly invisible and unmentionable, you will have people - who are always plentiful when these discussions come up - who say that in the Utopian future Trek represents, homosexuality has been (happily) eliminated.
2. Love is part of the human experience. We watch shows, including Trek, because we like to see our experiences reflected (and expanded) in the show. Homosexual love is also part of the human experience; eliminating its portrayal systematically is a slap in the face to gay viewers of the show.
3. So, we can portray polygamous marriages, but never show two gay crew members kissing? Why would that be?
4. Nobody, as far as I know, has asked for 'an LGBT episode'. The _portrayal_ of same-sex relationships, as with other relationships, is something that people might reasonably expect. Please consider the difference.
+Golvic Some of Trek's best episodes are in-your-face about issues, too.
While I think it's important for Trek's first major gay character to have his or her orientation as just one thing about them, it's also important that occasional episodes here and there make it a big theme. There have been dozens of Trek episodes that tackle major social themes -- and none of them on sexual orientation, not one. The most we have is a few that can loosely apply. The next series absolutely needs at least one episode in its first season where sexual orientation is a big deal, and it needs at least one major character on the ship to be in the LGBT community.
It's time.
The Drumhead comes to mind but not because of the writing. It is all because of Patrick Stewart's acting skills. But that one episode colored my world view more than any other making me very wary of people who do evil while wrapping themselves in good intentions. Also The First Duty. Very good episode too. But Trek absolutely shines when it does not give you a clear answer and makes you answer the question it poses yourself. In The Pale Moonlight (DS9) is the perfect example of this (and the show that had hands down the best writing of all the shows) and why I say the best episodes were not as blunt about what their lesson was.
Ryeguy123a If Trek was on TV now you would have a point but it isn't so there is not much point to asking for one to be made and they are not going to make it the theme of a movie since it is no longer about social issues but about cashing in on nostalgia.
Now the question you have to ask yourself is that if ST was on today do you think there would be an episode on homosexuality? I bet you anything there would be. Probably on Trans issues too. But it isn't about time they made an episode on it. The time is long up. There is not Star Trek anymore, at least in the way Gene Roddenberry wanted it to be, and the shows fell into times where homosexual relationships were at the forefront of social issues like they are now.
I'd also like to mention that, though it isn't mentioned in the show, Terry Ferrell (who played Jadzia Dax on DS9) has said that her character was pansexual. Sbe also has a line that is subtlety inclusive in s2e7. A female Ferengi crossdressing tells Dax that she is in love with Quark. In a line a minute later she mentions being a woman, and Dax reacts with, "You're a woman?!" This is pretty subtle but it does imply that Dax assumed a male Ferengi was in love with another male and didn't think anything of it. Another thing: Andrew Robinson, who played Garak, has said that Garak is attracted to / flirts with Julian. It's not canon as far as I know, but it's something. I know this all isn't much, but I take what I can get.
Also, even though rationally I know that having villains be gay/gay coded and no one else can be damaging and lead to the idea that being gay is bad, I still love the Intendant and all her bi/pan flare.
Excellent video! Well done, Trekspertise!
Something that jumped out at me while watching was that although your vid does explicitly say it's about 'Gays and Lesbians' in Star Trek, a lot of what was shown might more accurately be labeled an examination of transgendered people and issues. 'Rejoined', 'The Host', and 'Profit and Lace' all deal on some level with the difference between gender and sex, with the latter specifically acknowledging the physical manifestations of it (albeit in a rather sophomoric manner, but that's another story). There are also several passing references, particularly surrounding the Dax symbiant, that engage with the fluidity of gender, sex, personality, and how people react to changes in those categories. You could even argue Trek, ironically and somewhat unwittingly, has been more comfortable addressing transgender people and issues than lesbian or gay ones. Maybe a further video could dissect this in more detail - I know I'd like to see more!
Once again, well done and thank you. Keep up the great work!
Well, for a lot of people, gender and sexuality issues are harder to tell *apart* than they may be for LGB or T people, that's why these groups have to face common oppressions and prejudices. For straight people "I'm straight" is 'just part of being a man or woman.' That's why gay people get called 'not real men or women' and trans people get called anti-gay slurs, whoever they actually are oriented towards romantically.
9:10
This isn't related to homosexuality, but it sounds exactly like being transgender. It's a little annoying that when people discuss LGBT rep in shows they always leave out the T, even when it is so obviously what the media is talking about.
johnny best jojo No it’s not. Sexuality is completely different from deciding what gender you want to be. It’s more annoying that some people lump it in with attraction. One of the many problems with the lefts identity politics.
Matthew Corcoran Yeah it is annoying that they get lumped in together, but that ain’t a leftist problem lol. I see people on the right who are transphobic trying to conflate trans people with gay people all the time, never seen people on the left do that.
Also, you do not choose what gender you want to be, we don’t get to choose our gender; trans people don’t become another gender, they realize what gender they actually are, and then can choose to come out and/or transition.
johnny best jojo completely agree with you on not being able to choose gender. I was giving an example of the lefts narrative, it’s certainly not the right that come up with this bollocks. I don’t know what transphobic means? Fear of flying transonic? Sounds like another made up word from the left. We’re paying too much attention to the vocal minority.
@@matthewcorcoran2891 Transphobia is bigotry towards transgender people, not fear despite the name. It is is to trans folk what homophobia is to gay folk.
I do not understand which narrative you are referring to, and what this narrative is saying.
Nobody ever mentions the fact that Odo isn't actually a male. Changelings mimic the appearance of humanoid species (including gender), but they don't seem to have an actual gender. Odo chose to mimic the scientist that taught him, but he's actually a genderless species that fell in love with a Bajoran female. This seems even more unconventional than same sex relationships on Star Trek.
THANK YOU!
Growing up in the 80's and 90's there were few examples of gays in tv. They were mostly over the top campy comic relief. Representation matters. Well Done!
Thank you. Concise, complete, and thoughtful. I've been trying to say these things for ages, but you took the words right out of my mouth and did this topic real justice!
+justrosy5 Thank you =)
Excellent review. But why isn't there a mention of Bashir/Garak? The actors and writers wrote them out as a (coded) gay couple for a number of seasons, right under Paramount's nose. Eventually, the executives found out and put a stop to it.
+Diane Tran Source?
"cant he be a fog someplace else or at night where no one else is around" lol put in that context makes hating gays eveen more sad that before
I'd give O'Brien a bit of slack based on being the guy that has really been through it fixing the station environmental systems over and over. :) That does look a lot like a coolant leak. :)
Have you heard that there will be a gay character in Star trek Discovery. I imagine alot of these taboo's (if we can still call homosexuality a taboo in 2016) will be explored in the new series.
with the rejected Phase 2/TNG ship that looks awful
if homosexuality is a taboo explain true blood, torchwood, six feed under or doctor who :) It isn't a taboo since a long time ;)
yes but enterprise was pre will and grace you have to remember what the late 80s early 90s were really like
Jiz Master0
Yeah they were definitely no nonsense. We really need to go back to those times.
To boldly go where all the rest of TV has already been!
Seriously, without Gene Trek has ceased to push cultural boundaries and is actually more timid then the rest of the industry, it's no longer leading but following. If you want something bold I recommend Steven Universe, it is literally the best show on television right now.
If I remember correctly, "The Outcast" was a failure because the alien chooses reprogramming at no personal cost.
I think if they do another series, they should, but not as a big issue but rather as a background to a character where it logically makes sense. The creator, Gene, was very upset that he couldn't tackle the issue, George Takei said he was a good friend and felt bad he couldn't be help.
This channel will be the first thing this nerd has ever Patreon-ed, Kickstarted, etc. Your analysis is strong, your video production values are top notch, your pacing and episode length are perfect for a variety of uses (as a teacher, I appreciate this), and more. Though none of your videos are perfect (No Garak in this? Hrm.), they are above and beyond any effort and just keep getting better. Thank you for putting your effort into these gifts to the Star Trek community.
Need an update for discovery!
You superb fuckin man. Supportin love in real life and fantasy. You go you real geek boy. You go.
I love Star Trek. And I'm a gay man. And the one critique I have of Star Trek is the lack of unapologetic openly gay characters. It honestly makes me feel as though the writers believe that gay people won't exist in the future. Which I certainly hope is not true.
+Kelsey Beers
Some writers may think that but I bet Gene Roddenberry probably just couldn't get away with gay characters back in the day. As a secular humanist Roddenberry was probably more than fine with gay people existing and existing in the future too. It's just that it's tv and you don't have a full control over everything.
+Jeremy Kegley But gays ARE gay.
+jktomas Very true and in fact Gene wanted Spock and Uhura to kiss. But, being the 1960s, the TV networks would not allow a black woman to kiss a white man.
Under the guise of mind control. The only way they could allow it was to have the characters not want to do it. Unfortunately, there's also so far you can push when portraying a futuristic utopian society. Frakes was willing to have the androgynous "woman" that Riker falls in love with be a man, but the idea got nixed.
Roddenberry was very pro bisexuality but has a history of making some very uncomfortable statements about homosexuality, along with some backhanded commentary about women's rights.
This is one of the first episodes of Trekspertise I have watched, and wow. The production quality, as well as directness with the subject matter is incredible. I am a little disappointed that you didn't mention Andrew Robinson's failed attempt at introducing an amibigiously bi-sexual character into the Trekverse through his portrayal of Elim Garak, but some of the episodes here, in particularly "Chimera" I had not even considered it as discussing LGBT issues.
"Rejoined" is a very interesting one in this case, and one of my favourites when dealing with LGBT issues within Star Trek, as I think it was one of the bravest ones within the Trekverse, discussing Trans issues rather than Homosexuality, as it's main point was that love can transcend physical form, something that some people may have trouble with when their partner is transitioning.
I think one important thing for any new Trek series when pushing this frontier on TV is not to allow a character's sexual preference override their character, instead keep it as a matter of fact thing, so it to be no different than how Jean Luc, Sisko, or Janeway would handle a relationship, setting a decent standard for other TV shows to handle.
+Tonks Moriarty (ZNickel) The best compliment I've gotten. Thank you. You'll find several of the videos here strive to reach this level.
Of the things not mentioned in this episode, particularly Elim garak, time was the most likely culprit...in that I had to cut some material just to maintain the overall length of the video. So, there is material that had to be left out. However, for the most part, I tried to make this as concise and thorough as I could.
Thanks for watching...and welcome aboard =)
Great video! One thing though, that I think is criminally underdiscussed, is just how straightforward The Outcast is as a story about trans experiences. It isn't even close to being a stretch to read the episode that way, and there is plenty of dialogue which is quite direct. I mean, just look at the clip at 9:25 which pretty succinctly provides a solid allegorical explanation of what being trans is like **in 1992.**
While it clearly was originally meant to be about homosexuality, I wish more people discussed the episode in light of the gender aspects of the story as well. Particularly since her treatment at the end is even more similar to trans conversion therapy than it is to gay conversion therapy, and that it is all so coated in allegory anyway that arguments focusing on authorial intent become less important.
I dunno, I just think it's one of those interesting moments where the plot ends up resembling reality more than the writers probably imagined. And it's a bit of a shame the way people seem to ignore that outside of an almost footnoted mention of gender when it's brought up.
There's kind of a reason it's hard to tell the *bigotries* apart, though, it's cause.... people that oppress any LGBT people don't even *make* the distinction. They think LGB people 'Aren't a real man or woman' and they think trans people are just 'very gay' or whatever their excuse of the week for transphobia is. (Whoever, if anyone, a given trans person even sleeps with.) But yeah, even for Riker, I'm pretty sure 'OK, androgynous species' would not have been that big a thing, except, 'Oh, this one's a 'she' and we're really into each other.' (And really, if Soren *weren't,* I doubt there'd be any attraction on Riker's end, just given who Riker seems to like as a type,)
Thank you for this.
Of course =)
what happened +Trekspertise I miss you
In the Book "The Lost Years" homosexuality in the federation is addressed directly. It is explained within the first few pages that sexuality is irrelevant under the Starfleet ideals of personal freedom and self determination.The Kirk character explains that because the Vulcan word for friend and lover are the same word only the tone with witch it is spoken denotes the difference in meaning there was often a question of the nature of Kirk and Spock''s relationship. If we work under the assumption that sexuality is more fluid and thus irrelevant in the Trek UNIverse then there is circumstantial evidence that Tom Paris and Harry Kim were lovers for several years before Tom Married B'elana Torres.
Stigma is my favorite Enterprise episode and I think the best Trek has done at exploring an actual LGBT issue. Episodes like Stigma are a huge part of why Enterprise was so underrated.
It's an awesome show I think people will give it a chance now that it's not the popular show to bash anymore
Blood and Fire was changed in large part because BERMAN freaked out about showing a male homosexual relationship in even the most casual way as passing remark since he is a huge homophobe. He is also as evidenced by experiences reported by the female members of the cast more than a little sexist. Sure he was okay showing Dax still having feelings for a former partner while in a female body because even homophobic hetero males think girl on girl is hot, but the mere suggestion that two guys are together? Nope.
the "changing pride demonstration" line from Quark, was however actually Laz in disguise; it doesn't change the fact that Trek portrayed it, but it isn't Quark's character's opinion it was Laz trying to manipulate Odo.
Can't wait for modern audiences to complain about Star Trek Discovery being used for 'SJW propaganda' for discussing such issues, as if they never existed before. From the first interracial on-screen kiss to these examples and many more Star Trek has always had conversations about norms and traditions, as it should.
And so it came to pass.
I hate that people bash the show for being sjw propaganda. I personally don't like the show but its not because of it being inclusive or shit, I think the writing is lacking.
I think it was a massive failure of the producers not to directly address this issue. Total fail.
I don't think that ODO is by any menas GAY or something like that. Remember that "HE" IS NOT A HUMANOID SPECIES to say the least. And the GREAT LINK is a see of them all combined. So I think that talking about beeing GAY by a LIQUID lifeform is a little strange. The DS9 series explores that theme extensivley. The other thng with DAX and his EX is another problematik that is not standard either.
+Denes Miltenyi We didn't say Odo as gay.
+Trekspertise +Denes Miltenyi
No what you did do is show that there is a parallel with what Odo faces in the episode with Laas there and the homosexual experience.
Odo cannot be defined as gay as the concept of his species being absent of traditional sexual standpoints. The procreation is also not understood. What we see of Odo and indeed other changelings is how they want to be perceived or how they choose to appear.
You can argue that the species of the changelings in their natural state is a mono-gendered or androgynous society.
You could even argue that Odos decision to present himself as male over being female as a choice shows to a certain degree that gender has a social construct in addition to the biological one.
The way Dax and Khan re-association is that it focuses more on the affection basis not the fact they are currently both females of the trill species. Again this is because the influence in this interaction is more the symbiote which was already covered to have no gender.
What we see in the episode of both of DS9 Rejoined and Ent Stigma. Is how other certain societies feel they have the right to determine how people are intimate with each other. Yet ironically claim that they are tolerant of difference.
As both of them are pointing to a taboo that they do not condone. Each presenting punishments of a sorts. One hand exile which is an effective death sentence and the other hand apathy to a form of suffering.
The irony is both of these especially the Vulcans present that they are tolerant of differences and are accepting in the case of Vulcans and Trill both it shows them to have a hypocritical standpoint.
The good thing is there are plenty of fan series out there that have also explored this issue and show that acceptance of difference is the standpoint that the federation society should be about. The good thing is the Vulcans have changed their minds from Stigma. But the trill have yet to.
Honestly it is good that we are progressing in this vein because it makes a society look less hypocritical by saying we accept diversity then not doing it or even legislating against that.
It is an on-going issue with many differences and a matter of time and education to fix.
Way to miss the entire point.
As a fairly recently out (within the last four years) bisexual woman I can not begin to express enough how much it would have helped me to see a happy (or at least not a walking punchline/metaphor for decadence) bisexual person on my TV growing up... Every time this conversation re-starts I can just imagine young LBGT children sitting in front of the TV with their families feeling hopeful and safe, and that is SO important, especially in a show like trek.
+M Rose Agreed .
When I first saw Voyager I often thought 7 was bisexual, its defintely there in her scenes with the Borg Queen. It also explains why she and Janeway (who is definitely straight) as somewhat antagonistic. Janeway cant have an affair with her sceond in command, but 7 who is not starfleet, has no such difficulty.
This is actually happening now in star trek beyond
And it was a nice moment.
Agreed. It's not forced, it's just there. It didn't really spark a controversy. It's funny, but the only one who had a problem with Sulu being gay was George Takei.
+alesin1992 Lol! That is pretty funny!
first time i saw it i was like wait oh no fuck no but then disregarded it anyway since what's the point of hating about it. I still hate it though haha
+alesin1992 I agree with Takei on this one as it wasn't the character Gene created, even after seeing it I still think that way BUT.... out of all the crap the Reboots have done what they did there was very respectful and I don't have any problems with it
I always found that weird that they were bold enough to make women equal without any statements but couldn't just casually insert a gay character. The only thing I liked about new Star Trek Beyond was that they casually showed Sulu's husband. I hope we can get some gay people in Discovery.
and then of course, theres JJ-verse Sulu, whos shown to be Gay, however as this video is over 1 year old you couldnt have known that.
George Takei was pissed when he found out about that, saying that's not what he or Roddenberry ever wanted for the character.
if anything the federation is anti conformity.
Wait, what? George Takei actually said that? Where? I didn't think he would have minded seeing how he's a big supporter of the gay movement.
infinitlycool he was angry because suls was suposed to be straight. And he played sulu as straight.
you see, playing someone as straight is not the same as that person being straight. maybe, in both universes, hes bi, yet in the originals, hes more attracted to women, while the events of the JJ-verse made him meet someone he wouldnt have known in the other universe, whom he falls in love with, which is why we see him as gay here.
DS9’s “rejoined” was directly about homosexuality, they were just being sneaky about it. The trill stigma against hosts rejoining is a substitute for the stigma at the time of homosexuality. The initial scene with the magic trick in Quark’s bar is indirectly addressing the nature of the episode by joking about how the illusion was real in a different way, and the dialogue between Dax and her love interest directly addresses how they have to choose between their careers and the fallout they will feel by “outing” themselves, and their very real love for each other.
The episode itself early on implies gay and lesbian relationships are totally normalized in the far future of Star Trek.
This is the best title for a TH-cam video I've seen in a while. It pretty much commanded me to click in all its glory.
:)