Talk:Sexuality in Star Trek/Archive 1

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

I agree. This article is shockingly lacking in Neutral POV, and should really be deleted, imo, as it's so far off WikiNeutrality. It's as if it's written from the perspective that homosexuality should occur in StarTrek, as is an inherent good. While that may be true, that's a moral POV, and not neutral. Additionally, non-Neutral POV is demonstrated by such a huge amount of space spent on homosexuality, as compared to other areas of sexuality. Frankly, the lack of portrayal of accurate sexuality and reproduction is a far greater error, and strictly scientific. --Abdul Muhib (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Most Toys
I've pulled this paragraph:


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

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

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

Yes, I've seen that episode and he doesn't look at all gay, just a flamboyant collector. User:Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;)

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

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


 * Still a lot of this writers contributions are clearly interesting scholarly work, but NOT encyclopedia entries. Netbenefit (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Source:
 * Yoshi Mishima at The Gay League is an online community for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Transexual, and just plain friendly comic fans, collectors and creators worldwide.

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

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

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

--I agree that the Voyager section needs to be completely re-written with adequate sources to back the information up. Currently, this subarticle is insufficient, if not bias. Someone fix it! Resistance is futile, have a nice day. Justindeal (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Unhelpful to whom?70.157.33.169 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Gay" as a word for homosexual is NOT a mistake in the usage of language. You do realize that a word can have two different meanings, right?  Gay is the most used term for homosexual in common language.  In fact, I dare say most people don't use it to mean happy anymore.  Gay is the most appropriate term to use here.  Constantly changing it to homosexual is disruptive and unhelpful. --  Etacar11   14:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Some LGBTQ individuals find the term homosexual offensive due to its association historically with a mental disease. As a consequence, there is more than some debate over what exactly the 'correct' term is. Though I personally would not go so far as to remove all instances of the word homosexual (given that I find the string of ever expanding letters, LGBTQQ....etc., ridiculous, and that any one tern seems to bother some sub-group) it is understandable that an individual feeling strongly enough would consider it vandalism.  JN April, 18, 2007

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

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

I have changed the article accordingly. Please post any objections here before doing a revert. Ycaps123 18:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the text before your revision was meant to imply that it was the first such kiss in TV history, just Star Trek. But your clairification is fine. --  Etacar11   18:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh gawd please make it go away
(heading added by nathanrdotcom)

Good God. Is this necessary? Of all the things in the world to do with your time...this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.90.24 (talk • contribs) 04:38 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to try actually signing your posts so that we know who's commenting. It requires very little effort and just four added characters to the end of your message (" ~ ").


 * If you don't agree with the subject matter, close your eyes and pretend you didn't see it. That's what I suggest for anyone with such an opinion. It's very much a part of Star Trek, why ignore it just because you don't agree with it? It's there, there's proof it's there and it's not going away because you want it to.


 * And actually, "God" has very little to do with this. I don't see what "God" has to do with Wikipedia. Comments go to the end of the page which is where I've moved yours. Please don't involve religion into this. It's one of those dicey subjects that invite conflict. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]  nath a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W) 13:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You folks are very intolerant. You force your views on others and will not allow opposing points of view. My articles have been vandalised.65.1.192.59 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally don't allow POV pushing from the religious right nor do I wish to be dictated to by them regarding what they think we should and should not have on this site. That does not make me intolerant. Those are two different things. I'm as open-minded as the next person (perhaps more so) and I do not appreciate the implication - please stop the personal attacks. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]  nath a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W) 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My section of this article is not a personal attack, just another probable scenario to the franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.161.125 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I hardly think that your supposed chain of events is "probable." MiraLuka 05:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your section of the article may not be a personal attack (that's not what I was talking about anyway), but the comment that I'm intolerant (if that was written by you) is, and such comments are unneeded. We can discuss this like rational people instead of hurling insults. Thanks. — [[Image:Flag_of_Ottawa%2C_Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Ontario.svg|20px]] [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]]  nath a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W) 07:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I hardly believe that Garak was bisexual, but that is in the article as fact or very suggestive of fact, altough the character was far from that. He was hetrosexual and had a hetrosexual relationship in the series.68.154.161.125 05:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That part may need work then, as does much of the article, but maybe you should work on clarifying that section instead of inserting your own original research? MiraLuka 06:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your section has no basis in fact: first of all homosexuality is not "rampant". Gay people may be more open in our society but they are still and always will be a minority.  And second GAY PEOPLE HAVE CHILDREN ALL THE TIME.  You need to look at artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood if you don't believe this.  These facts will insure that the "gay gene" will always survive if there is one (and there's no solid evidence that there is). --  Etacar11   11:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Lol, certainly ONE OF the more bizarre wiki pages I've encountered. It's always strange to me how many gays seem to be so wrapped up in their lifestyle or as some would say "agenda", that a rambling, zealous, and to an alarming degree imagined tirade like this actually gets written and then submitted as information despite being an obvious and mostly rhetorical point of view. It doesn't offend me personally, but it is a genuine mess and well below the standards of our wikipedia. Just, Lol! Thunderlippps (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


 * Arrgghh! WHEN will the nitwits on the right learn even the tiniest bit of SCIENCE. Lesson one: A Theory has more information (e.g. FACTS) to back it up than a mere Fact. In science Theories are BUILT of Facts. It's like saying you'd rather ride a lug nut to work instead of driving a car because they're both made of metal. Learn something before you yammer on about things you don't understand. The Theory of evolution is built on thousands of solidly supported facts. It is PROVEN. Stevegray 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"'It's the 24th century. By that time nobody gives a shit! It's an issue of the 20th century and maybe the 19th century, but it has nothing to do with the 24th century. By that time it's your choice of whoever you want.'" The above paragraph clearly makes sense. My quote is here just to prove that someone is very wrong. Sexual intercourse is nature's way of making animals LIKE to reproduce. Thats its main purpose, reproduction. Gay/homosexual/lesbian people CAN'T reproduce, thus making this behavior not natural. The only way for a gay couple of having offspring is by using a third party. This would somewhat remove the gay tendencies of the baby, and in time the behavior would disappear. Or you could just say they genetically removed gay behavior. Its as simple as that. Damn right nobody gives a shit about homosexuality in the 24th century! Because it doesnt exist anymore. Its history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.40.144.81 (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This entire paragraph is ridiculous. So by this logic, only gay couples make gay kids. Completely ludicrous. Ventric (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

24th Century "Skirts"
I removed the following paragraph as it has no bearing on this homosexual article.
 * "Additionally, in many early episodes, it is common to see male extras in the background wearing the traditionally female skirt-uniforms, which some fans have read as implying a sexual preference, or at least that 24th century has evolved beyond differentiating between mens and womens clothing."

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

But we would call a male who wore a style of clothing culturally reserved for women to be transexual or a transvestite (depending on several factors). It is not simply the style of dress that makes this worthy of note. It is instead the fact that within the culture of Star Trek the gender specific clothing barrier seems to have been broken for the early episodes of TNG. Given that North American men do no wear skirts (unless they have some sub-cultural significance from another culture), it is obvious that some active statement was made through that particular waredrobe choice. It is worthy of mention here.

I've replaced this paragraph for several reasons. First and foremost, the uniforms in question worn by the male characters are identical to those worn by certain females. In the time period in which the series was produced (and even currently) military uniforms were gender specific. Starfleet is an orginization based on military structures, and divergences and developments from our standard conceptions of these institutions in the Star Trek series, especially in the depictions of gender identity, should be noted. Given that we are are dealing with representations in media I feel as though the imagery associated with certain characters is very relevant to this article. Let us not forget the "T" in LGBT. Much like the Kivas Fajo and Garek debates above, wether or not these characters are actually LGBTQ will never be known. In fact, if we limited this article to those individuals whose sexuality had been clearly defined the article would have no charaters from the main series. However, as a standard interpretation of LGBTQ imagery (yes, stereotypes by another name) males wearing a uniform with distinct female conotations in the culture in which the series was produced would likely have suggested alternative sexualities or lifestyles to those watching. The fact that men, after the early episodes, were never seen again in the female uniform style would suggest that others came to similar conclusions about the conotations of this dress style. -JN April 18, 2007

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


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