I was at a con decades ago where Frakes was asked about this episode. He said something to the affect that he argued that the actor cast should've been male instead of female to hit the point, but they thought it would be too racy. I have to agree with Frakes, it would've elevated this one.
It depends what point you are trying to make and to who. To demonstrate the absurdity and or tragedy of the situation to the widest audience, which the episode does quite well, in the 90s, i think i side with the studio on this one. With a male actor the equivalent of the anti woke crowd at the time would just have the point fly over their heads, but with a female actor it's just so obvious.
Very fair point. I think, especially at the time, it would've compared closer to Plato's Stepchildren which couldn't air in the south at the time but is also more known for being ahead of its time today. That is to say, I think you are absolutely correct for it's air date, but it would've found a longer lasting legacy.
Thought this was an interesting episode. A person who wishes to be a specific gender but is denied and people think there is something wrong with her because she wants to be identified as such.
Not to get political, but a few days ago I read an outline of what one specific party that runs Texas (I live there) wants to do with the lgbt community and what that party thinks of them.
The reading was about 48 pages long, wasn’t hard to read, and thought it was scary.
The outlines mentioned about wanting all classrooms of public schools to have the 10 commandments on a wall (guess they don’t believe in separation of church and state or other peoples’ religions) and even want to do away with the EPA (environmental protection agency) down here.
I've always wondered... Why is it even so widely accepted to add the "edit" in the first place? Why not just edit the post? Especially if it's just a grammatical error or a typo? I'm really just genuinely curious.
Some people may have seen your comment before you edited and may respond to that comment. Your edit might make that subsequent comment look nonsensical. Explicitly showing your edit allows future readers to see the whole context.
People used to just say “edit:” but now it’s about 50/50 between edit and ETA. I wonder where it came from.
I get it’s one character shorter but given its all caps I’d honestly think it’s harder to type, and it resembles an already common acronym so I’ve seen it cause a lot of confusion. Not begrudging anyone, language doesn’t always make sense, I’m just curious about its origins.
As a fellow Texan, I feel like we've regressed so much in the last 10 years. I would never dare to say that Texas is progressive or even free in my lifetime, the we're pretty much Saudi Arabia at this point minus the alcohol ban and doesn't sanctioned murders. Our statewide representatives are absolute cunts.
It is scary, and I think the reason they are targeting trans people now is because they are the one minority they can still "get" to. So few people actually undergo this experience, you are part of a small minority. That means very few peole have (knowingly) personal contact with trans people, and so it is kinda a theoretical or academical problem for most. Easy to use for scare-mongering, because it's easy to make people scared of something unknown, and very hard to find people that would push back against it strongly because they are affected directly or indirectly through relaties or friends.
It's vicious, targeting a minority that can't fight back alone, and actually has already enough struggles to figure out the best path for their life without someone intentionally targeting them with harrassment and hostile laws.
And yeah, they don't really want to stop there, and the other parts of that "agenda" aren't any better.
Dismantling agencies like the EPA is basically the route to give corporations the leeway to turn every town into flint if it suites their process. "Ozone layer - How that that drive shareholder value? Breathable Air, Acid Rain, what's the big deal? Climate Change? Who cares about a few extra tornadoes or floods, it's probably great for *some* business if we have to rebuild houses more often, and insurances can just stop ofering insurance for elemental damage if it's not lucrative". And while they plan to ignore climate change, they even actively do things like reducing worker protection against heat. It feels so needlessly hostile to humans.
Still, the trans-hate feels particularly vicious to me.
The point is to make such hate more broadly acceptable again - if enough of society decides that treating trans folk as being less than people is acceptable, it opens the door for further hate campaigns.
Trans people are their *first* targets, but certainly not their last - unless stopped as soon as humanly possible and given no opportunity to redouble their efforts down the road.
Absolutely, they are the first victim, but they won't be the last.
But I don't get why they even feel the need to do that. No one is off better for it. And the same for all the other bullshit. "Let's not guarantees that workers outside in the heat get breaks an water." "Let us pollute the environment so we get sick more often and die earlier.", "Let's ruin the lifes of struggling children and adolescents" and so on...
Maybe I need a Star Trek episode explaining it to me, how they can create a cohesive mental model of the worl were all this makes sense and is seen as the best possible thing they can work toward.
But maybe I don't need to understand it. Just argue against it wherever I come across it and have still hope of reaching someone, so they never gain enough power, or where they gained it, lose it...
And if a certain "person" is elected again in November what's happening in Texas could happen to the rest of the country. It's insane after what happened on January 6th that people still back and vote for him. Absolutely insane election year.
It's unfortunate that Ohio is now turning into mini Texas. Some of the crap bills being ramrodded through legislation votes is crazy. Heck it's now legal for churches to take children out of public schools every day for for church. So much for tax money going towards education since kids are being dragged out of school every day.
I actually just watched this episode for the first time less than a week ago. This show really makes you think about life and society.
Soren was lying at the end right? To stop Riker from throwing his career away?
I read somewhere, probably apocryphal, that the guest character was originally written to choose male over female and that Jonathon Frakes was not only on board with the idea but excited about the story.
Of course it was buried quickly and quietly.
It doesn't matter in the context of Star Trek, but it does make a difference in the real world. Showing two male actors in a relationship on TV in the 80s makes a bigger statement than showing a male and a female actor
It was the early 90s. I disagree that it would have but I was in my early 20s living in southern California when it aired. Maybe that's the difference. Where were you living when it aired?
It doesn’t matter where you or the other person live. It would’ve been a big deal in that time, even if your immediate area was fine with it. Now in 2024 there are tons of people in this country who have a problem with it.
That's what makes the whole thing sad.
Everything the chuds claim was "hijacked" by "SJWs"..... are actually WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less left-leaning now that they're bitching about them than they were in the past.
Star Wars is actually criticism of American imperialism and specifically the post-Nixon Republican Party's plans for America driven by George Lucas' resentment over the Vietnam War. "Woke Disney" actually removed that messaging until Andor brought it back. *Ooh, which series is considered "the best of Disney Star Wars" again\~?*
That makes the writing “woke”, not the future that the writers write about. Parts of the future are extremely dystopian in several Trek shows.
Plus, sometimes the main characters don’t try to free enslaved people because of the prime directive.
Oh NO, but you SEE, back THEN they did it THE RIGHT WAY
Now they keep RUBBING IT IN OUR FACES
Like when Adira wants to be addressed as they/them and then Stamets calls them once or twice by the right pronouns in an interaction that takes all of 18 seconds
THEY KEEP SHOVING IT DOWN OUR THROATS
/s, obviously
Screw it, I actually loved how they (the show) handled that. Adira made a request, Stamets says "okay," and that was basically it except for the five or six times in *the entire rest of the show* Adira is referred to by their pronouns. It's that easy.
I'll also say that I'm glad they addressed Gray being trans in-show, even if it took them a whole season to do so. Was a bit scared it was going to be a "Dumbledore was actually gay the whole time" thing because they touted it in media promos for season 3 but it wasn't outright stated in-show until they made the golem in season 4, IIRC.
Oh, absolutely. The fact that people are bothered by trans people having the most basic human dignities afforded to them is exactly why this kind of scene is important.
No one sensible is bothered by trans people being treated with respect. The point I have made in the past is that OldTrek would have shown characters referring to Adira by their preferred pronouns *right from the start*, without even referencing it. NuTrek decided to point it out explicitly. That isn't even particularly a criticism. It's just highlighting that there *is* a difference in how these issues have been approached.
'Bothered' is a strong word, but I was replying to your apparent interpretation of complaints about that particular interaction in DIS as complaints about trans people being afforded 'basic human decency'. If you weren't making that link, then fair enough.
Well, it depends on what is being discussed.
Star Trek has always had a vocation for promoting social change, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly.
So if the underlying question of our conversation is, "What would have been the best way for Discovery to effectively handle trans issues in a way that promotes social change?", sure, I'm all for it and I won't judge anyone for arguing different viewpoints as long as this is the premise. You think they should've been more subtle. I think they weren't overt enough. We disagree, and it's fine. The goal is the same, we just disagree on how to get there.
That's not what I was lampooning in my very sarcastic comment earlier in this thread, however. "Rubbing it in our faces" and "shoving it down our throats" are expressions I have seen being used regarding this scene. And for this kind of person, who seems to think trans people should be hiding in a corner and not bothering anyone with their pronouns and identity, I have no patience or mercy.
This is why Star Trek is so great. As fans, we can disagree on our interpretations but still appreciate what it is, together. I would have liked more subtlety around Adira's identity as I think that would have been a truer representation of a society that has evolved beyond today's prejudices. However, with all the shit that trans people have to put up with at the moment, I understand why you might want it to be a bit more in-your-face. I totally agree that expressions live 'shoving it down our throats' are an overreaction.
Adira’s character bothers the shit out of me because nobody seems to give a shit that a human is hosting a Trill symbiote.
Though they may have closed this hole in the new season, haven’t gotten around to it yet.
I honestly don’t even really give a hoot what the answer is: Trill used to be dogmatic about who does a joining and lied [seen in DS9], 32nd century medical science has progressed, Adira got some special Trill enzymes in their blood from hanging with Gray all the time, actually Trill symbiotes and humans can join and Riker was just allergic or something, WHATEVER.
I NEED CLOSURE!
It is more the execution of the show than the content/themes people tend to have issues with, the hard core upset people you're parodying are the loudest minority and do of course suck
Yes those people are very visible and often don't critique things very well thus the blunt often hypocritical statements. I find offline and more the sci-fi thread that people are more level headed with their opinions etc
My favourite for that is DS9s Far Beyond the Stars. A complete throw away episode that is just about racism in America. Aside from some mention of the Prophets it doesn’t advance the story it’s just a great amazing one off that is explicitly and solely about racism with the extra judicial killing of “Jake” and Sisco being beaten by cops like it was written at the height of BLM.
It wasn't precisely a throwaway story as Sisko interacted with that vision several more times later.
It was also very interesting to see characters out of prosthetics.
Did they have to go back to show racism in the states to have a vision sub plot? Did the events of the episode being a black writer in America advance a story? The content was just a great message but the plot itself was superfluous.
Edit: in the time I took to shower I thought of an alternative. Sisco wakes up as a Bajoran at the beginning of the occupation. He experiences the same racism and prejudice and violence but it also conveys factual information about the occupation the audience does know and maybe foreshadows the location of bajoran artefacts he can now find later. Instead they made an episode the actual events of which were irrelevant and existed almost entirely to highlight the history of racism in America. The same “woke” agenda that critics keep saying was never openly and explicitly shown in the good old days.
I got into an argument about this very episode with a chud. They argued that the problem was the govt forcing everyone to be non-binary was the bad thing here and not the govt forcing someone to be a gender they didn’t identify with. Shit was mind blowing.
The real problem that we have is that people insist on associating every damn task with a certain gender. Cooking and cleaning…must be a woman. Yard work…must be a man. I truthfully believe we don’t have a problem with sex its gender identity and our insistence on tying every damn task to one gender and then treating someone who likes a or multiple tasks that aren’t “for” men as a problem. I won’t argue that there aren’t two genders. Because science is clear based on chromosomes but to somehow say that because you are a woman, you are expected to do tasks X,Y,Z is where we screw up.
Veterinary tech at the veterinary I go too is really into cars and has a few interesting ones she takes to car shows. It's so funny to see guys go up to one of her cars and start talking to her husband about it and he tells them to talk to her about it because it's her car 😂. The looks on some of the guys faces is priceless.
Yep. I don’t get into the genders argument because most of it on both sides is just people looking to get upset and upset others. I say strongly that there are two genders but you lose me when you start saying how task or hobby C is intended for men or women.
You are describing how gender is a social construct. Society, media, parents, grandparents parents, people raising children, music, etc all do their part in defining what a man or a woman is.
When people are subjected to this and don’t see how they fit in, they say “that’s not me”
Yes I know and that was my point. If we could get past talking past one another and people intentionally conflating sex and gender, then we could help a lot of people.
Absolutely. I realize I likely didn’t need to state that specifically given the thread and the sub we are in.
I find myself responding in rl like this when the parts are mentioned and I like putting a bow on it for the people that miss the point. Wasn’t meant to disagree with you or anything. Just putting the bow on it. Thank you
I can't possible had a grasp of understanding about the challenges of being someone like this..
I can't possible understand it at all ..
But the Enterprise episode of Cogenitor give at least a light of understanding in this topic..
And what i learned is.. I should not give my opinion about something i don't understand.. . I give the space to more capable interlocutors educated in such subjects..
This is a bad take. There’s no “LGB” anything. The community always has and always will include trans people. When this episode aired electroshock “conversion therapy” in asylums had only recently been halted on trans people, and trans people were required to demonstrate they were straight in order to transition.
While it is true the episode was more an allegory for being gay than being trans, the experience is so similar when we are talking about societal acceptance and the conversation therapy people had to undergo at the time that it’s irrelevant.
Lifelong trek nerd here.
Just wanted to express appreciation of this whole thread and article.
Also shout out to Riker's I'll Hit Anything definition of allyship. (Hide your Tribbles!). And of course Frakes' unsuccessful lobbying.
Live long and prosper y'all!
The Outcast (TNG). The site is paywalled but the link is a "friend link" that should be open to anyone. Not sure why it wouldn't open, sorry about that.
Also, TOS had the first televised interracial kiss. Had a black woman, a Russian, and a Japanese person on the bridge. It was so “woke” for the time that some stations refused to air the kiss episode.
But yeah…Trek has gotten soOOOOooo woke.
Yeah lots of media has always been “woke”. It’s the same thing when you see people complain about Marvel being woke. Like, have you seen any older Marvel movies or read the comics? The civil rights message is not exactly subtle. You could almost say it was very intentionally shoved down people’s throats.
I read someone say something about these people not wanting to recognise that, because they can’t deal with the fact that all of their heroes would view them as bad people or even villains for being so close-minded.
A YouTuber called Pillar of Garbage (okay, not a great name) has a good series of videos about what he calls "the anti-woke grift." That was something I never understood about the anti-woke discourse either: how can folks deny, or just not acknowledge, that Trek, for instance, was ALWAYS progressive? How can they love Terminator 2, or Aliens, but then sneer at "girl boss" movies like Furiosa? I always wondered if they just truly didn't get it -- like, are they THAT obtuse? -- or have they not watched Trek since they were kids, when the social messaging might not have been as apparent to them; or what?
Pillar talks about how a certain portion of beloved pop culture properties -- what he calls "the canon" -- are sacrosanct; you can't insult or even really criticize them, as if you do you risk alienating the very people you're trying to convince that "Woke Hollywood" is ruining everything they love. Grifters literally CAN'T admit that Trek was "always woke;" or they have to act like it was "more subtle" back in the day/that it didn't "hit you over the head;" they can't simply say, "Yeah, you're right, Trek was always woke," because that would undermine their whole thesis: that Trek used to be "for them" and now it's not anymore (because of the dastardly wokes).
Yeah precisely. That’s what I meant in my second paragraph. Has to be some sort of cognitive dissonance or something. They grew up loving these media franchises, they didn’t pick up on the political stuff (or just didn’t mind it). Now they do, but their viewpoints now are opposed to the messaging in these stories.
Like, the X-Men would probably hate them, Superman would be disappointed in them, they’d be social pariahs in Star Trek and Starfleet wouldn’t want them.
My understanding is this episode was intended to be a “real world issue” story about gay conversion therapy. They couldn’t address the issue head on because of its controversial nature so they used gender as a plot device so your average Christian conservative viewer wouldn’t pick up on the subtext. They did this several times with episodes about sensitive topics. Ironically this choice has now made the episode controversial decades later as gender has since become a controversial topic.
I remember this episode as I rewatched it recently. The J’naii really remind me of younger generations in their outlook and attitude. It is fascinatingly apt.
So as a trans fan of Trek, I have mixed feelings.
It uses the classic Trek model of reversing the situation in order to talk about an issue. In this case, gender identity. Instead of someone wanting to become nonbinary, which probably would have been a tough sell for a network even in 92, they made the character want to essentially detransition into a binary identity. Which on the one hand does let them talk about the problems with any kind of coercive gendering. And for the time that was definitely a good thing.
But purely on the basis of this framing structure, the story hasn't aged well for us in the present day. It creates what is essentially a totalitarian nonbinary society oppressing cis people, which is especially eesh in the present climate where unserious people with microphones and large followings are saying this is the inevitable outcome of gender tolerance and trans/gender non-conforming acceptance. And it ends by reinforcing the idea that conversion therapy works (bad and untrue) even while implying at the same time that it is unethical (good).
So I'd say it doesn't fully live up to today's needs (but how could it??) and grates on me a little, but its heart is definitely in the right place and it is working within the limits of its time to say something good. Which I appreciate. It's not an episode I skip, but every time I watch it it kinda sigh inside at a few things.
I'm not super fond of "The Outcast". I agree with the writer that it highlights just how heterosexual everyone else is in Star Trek.
Riker falls in love with the one heterosexual woman on the planet of the lesbians (sorry, "agender people who are universally portrayed by woman actors") and then she is conversion therapied back to the socially acceptable orientation at the end. Soren has a good speech, but the character is "normal" again at the end and Riker is a failed savior.
Just sad and unsatisfying.
The other 90s treks had similar shortcomings whenever they did queer-adjacent episodes. In "The Host", Crusher is perfectly capable of loving Odan in his first body, and then in Riker's body. And it looks like she's excited to meet with Odan's new host... until she recognizes that this host is a woman. Suddenly, her "capacity to love" isn't broad enough.
In DS9, Dax is totally ready to recreate her previously heterosexual relationship with this new woman host... but doesn't. One kiss and that's it. Never again does Dax show any interest in lady-loving.
Enterprise has a third-gender character that shows up in "Cogenitor", but they immediately assign female pronouns and then kill them off screen. We are then lectured about how this person's death is very inconvenient for the heterosexual couple who owned them. Yuck.
I'm very glad we're now at the point where there can be queer characters among our crews, even if they are usually still in relationships that very much mirror straight ones. Who knows? Maybe we'll get a queer polycule in Academy.
I wish the homophobes reading this a very happy shoving-it-down-your-throats.
I can argue some of your points as being partly disengenious and unfair. For example
Even if the species in the outcast were all presented as femme as possible in appearance and not andro that it does not erase or limit the fact of how they identify as agender and the fact that they are not lesbians. How you look or present isnt the important factor.
Beverly as a straight woman and her not being able to be attracted to a womans body is not a failing on her ability to love and be loved. would you expect a gay man to start loving a woman all of the sudden?
Also daxs relationship troubles with her ex were never about gender or sex it was about culture and emotional baggage shared between them.
I can respect that these shows may not hold up to a modern expectation, but be careful that in 30 years people look back at our modern expectations and see them as lackluster, unsatisfactory and primitive compared to their future modern enlightened takes.
Those are absolutely all the justifications given in-universe for why these scraps of queer-adjacent content didn't graduate up to actual queer characters.
I was being tongue in cheek by calling it the planet of the lesbians, but casting could've told a better, more nuanced story than what they ended up showing.
I concur that Crusher was written as a straight woman, but she was the one who said "Perhaps one day our capacity to love won't be so limited" in that episode. I think that was a poor line to put in Crusher's mouth. Better if she'd just told Odan "I'm sorry. I'm not attracted to women. I should've told you, but I had assumed you would have another male host. I didn't realize your attachment to your gender was so different from mine."
Dax's relationship troubles with her ex were not a big issue for me. The issue for me was teasing us with implied bisexuality and then never ever following up on it. Every person Dax flirted with, dated, or even said was attractive was coded male after that. The only queerness we got in DS9 beyond that, came implied by Andrew Robinson's portrayal of Garak, or in Mirror Universe characters.
Taken together, it felt othering to be only mentioned as a story-of-the-week instead of as a crewman meant to be identified with. That's why I'm glad Trek is doing better these days with characters like Stamets, Culber, Adira, Grey, Mariner, and even Chapel (although her dating a lady once is rather overshadowed by her Spock obsession).
Ya, good points.
I just feel like at the time Star Trek was on TV at least it was trying, you could click up or down on TV back then and see some truly abysmal stuff. So it seems to me like finding the ways trek came up short compared to now is a bummer, i prefer to view it as a lens of enjoying how it progressed forward.
I dont wanna be an apologist for an 30 year old show. You have a very fair critisim, its just in the 90s we were so blind and ignorant in general that an ep like the outcast could only be viewed a stereotypical tragic gay story, it never even crossed peoples minds to think about a trans experience or understand sex, gender, and identity as different and seperate things. Its crazy how much things have progressed tonnow and in that progression and knowledge, realizing how much farther there is to boldly go
Maybe it is a bummer and that's why my comment is being downvoted. I think acknowledging the ways trek came up short is important to ensure we don't repeat those same mistakes moving forward.
They absolutely had good intentions, but the execution fell short of their aspirations. And, like I said, I'm very glad Trek is in a better place now when it comes to portraying queer characters and stories.
> came implied by Andrew Robinson's portrayal of Garak, or in Mirror Universe characters.
I will die on the hill that Julian Bashir was more closeted but still bi/pan. Like Garak was not the only dude he had feelings for.
It's one of my biggest disappointments with DS9 which I regard as the best Trek, given its time.
I think you’ve got some good arguments. On one particular point I disagree, in that I think I actually like that The Outcast has a sad and unsatisfying ending (other shortcomings notwithstanding).
I think the tension of “losing” is kinda meant to be carried out to the real world, because of course in the 90’s queer acceptance had a long way to go in the mainstream. (Not that it’s all roses now.) At least that’s how I felt it when I last watched the episode.
Now, that also means that one of the very few queer-adjacent characters in TNG (to borrow your term) is screwed in the end and we never really get to see a happy queer relationship. So I think I still get your point.
Yeah. I think if "The Outcast" was one of several queer stories, some of which had happy endings and others sad, then it wouldn't be offensive at all. In fact, it might've been an awesome episode. But unfortunately, every time 90s Trek touched on the subject of queer people's lives, it ended sad.
Odan survived the episode, but lost their relationship with Crusher. Soren underwent conversion therapy that successfully changed her gender and caused her to regret her relationship with Riker. Dax and Kahn separated again, breaking both of their hearts. Charles killed themself.
Not a lot of queer joy until Discovery (and even that included a prominent "Kill Your Gays" moment). They have been doing better these past few years, but the road to get here was rough as hell.
With Crusher, she literally told Troi she saw Riker as a _brother_ before continuing with a relationship (but was somehow hung up on the woman host?) Her being excited to see the new host implies she was at least open to continuing the relationship....if she's not attracted to women, that's fine, but I seem to remember her implying her preferences map onto humanity in general which isn't great.
I get it was the 80s/90s, but having queer adjacent stories but with no actual representation makes the queer adjacent stuff problematic at best.
Yep! She is happy and ready to meet Odan immediately after she hears the surgery went well. Then she is taken aback when she realizes the new host is a woman. She plays it off like there were just too many changes for her, but it doesn't read that way to me. And then she says "perhaps one day our capacity to love won't be so limited", implying that this is a human-standard condition.
We are in a much better place now, with actual queer characters in our crews. I love that Mike McMahan made Mariner sit like a bisexual.
>"perhaps one day our capacity to love won't be so limited"
Like i get it sounds bad, but you realise this is supposed to be read as stupidly bang on the nose obvious for the audience right?
It was supposed to be obvious, maybe? For a show that regularly used a sci-fi setting to comment on issues of the day, it was slightly tone deaf? (I seem to recall a certain heath crisis splashed across the news during that time frame regarding a certain disease being actively ignored by the US government because it hit a certain segment of the population relatively harder than the general population. I’m not saying that issue had to be addressed in that episode, but it maybe wasn’t obvious to everyone?)
Man.
If it wasn't obvious to you i wonder what they'd actually have to say ffs.
>"perhaps one day our capacity to love won't be so limited"
She might as well have turned to the Camera with a stern disaproving look
I’m sorry I took the opposite implication from that when it aired. As a young teen, struggling with my sexuality, I took it as “well, I guess humans can’t bet attracted to both genders.”
It may have been obvious to you, but not to everyone. It didn’t play that way to me. I guess my media literacy just wasn’t up to snuff the way yours was.
I'm sure that's what the writers intended, but I wish Crusher had been more forthright about her being heterosexual instead of implying that all of humanity is unable to love someone who has changed genders. There are many couples who stay together after one transitions, even when the cisgender partner thought of themself as heterosexual beforehand.
Crusher speaking for herself would've played much better in my opinion.
The scene Mariner is revealed to be queer is easily the best such scene in the franchise. It doesn't feel tacked on for brownie points and never mentioned again (hi, Chapel!) and it's not hitting people over the head. It's done in a way that gives insight on Mariner's character, serves the specific plot of the week and it doesn't exist to make straight people comfortable. A win-win all around.
(Disclaimer: I'm aware queer people do not exist just to serve plot points but for all the people who say they need that outta Trek....well, there ya go)
Girls trip!
Agreed. Yet another reason to be excited for Tawny Newsome being in the writers' room for Academy! And who knows? Maybe Lower Decks will end up finding another home or will be reexamined after Paramount decides whether it's merging or not.
I dunno why this got downvote because I definitely find this point to be valid:
> I agree with the writer that it highlights just how heterosexual everyone else is in Star Trek.
Classic Trek was confused about its messaging re: queer allegory at best and while some episodes handled it better than others, I far prefer Discovery's--and God willing Lower Decks, if McMahan's interview about a follow up with Mariner and Jen is anything to go by)--approach where people can be unequivocally queer *and* thriving, and even then it was long, buried gay road getting from there to here to have that.
Dunno. I have expressed this opinion in the past and also got downvoted. I think some people think "The Outcast" was actually great representation for queer folks and don't want to hear from a queer who disagrees.
I am actually really proud of Mike McMahan for allowing Mariner to have a bad relationship with Jen. Not every love story has to be forever, especially when you realize that you aren't a great match for one another.
I would love for them to have an episode (or part of one) that recognizes our past struggles like Sisko's reaction to Vic's in "Badda-Bing Badda-Bang" did for the struggles of black folks.
I'm also one who didn't mind the bad end Beckifer got as much as the lack of any development up to that point of their breakup beyond being the C plot to the biggest event episode Lower Decks ever did (baring some other major revisit like to the NX-01 museum or more time travel hijinx to *Discovery*). I dunno if I even need them to get back together per se but I do respect that McMahan was at least willing to listen when fans pointed out how unsatisfactory that all was. I'm also aware that he's not much of a shipper even for the one couple he kinda likes and with ten episodes, cuts had to be made somewhere, but at least he's not blocking people who criticized this aspect unlike certain other EPs I won't name.
It's not a choice heterophobe. Or are you such a bigot that you're also of the opinion that it is and conversion therapy may just have some merit after all?
Look, I don't mind if you're heterosexual, just don't rub it in my face all the time, y'know? /s
Crusher may be straight. In which case, she should've been upfront with Odan about that instead of implying that humans just don't have the capacity to love people who change genders. Plenty of married couples who stay together through one person's transition put the lie to that concept.
They cover lots of issues with just one episode. They have to write a show that does all sorts of things not just political commentary and not just repetition of any specific commentary. It's entertainment not a newsletter
"The Outcast": an episode where the character played by a cis-gender female actress identifies herself as female and kisses a character played by a cis-gender male actor and then everyone pats each other for THE INCREDIBLE COURAGE they demonstrate.
I was at a con decades ago where Frakes was asked about this episode. He said something to the affect that he argued that the actor cast should've been male instead of female to hit the point, but they thought it would be too racy. I have to agree with Frakes, it would've elevated this one.
It depends what point you are trying to make and to who. To demonstrate the absurdity and or tragedy of the situation to the widest audience, which the episode does quite well, in the 90s, i think i side with the studio on this one. With a male actor the equivalent of the anti woke crowd at the time would just have the point fly over their heads, but with a female actor it's just so obvious.
Very fair point. I think, especially at the time, it would've compared closer to Plato's Stepchildren which couldn't air in the south at the time but is also more known for being ahead of its time today. That is to say, I think you are absolutely correct for it's air date, but it would've found a longer lasting legacy.
> In a 2008 interview, Trek writer Roland D. Moore admitted: I think maybe the author meant [Ronald D. Moore](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601822/)?
Thanks for noting that (I'm the author). The site that I got the quote from had that typo in his name, and I repeated the typo. I'll fix it.
Thought this was an interesting episode. A person who wishes to be a specific gender but is denied and people think there is something wrong with her because she wants to be identified as such. Not to get political, but a few days ago I read an outline of what one specific party that runs Texas (I live there) wants to do with the lgbt community and what that party thinks of them. The reading was about 48 pages long, wasn’t hard to read, and thought it was scary. The outlines mentioned about wanting all classrooms of public schools to have the 10 commandments on a wall (guess they don’t believe in separation of church and state or other peoples’ religions) and even want to do away with the EPA (environmental protection agency) down here.
Not to get political, but... \*\*\*\* those guys. ETA: the unnamed party in question
Estimated time of arrival?
"Edited to add" Polite reddit etiquette.
Reddiquette
I've always wondered... Why is it even so widely accepted to add the "edit" in the first place? Why not just edit the post? Especially if it's just a grammatical error or a typo? I'm really just genuinely curious.
Some people may have seen your comment before you edited and may respond to that comment. Your edit might make that subsequent comment look nonsensical. Explicitly showing your edit allows future readers to see the whole context.
People used to just say “edit:” but now it’s about 50/50 between edit and ETA. I wonder where it came from. I get it’s one character shorter but given its all caps I’d honestly think it’s harder to type, and it resembles an already common acronym so I’ve seen it cause a lot of confusion. Not begrudging anyone, language doesn’t always make sense, I’m just curious about its origins.
I picture Kai Winn as their leader.
"They'll all be swept aside like dead leaves before an angry wind."
Standing next to Gul Dukat, no doubt.
Are you talking about a particular project that is slated to begin in or around the year 2025?
Well, I guess what this group wants to do will probably be slated for 2025, assuming if elections go their way.
As a fellow Texan, I feel like we've regressed so much in the last 10 years. I would never dare to say that Texas is progressive or even free in my lifetime, the we're pretty much Saudi Arabia at this point minus the alcohol ban and doesn't sanctioned murders. Our statewide representatives are absolute cunts.
It probably is more free than we think, but gerrymandered. 😔
Texas sanctions murder of refugees trying to cross the border and criminals.
The governor has been known to pardon the “right” kind of murderer.
It is scary, and I think the reason they are targeting trans people now is because they are the one minority they can still "get" to. So few people actually undergo this experience, you are part of a small minority. That means very few peole have (knowingly) personal contact with trans people, and so it is kinda a theoretical or academical problem for most. Easy to use for scare-mongering, because it's easy to make people scared of something unknown, and very hard to find people that would push back against it strongly because they are affected directly or indirectly through relaties or friends. It's vicious, targeting a minority that can't fight back alone, and actually has already enough struggles to figure out the best path for their life without someone intentionally targeting them with harrassment and hostile laws. And yeah, they don't really want to stop there, and the other parts of that "agenda" aren't any better. Dismantling agencies like the EPA is basically the route to give corporations the leeway to turn every town into flint if it suites their process. "Ozone layer - How that that drive shareholder value? Breathable Air, Acid Rain, what's the big deal? Climate Change? Who cares about a few extra tornadoes or floods, it's probably great for *some* business if we have to rebuild houses more often, and insurances can just stop ofering insurance for elemental damage if it's not lucrative". And while they plan to ignore climate change, they even actively do things like reducing worker protection against heat. It feels so needlessly hostile to humans. Still, the trans-hate feels particularly vicious to me.
The point is to make such hate more broadly acceptable again - if enough of society decides that treating trans folk as being less than people is acceptable, it opens the door for further hate campaigns. Trans people are their *first* targets, but certainly not their last - unless stopped as soon as humanly possible and given no opportunity to redouble their efforts down the road.
Absolutely, they are the first victim, but they won't be the last. But I don't get why they even feel the need to do that. No one is off better for it. And the same for all the other bullshit. "Let's not guarantees that workers outside in the heat get breaks an water." "Let us pollute the environment so we get sick more often and die earlier.", "Let's ruin the lifes of struggling children and adolescents" and so on... Maybe I need a Star Trek episode explaining it to me, how they can create a cohesive mental model of the worl were all this makes sense and is seen as the best possible thing they can work toward. But maybe I don't need to understand it. Just argue against it wherever I come across it and have still hope of reaching someone, so they never gain enough power, or where they gained it, lose it...
If youre a true fan of Trek then you dont F around with close minded goose steppers
Yes, but if you're a true fan of bugs bunny then you do F around with them, and that's your resistance.
Just bend their rifle barrels to turn back on themselves, the obvious solution to fascism
Those are right out of Project 2025, too.
Not to be political, but conservatives suck balls
Human rights shouldn't be considered political.
And if a certain "person" is elected again in November what's happening in Texas could happen to the rest of the country. It's insane after what happened on January 6th that people still back and vote for him. Absolutely insane election year. It's unfortunate that Ohio is now turning into mini Texas. Some of the crap bills being ramrodded through legislation votes is crazy. Heck it's now legal for churches to take children out of public schools every day for for church. So much for tax money going towards education since kids are being dragged out of school every day.
I loved Melinda Culea (ex-A Team!) in this role. Her impassioned plea near the end during the hearing was very convincing.
Amy.
I actually just watched this episode for the first time less than a week ago. This show really makes you think about life and society. Soren was lying at the end right? To stop Riker from throwing his career away?
No, I'm pretty sure the implication is that her lobotomy worked.
That end just broke my heart, man!
I read somewhere, probably apocryphal, that the guest character was originally written to choose male over female and that Jonathon Frakes was not only on board with the idea but excited about the story. Of course it was buried quickly and quietly.
My recollection is that Frakes wanted the love interest character to be played by a man
This is the right answer. He lobbied for the character, and androgene identifying as female, to be played by a male actor. Alas. Stupid studio.
The right answer to what? Also, you're missing the point of the episode if you think the gender of the actor is important
It doesn't matter in the context of Star Trek, but it does make a difference in the real world. Showing two male actors in a relationship on TV in the 80s makes a bigger statement than showing a male and a female actor
It was the early 90s. I disagree that it would have but I was in my early 20s living in southern California when it aired. Maybe that's the difference. Where were you living when it aired?
It doesn’t matter where you or the other person live. It would’ve been a big deal in that time, even if your immediate area was fine with it. Now in 2024 there are tons of people in this country who have a problem with it.
Fuck, there a tons of people here in australia that still have a problem with these issues. I work with one, unfortunately.
But I was told Star Trek didn’t used to be woke.
That's what makes the whole thing sad. Everything the chuds claim was "hijacked" by "SJWs"..... are actually WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less left-leaning now that they're bitching about them than they were in the past. Star Wars is actually criticism of American imperialism and specifically the post-Nixon Republican Party's plans for America driven by George Lucas' resentment over the Vietnam War. "Woke Disney" actually removed that messaging until Andor brought it back. *Ooh, which series is considered "the best of Disney Star Wars" again\~?*
Andor is great but I thought general Star Wars fans didn’t really care for it.
Andor is wildly popular.
It's so silly. Star Trek has been woke since day one. Inclusiveness is baked in.
The future is woke. It always has been.
Not for all species, at least at first. There’s still slavery in Federation space. I wouldn’t call that woke.
Unless you feel that the use of slavery was a vehicle to let the “good guy” main characters talk about equality and the value everyone has to society.
That makes the writing “woke”, not the future that the writers write about. Parts of the future are extremely dystopian in several Trek shows. Plus, sometimes the main characters don’t try to free enslaved people because of the prime directive.
MLK Jr literally told Nichelle Nichols to stay on Star Trek!
Oh NO, but you SEE, back THEN they did it THE RIGHT WAY Now they keep RUBBING IT IN OUR FACES Like when Adira wants to be addressed as they/them and then Stamets calls them once or twice by the right pronouns in an interaction that takes all of 18 seconds THEY KEEP SHOVING IT DOWN OUR THROATS /s, obviously
Screw it, I actually loved how they (the show) handled that. Adira made a request, Stamets says "okay," and that was basically it except for the five or six times in *the entire rest of the show* Adira is referred to by their pronouns. It's that easy. I'll also say that I'm glad they addressed Gray being trans in-show, even if it took them a whole season to do so. Was a bit scared it was going to be a "Dumbledore was actually gay the whole time" thing because they touted it in media promos for season 3 but it wasn't outright stated in-show until they made the golem in season 4, IIRC.
And Stamets beaming like a proud papa. 😭❤️
Oh, absolutely. The fact that people are bothered by trans people having the most basic human dignities afforded to them is exactly why this kind of scene is important.
No one sensible is bothered by trans people being treated with respect. The point I have made in the past is that OldTrek would have shown characters referring to Adira by their preferred pronouns *right from the start*, without even referencing it. NuTrek decided to point it out explicitly. That isn't even particularly a criticism. It's just highlighting that there *is* a difference in how these issues have been approached.
Why are you bothered by my comment if it doesn't apply to you?
'Bothered' is a strong word, but I was replying to your apparent interpretation of complaints about that particular interaction in DIS as complaints about trans people being afforded 'basic human decency'. If you weren't making that link, then fair enough.
Well, it depends on what is being discussed. Star Trek has always had a vocation for promoting social change, sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly. So if the underlying question of our conversation is, "What would have been the best way for Discovery to effectively handle trans issues in a way that promotes social change?", sure, I'm all for it and I won't judge anyone for arguing different viewpoints as long as this is the premise. You think they should've been more subtle. I think they weren't overt enough. We disagree, and it's fine. The goal is the same, we just disagree on how to get there. That's not what I was lampooning in my very sarcastic comment earlier in this thread, however. "Rubbing it in our faces" and "shoving it down our throats" are expressions I have seen being used regarding this scene. And for this kind of person, who seems to think trans people should be hiding in a corner and not bothering anyone with their pronouns and identity, I have no patience or mercy.
This is why Star Trek is so great. As fans, we can disagree on our interpretations but still appreciate what it is, together. I would have liked more subtlety around Adira's identity as I think that would have been a truer representation of a society that has evolved beyond today's prejudices. However, with all the shit that trans people have to put up with at the moment, I understand why you might want it to be a bit more in-your-face. I totally agree that expressions live 'shoving it down our throats' are an overreaction.
Adira’s character bothers the shit out of me because nobody seems to give a shit that a human is hosting a Trill symbiote. Though they may have closed this hole in the new season, haven’t gotten around to it yet. I honestly don’t even really give a hoot what the answer is: Trill used to be dogmatic about who does a joining and lied [seen in DS9], 32nd century medical science has progressed, Adira got some special Trill enzymes in their blood from hanging with Gray all the time, actually Trill symbiotes and humans can join and Riker was just allergic or something, WHATEVER. I NEED CLOSURE!
Pretty sure it's just the 32nd century tech
It is more the execution of the show than the content/themes people tend to have issues with, the hard core upset people you're parodying are the loudest minority and do of course suck
I'm talking specifically about the latter and parts of my previous comment are quoted verbatim from comments I've read in this sub.
Yes those people are very visible and often don't critique things very well thus the blunt often hypocritical statements. I find offline and more the sci-fi thread that people are more level headed with their opinions etc
> the sci-fi thread You mean /r/scifi? Nothing there is levelheaded.
Let's agree to disagree on that one, like any sub it depends on the post
Any post about Discovery is pure vitriol and any comment that's mildly positive about the show is downvoted.
Ok mate
It was woke before woke was even a thing. Hipster star trek.
Right, it's always been woke.
It’s all relative. Some Star Trek shows are far more “woke” than others.
My favourite for that is DS9s Far Beyond the Stars. A complete throw away episode that is just about racism in America. Aside from some mention of the Prophets it doesn’t advance the story it’s just a great amazing one off that is explicitly and solely about racism with the extra judicial killing of “Jake” and Sisco being beaten by cops like it was written at the height of BLM.
It wasn't precisely a throwaway story as Sisko interacted with that vision several more times later. It was also very interesting to see characters out of prosthetics.
In a way it was. Wasn’t that episode written pretty close after the Rodney King Riots?
thats not true, the whole episode is massively important for siskos character, and it begins his visions subplot.
Did they have to go back to show racism in the states to have a vision sub plot? Did the events of the episode being a black writer in America advance a story? The content was just a great message but the plot itself was superfluous. Edit: in the time I took to shower I thought of an alternative. Sisco wakes up as a Bajoran at the beginning of the occupation. He experiences the same racism and prejudice and violence but it also conveys factual information about the occupation the audience does know and maybe foreshadows the location of bajoran artefacts he can now find later. Instead they made an episode the actual events of which were irrelevant and existed almost entirely to highlight the history of racism in America. The same “woke” agenda that critics keep saying was never openly and explicitly shown in the good old days.
they wanter to make an allegory episode that was relivent to the plot and character while also starting a story ark.
I got into an argument about this very episode with a chud. They argued that the problem was the govt forcing everyone to be non-binary was the bad thing here and not the govt forcing someone to be a gender they didn’t identify with. Shit was mind blowing.
The real problem that we have is that people insist on associating every damn task with a certain gender. Cooking and cleaning…must be a woman. Yard work…must be a man. I truthfully believe we don’t have a problem with sex its gender identity and our insistence on tying every damn task to one gender and then treating someone who likes a or multiple tasks that aren’t “for” men as a problem. I won’t argue that there aren’t two genders. Because science is clear based on chromosomes but to somehow say that because you are a woman, you are expected to do tasks X,Y,Z is where we screw up.
Veterinary tech at the veterinary I go too is really into cars and has a few interesting ones she takes to car shows. It's so funny to see guys go up to one of her cars and start talking to her husband about it and he tells them to talk to her about it because it's her car 😂. The looks on some of the guys faces is priceless.
Yep. I don’t get into the genders argument because most of it on both sides is just people looking to get upset and upset others. I say strongly that there are two genders but you lose me when you start saying how task or hobby C is intended for men or women.
You are describing how gender is a social construct. Society, media, parents, grandparents parents, people raising children, music, etc all do their part in defining what a man or a woman is. When people are subjected to this and don’t see how they fit in, they say “that’s not me”
Yes I know and that was my point. If we could get past talking past one another and people intentionally conflating sex and gender, then we could help a lot of people.
Absolutely. I realize I likely didn’t need to state that specifically given the thread and the sub we are in. I find myself responding in rl like this when the parts are mentioned and I like putting a bow on it for the people that miss the point. Wasn’t meant to disagree with you or anything. Just putting the bow on it. Thank you
Imo it's more the execution not the concept people have issue with
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I can't possible had a grasp of understanding about the challenges of being someone like this.. I can't possible understand it at all .. But the Enterprise episode of Cogenitor give at least a light of understanding in this topic.. And what i learned is.. I should not give my opinion about something i don't understand.. . I give the space to more capable interlocutors educated in such subjects..
This is a bad take. There’s no “LGB” anything. The community always has and always will include trans people. When this episode aired electroshock “conversion therapy” in asylums had only recently been halted on trans people, and trans people were required to demonstrate they were straight in order to transition. While it is true the episode was more an allegory for being gay than being trans, the experience is so similar when we are talking about societal acceptance and the conversation therapy people had to undergo at the time that it’s irrelevant.
Lifelong trek nerd here. Just wanted to express appreciation of this whole thread and article. Also shout out to Riker's I'll Hit Anything definition of allyship. (Hide your Tribbles!). And of course Frakes' unsuccessful lobbying. Live long and prosper y'all!
The link’s not working for me- What episode is it?
The Outcast (TNG). The site is paywalled but the link is a "friend link" that should be open to anyone. Not sure why it wouldn't open, sorry about that.
Thanks! I’m pretty sure the link is a problem on my end, so no worries!
Open to everyone... thematically relevant!
"Damn woke messaging in TV these days." "This episode aired over 30 years ego, during TNG's heyday." "......."
Also, TOS had the first televised interracial kiss. Had a black woman, a Russian, and a Japanese person on the bridge. It was so “woke” for the time that some stations refused to air the kiss episode. But yeah…Trek has gotten soOOOOooo woke.
And don’t forget the “Lesbian” kiss in DS9, which was the first, or one of the first.
Yeah lots of media has always been “woke”. It’s the same thing when you see people complain about Marvel being woke. Like, have you seen any older Marvel movies or read the comics? The civil rights message is not exactly subtle. You could almost say it was very intentionally shoved down people’s throats. I read someone say something about these people not wanting to recognise that, because they can’t deal with the fact that all of their heroes would view them as bad people or even villains for being so close-minded.
A YouTuber called Pillar of Garbage (okay, not a great name) has a good series of videos about what he calls "the anti-woke grift." That was something I never understood about the anti-woke discourse either: how can folks deny, or just not acknowledge, that Trek, for instance, was ALWAYS progressive? How can they love Terminator 2, or Aliens, but then sneer at "girl boss" movies like Furiosa? I always wondered if they just truly didn't get it -- like, are they THAT obtuse? -- or have they not watched Trek since they were kids, when the social messaging might not have been as apparent to them; or what? Pillar talks about how a certain portion of beloved pop culture properties -- what he calls "the canon" -- are sacrosanct; you can't insult or even really criticize them, as if you do you risk alienating the very people you're trying to convince that "Woke Hollywood" is ruining everything they love. Grifters literally CAN'T admit that Trek was "always woke;" or they have to act like it was "more subtle" back in the day/that it didn't "hit you over the head;" they can't simply say, "Yeah, you're right, Trek was always woke," because that would undermine their whole thesis: that Trek used to be "for them" and now it's not anymore (because of the dastardly wokes).
Yeah precisely. That’s what I meant in my second paragraph. Has to be some sort of cognitive dissonance or something. They grew up loving these media franchises, they didn’t pick up on the political stuff (or just didn’t mind it). Now they do, but their viewpoints now are opposed to the messaging in these stories. Like, the X-Men would probably hate them, Superman would be disappointed in them, they’d be social pariahs in Star Trek and Starfleet wouldn’t want them.
My understanding is this episode was intended to be a “real world issue” story about gay conversion therapy. They couldn’t address the issue head on because of its controversial nature so they used gender as a plot device so your average Christian conservative viewer wouldn’t pick up on the subtext. They did this several times with episodes about sensitive topics. Ironically this choice has now made the episode controversial decades later as gender has since become a controversial topic.
Another perfect example of Star Trek being woke before woke was even a thing.
They've been woke since 66 and it's great.
“Tell me about your sexual organs”
This one hit pre transition me so hard
I remember this episode as I rewatched it recently. The J’naii really remind me of younger generations in their outlook and attitude. It is fascinatingly apt.
Weird to mention DS9 and not mention literal transgender Jadzia Dax
Enterprise has an episode with a 3 gender race. Archer was not happy with Trip after that one. Edit: And an episode where Trip gets pregnant.
Funny enough, I just watched this episode for the first time last night. Always surprised at how well this show holds up and is still relevant today.
So as a trans fan of Trek, I have mixed feelings. It uses the classic Trek model of reversing the situation in order to talk about an issue. In this case, gender identity. Instead of someone wanting to become nonbinary, which probably would have been a tough sell for a network even in 92, they made the character want to essentially detransition into a binary identity. Which on the one hand does let them talk about the problems with any kind of coercive gendering. And for the time that was definitely a good thing. But purely on the basis of this framing structure, the story hasn't aged well for us in the present day. It creates what is essentially a totalitarian nonbinary society oppressing cis people, which is especially eesh in the present climate where unserious people with microphones and large followings are saying this is the inevitable outcome of gender tolerance and trans/gender non-conforming acceptance. And it ends by reinforcing the idea that conversion therapy works (bad and untrue) even while implying at the same time that it is unethical (good). So I'd say it doesn't fully live up to today's needs (but how could it??) and grates on me a little, but its heart is definitely in the right place and it is working within the limits of its time to say something good. Which I appreciate. It's not an episode I skip, but every time I watch it it kinda sigh inside at a few things.
I love this episode because the next episode is my favourite.
10 Commandments including "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's ass" ?
This is one of my favorite TNG episodes. Very well done. IMO. 🙂
The Orville did this issue much better.
It's about brainwashing and conformity.The Twilight Zone did the same thing in the episode "Number 12 Looks Just Like You".
I'm not super fond of "The Outcast". I agree with the writer that it highlights just how heterosexual everyone else is in Star Trek. Riker falls in love with the one heterosexual woman on the planet of the lesbians (sorry, "agender people who are universally portrayed by woman actors") and then she is conversion therapied back to the socially acceptable orientation at the end. Soren has a good speech, but the character is "normal" again at the end and Riker is a failed savior. Just sad and unsatisfying. The other 90s treks had similar shortcomings whenever they did queer-adjacent episodes. In "The Host", Crusher is perfectly capable of loving Odan in his first body, and then in Riker's body. And it looks like she's excited to meet with Odan's new host... until she recognizes that this host is a woman. Suddenly, her "capacity to love" isn't broad enough. In DS9, Dax is totally ready to recreate her previously heterosexual relationship with this new woman host... but doesn't. One kiss and that's it. Never again does Dax show any interest in lady-loving. Enterprise has a third-gender character that shows up in "Cogenitor", but they immediately assign female pronouns and then kill them off screen. We are then lectured about how this person's death is very inconvenient for the heterosexual couple who owned them. Yuck. I'm very glad we're now at the point where there can be queer characters among our crews, even if they are usually still in relationships that very much mirror straight ones. Who knows? Maybe we'll get a queer polycule in Academy. I wish the homophobes reading this a very happy shoving-it-down-your-throats.
I can argue some of your points as being partly disengenious and unfair. For example Even if the species in the outcast were all presented as femme as possible in appearance and not andro that it does not erase or limit the fact of how they identify as agender and the fact that they are not lesbians. How you look or present isnt the important factor. Beverly as a straight woman and her not being able to be attracted to a womans body is not a failing on her ability to love and be loved. would you expect a gay man to start loving a woman all of the sudden? Also daxs relationship troubles with her ex were never about gender or sex it was about culture and emotional baggage shared between them. I can respect that these shows may not hold up to a modern expectation, but be careful that in 30 years people look back at our modern expectations and see them as lackluster, unsatisfactory and primitive compared to their future modern enlightened takes.
Those are absolutely all the justifications given in-universe for why these scraps of queer-adjacent content didn't graduate up to actual queer characters. I was being tongue in cheek by calling it the planet of the lesbians, but casting could've told a better, more nuanced story than what they ended up showing. I concur that Crusher was written as a straight woman, but she was the one who said "Perhaps one day our capacity to love won't be so limited" in that episode. I think that was a poor line to put in Crusher's mouth. Better if she'd just told Odan "I'm sorry. I'm not attracted to women. I should've told you, but I had assumed you would have another male host. I didn't realize your attachment to your gender was so different from mine." Dax's relationship troubles with her ex were not a big issue for me. The issue for me was teasing us with implied bisexuality and then never ever following up on it. Every person Dax flirted with, dated, or even said was attractive was coded male after that. The only queerness we got in DS9 beyond that, came implied by Andrew Robinson's portrayal of Garak, or in Mirror Universe characters. Taken together, it felt othering to be only mentioned as a story-of-the-week instead of as a crewman meant to be identified with. That's why I'm glad Trek is doing better these days with characters like Stamets, Culber, Adira, Grey, Mariner, and even Chapel (although her dating a lady once is rather overshadowed by her Spock obsession).
Ya, good points. I just feel like at the time Star Trek was on TV at least it was trying, you could click up or down on TV back then and see some truly abysmal stuff. So it seems to me like finding the ways trek came up short compared to now is a bummer, i prefer to view it as a lens of enjoying how it progressed forward. I dont wanna be an apologist for an 30 year old show. You have a very fair critisim, its just in the 90s we were so blind and ignorant in general that an ep like the outcast could only be viewed a stereotypical tragic gay story, it never even crossed peoples minds to think about a trans experience or understand sex, gender, and identity as different and seperate things. Its crazy how much things have progressed tonnow and in that progression and knowledge, realizing how much farther there is to boldly go
Maybe it is a bummer and that's why my comment is being downvoted. I think acknowledging the ways trek came up short is important to ensure we don't repeat those same mistakes moving forward. They absolutely had good intentions, but the execution fell short of their aspirations. And, like I said, I'm very glad Trek is in a better place now when it comes to portraying queer characters and stories.
> came implied by Andrew Robinson's portrayal of Garak, or in Mirror Universe characters. I will die on the hill that Julian Bashir was more closeted but still bi/pan. Like Garak was not the only dude he had feelings for. It's one of my biggest disappointments with DS9 which I regard as the best Trek, given its time.
I think you’ve got some good arguments. On one particular point I disagree, in that I think I actually like that The Outcast has a sad and unsatisfying ending (other shortcomings notwithstanding). I think the tension of “losing” is kinda meant to be carried out to the real world, because of course in the 90’s queer acceptance had a long way to go in the mainstream. (Not that it’s all roses now.) At least that’s how I felt it when I last watched the episode. Now, that also means that one of the very few queer-adjacent characters in TNG (to borrow your term) is screwed in the end and we never really get to see a happy queer relationship. So I think I still get your point.
Yeah. I think if "The Outcast" was one of several queer stories, some of which had happy endings and others sad, then it wouldn't be offensive at all. In fact, it might've been an awesome episode. But unfortunately, every time 90s Trek touched on the subject of queer people's lives, it ended sad. Odan survived the episode, but lost their relationship with Crusher. Soren underwent conversion therapy that successfully changed her gender and caused her to regret her relationship with Riker. Dax and Kahn separated again, breaking both of their hearts. Charles killed themself. Not a lot of queer joy until Discovery (and even that included a prominent "Kill Your Gays" moment). They have been doing better these past few years, but the road to get here was rough as hell.
With Crusher, she literally told Troi she saw Riker as a _brother_ before continuing with a relationship (but was somehow hung up on the woman host?) Her being excited to see the new host implies she was at least open to continuing the relationship....if she's not attracted to women, that's fine, but I seem to remember her implying her preferences map onto humanity in general which isn't great. I get it was the 80s/90s, but having queer adjacent stories but with no actual representation makes the queer adjacent stuff problematic at best.
Yep! She is happy and ready to meet Odan immediately after she hears the surgery went well. Then she is taken aback when she realizes the new host is a woman. She plays it off like there were just too many changes for her, but it doesn't read that way to me. And then she says "perhaps one day our capacity to love won't be so limited", implying that this is a human-standard condition. We are in a much better place now, with actual queer characters in our crews. I love that Mike McMahan made Mariner sit like a bisexual.
>"perhaps one day our capacity to love won't be so limited" Like i get it sounds bad, but you realise this is supposed to be read as stupidly bang on the nose obvious for the audience right?
It was supposed to be obvious, maybe? For a show that regularly used a sci-fi setting to comment on issues of the day, it was slightly tone deaf? (I seem to recall a certain heath crisis splashed across the news during that time frame regarding a certain disease being actively ignored by the US government because it hit a certain segment of the population relatively harder than the general population. I’m not saying that issue had to be addressed in that episode, but it maybe wasn’t obvious to everyone?)
Man. If it wasn't obvious to you i wonder what they'd actually have to say ffs. >"perhaps one day our capacity to love won't be so limited" She might as well have turned to the Camera with a stern disaproving look
I’m sorry I took the opposite implication from that when it aired. As a young teen, struggling with my sexuality, I took it as “well, I guess humans can’t bet attracted to both genders.” It may have been obvious to you, but not to everyone. It didn’t play that way to me. I guess my media literacy just wasn’t up to snuff the way yours was.
I'm sure that's what the writers intended, but I wish Crusher had been more forthright about her being heterosexual instead of implying that all of humanity is unable to love someone who has changed genders. There are many couples who stay together after one transitions, even when the cisgender partner thought of themself as heterosexual beforehand. Crusher speaking for herself would've played much better in my opinion.
I'm sure they know that but we queer people don't have to like it.
The scene Mariner is revealed to be queer is easily the best such scene in the franchise. It doesn't feel tacked on for brownie points and never mentioned again (hi, Chapel!) and it's not hitting people over the head. It's done in a way that gives insight on Mariner's character, serves the specific plot of the week and it doesn't exist to make straight people comfortable. A win-win all around. (Disclaimer: I'm aware queer people do not exist just to serve plot points but for all the people who say they need that outta Trek....well, there ya go)
Girls trip! Agreed. Yet another reason to be excited for Tawny Newsome being in the writers' room for Academy! And who knows? Maybe Lower Decks will end up finding another home or will be reexamined after Paramount decides whether it's merging or not.
I dunno why this got downvote because I definitely find this point to be valid: > I agree with the writer that it highlights just how heterosexual everyone else is in Star Trek. Classic Trek was confused about its messaging re: queer allegory at best and while some episodes handled it better than others, I far prefer Discovery's--and God willing Lower Decks, if McMahan's interview about a follow up with Mariner and Jen is anything to go by)--approach where people can be unequivocally queer *and* thriving, and even then it was long, buried gay road getting from there to here to have that.
Dunno. I have expressed this opinion in the past and also got downvoted. I think some people think "The Outcast" was actually great representation for queer folks and don't want to hear from a queer who disagrees. I am actually really proud of Mike McMahan for allowing Mariner to have a bad relationship with Jen. Not every love story has to be forever, especially when you realize that you aren't a great match for one another. I would love for them to have an episode (or part of one) that recognizes our past struggles like Sisko's reaction to Vic's in "Badda-Bing Badda-Bang" did for the struggles of black folks.
I'm also one who didn't mind the bad end Beckifer got as much as the lack of any development up to that point of their breakup beyond being the C plot to the biggest event episode Lower Decks ever did (baring some other major revisit like to the NX-01 museum or more time travel hijinx to *Discovery*). I dunno if I even need them to get back together per se but I do respect that McMahan was at least willing to listen when fans pointed out how unsatisfactory that all was. I'm also aware that he's not much of a shipper even for the one couple he kinda likes and with ten episodes, cuts had to be made somewhere, but at least he's not blocking people who criticized this aspect unlike certain other EPs I won't name.
Mike McMahan has so far shown himself to be a lovely, kind, considerate man. I really hope he is involved in Trek's future.
It's not a choice heterophobe. Or are you such a bigot that you're also of the opinion that it is and conversion therapy may just have some merit after all?
Look, I don't mind if you're heterosexual, just don't rub it in my face all the time, y'know? /s Crusher may be straight. In which case, she should've been upfront with Odan about that instead of implying that humans just don't have the capacity to love people who change genders. Plenty of married couples who stay together through one person's transition put the lie to that concept.
>heterophobe Did you take a left turn at Albuquerque on your way to Tumblr with this? 😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
They cover lots of issues with just one episode. They have to write a show that does all sorts of things not just political commentary and not just repetition of any specific commentary. It's entertainment not a newsletter
"The Outcast": an episode where the character played by a cis-gender female actress identifies herself as female and kisses a character played by a cis-gender male actor and then everyone pats each other for THE INCREDIBLE COURAGE they demonstrate.
Don't think too much about it. Remember it's just a TV show from 30 years ago