Watch: Martin-Green Battles Piers Morgan On Gender Fluid Future + Isaacs Talks ‘Discovery’ Winning Over Fans

The Star Trek: Discovery European press tour continues this week with more TV appearances and interviews. We have gathered some highlights from Sonequa Martin-Green, Jason Isaacs, and Aaron Harberts talking to the UK media below.

Martin-Green battles Piers Morgan

Sonequa Martin-Green was a guest on ITV’s Good Morning Britain today, and the segment started off talking about her character, named Michael Burnham. The actress noted how it was a tradition for co-creator Bryan Fuller to have women with male names and talked about how it was also tied to the archangel Michael. But after recounting her personal version about Burnham being named for her father and that it is a “statement of the gender fluidity of the future,” the comment triggered co-host Piers Morgan. Watch the exchange below.

Isaacs says Discovery is winning over the fans (except for a few)

Isaacs picked up on this theme in an interview with Digital Spy, saying:

“There’s a huge fanbase that’s very protective of this thing that dominates their social lives and in many ways defines a lot of people who are really obsessive fans. They’re right to be protective of it, and I think we’re winning them over.”

But he is aware not everyone has embraced the show, noting

“There are still people who like to make a loud noise. A lot of them have three followers and two of them are their dogs, but it doesn’t matter – their opinions are welcome too. They’re clearly watching, ‘This is disgraceful, I’m never watching it again, I’ll give it one more week!’ It’s a shame if any people are genuinely upset, but mostly they’re engaged – and even the people who are criticising it are fully engaged, which is as much as you could hope for.”

Isaacs was also a guest on ITV’s “Lorraine”, and in between chatting about the tightness of the Discovery costumes, they also talked about how fans are “finally” embracing the show after being “rightfully protective of this legacy.” Later, the actor talked movingly about supporting co-star Anthony Rapp following his bombshell accusations against Kevin Spacey. Watch the exchange below.

Harberts on ‘Thrones’ influence and ‘Discovery’ being family-friendly

Also talking to Digital Spy was co-showrunner Aaron Harberts, who confirmed how HBO’s Game of Thrones has influenced Discovery:

“Our goal for Star Trek was to create not just something that fans loved, but that it was something that other people who thought they didn’t like Star Trek would jump into, and the only thing I could draw from was Game of Thrones.

And speaking to the Decider, Harberts explained why Discovery is a better fit for CBS All Access over Showtime:

The feels more CBS than Showtime. The shows I’ve loved on Showtime — like Nurse Jackie and Californication — are edgy and risky and deal with subject matter that’s provocative and even graphic. We wanted to make sure that Discovery would be family-friendly. It may not be appropriate for 10- or 11-year olds, but it’s definitely something teen-agers can watch with parents. Star Trek shows have been handed down — from big brother to little sister, from father to daughter — like an heirloom. We were excited to get the opportunity to blaze a trail with CBS All Access.

Finally, here is a Getty photo slideshow from the UK press tour.

Embed from Getty Images

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusive in the US on CBS All Access with new episodes released Sundays at 8:30 pm ET. In Canada Star Trek: Discovery airs on the Space Channel at the same time. Discovery is available on Netflix outside the USA and Canada with new episodes made available Monday at 8 am BST.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.





Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Typical. Piers Morgan *completely* misunderstands what Gender-Fluidity is. Hint: It’s not deciding to be a girl on Tuesdays and a boy on Wednesdays.

Yeah he missed the idea of it but Sonequa didn’t explain herself very well in the beginning either in regards to what she thinks gender roles in the future will be. I also think for what it was worth it was a nice civil discussion for a difficult topic. Not everybody knows everything about gender, sexual and/ or transgender issues. Some people might know a lot about some topics and next to nothing about the rest. Sonequa explained what she meant and corrected his misunderstandings.

As for Jason Isaacs and Lorraine; I like their exchanges. He was right about the fan base’s protectives as well as how some people just want to know how the buttons on a phaser work. I think he has changed some what in regards to the fandom. Or at least he seems to be phrasing things differently. Which makes sense. As the show goes along both sides have an opportunity to correct their misconceptions.

“Michael” is not a common female name in 2256. Cadet Tilly mentioned it odd that there was a female named Michael, other than the “traitor Michael Burnham”. Sonequa Martin-Green and the producers don’t know what the hell they are talking about (in their own show).

How mature.

Just stating the facts. What’s mature/immature about that?

From episode 3 “Context Is for Kings”: Sitting uneasily on her bed, Tilly asks for Burnham’s name, then notes that she had never met a female named Michael before.

Now, if you wanna talk mature. How about you state your issue with my previous comment, with more than just “How mature.” ?

I took Tilly’s statement to mean that she personally had never known/met a female named Michael. She had just heard of a female Michael. I also think that the scene was trying to make the point that just because you have heard things about a person doesn’t mean you know who they are. I will acquiescence though that it seems the scene might be open for some interpretation as to what Tilly’s meaning was in regards to the name Michael for a female.

Agree with your interpretation, Michael isn’t that common a name for women in 23rd century, based on Tilly’s comment. Then again, Tilly’s comment makes no sense on any level. I’m pretty sure in the 23rd century, which one would presume to be as media-saturated as ours, it would be downright impossible not to have seen an image of Michael Burnham, Starfleet’s first mutineer and instigator of the ongoing war, at any point between the mutiny and when Burnham made it aboard Disco. Unless Tilly doesn’t have space TV, or space internet, or something. Otherwise I can’t explain why she’s so surprised when she finds out who Burnham is.

I think it would be a mite surprising to find out you’re suddenly sharing quarters with a Notorious Mutineer!

Burnham’s “reputation” intimidates Tilly until she gets to know her as a real person.

Meurik is right. Why argue? Is “Gender-Fluidity” garabage that important to somepeople?

Exactly? Why argue? If they consider themselves gender fluid, it’s their choice to do so. You have no say, so it’s useless to argue.

They may “consider themselves” whatever they wish, but ultimately, it all boils down to their chromosomes – which, much like bowels, don’t respond to voluntary decisions. The idea that one can “decide” to be a man or a woman is really just a contemporary fad caused by people having too much time on their hand and not enough to do. After WW3 and the era of post-atomic horror, there will be so much work that nobody will have any time to waste on arbitrary sociological constructs – and after the world is rebuilt, the concept of “gender” will be just as much outdated laughing stock as the concept of “phrenology” or “hollow Earth” are today.

No, a you who doesn’t know what the hell theyre talking about. All she’s saying is that *in her view* (and that’s important) names are not as gender based in Star Trek’s future, and it wouldn’t be unusual or something to be judged if a woman were given what is considered today a male name.

What she didn’t say was “according to the producers and the series bible, there’s a thousand other women named Michael in Starfleet.”


U tell her

I took Tilly’s comment to mean exactly what she said, she’s not familiar with other female Michael’s. it’s not the head count that matters, just that one could name their daughter Michael if they chose without it violating a societal norm. We think nothing of telling our daughters now they can be the doctors, back in the 50’s that was unheard of. Silly girl, you’re the nurse. Deal with it.

I still don’t understand all the continuing fuss over naming a woman Michael. It’s been done already. I immediately thought of Emmy Award winning actress Michael Learned from “The Waltons” 70s TV show. It was probably more common in the mid 20th century than it is right now but those things are cyclical, or dare I say, fluid.

Same here….

I do understand the fuss given what’s been going on in the U.S.A. these days. Changes make certain people so nervous, they see it everywhere, even when it’s not much of a change afterall.

@ EXACTLY. I liked her idea of that she is named after her father. That is the type of things that doeas actually happen. But, she can can go to hell with that “Gender-Fluidity” crap.

You do realize that gender fluidity can be exactly that – being named after your father when you’re a female. It wasn’t a female version of the name Michael, it’s just plain Michael…


And angels, whether you believe in them or not, were sexless.

Why go to hell? What about gender fluidity does anything to you personally? She even makes the same point, that regardless of how bother you are. It’s not on you to feel that way. …It’s about the person who makes that choice for the label.

Your feelings have zip to do with it.

Is Meurik a male or female name? I’ve never heard of it before.

LOL, Cap!

What are you even talking about? It’s pretty obvious that the writers/producers felt that in the future, parents could name their daughter Michael and it not be a strange thing. That doesn’t mean you have most females walking around named Paul or Stan or John, or that you have many men walking around named Jackie or Susan, or Sharon. And you know what, that totally matches up with what Gene expected our Trek future society to be like.


Even so, there are males named Marion, Leslie, Sue, etc.

True, I’ve just always looked at those names as very similar to Chris or Kris. They’re gender-neutral, not inherently male or female.

Yes, hyper-masculine John Wayne had the real first name “Marion.”

One of my male relatives on my stepmom’s side was named Jackie. Or Jacky.

I don’t know how much you’re winning me over, Mr. Issacs, but I do like your character best of any other on the show. Captain Lorca is ok in my book.

Issacs is hilarious and has a good perspective on Star Trek. His twitter feed is great fun, and he’d be wonderful doing that SNL get a life sketch.

If you want to see just how funny he is watch Death of Stalin. He steals the movie as Zhukov (with a Yorkshire accent for added hilarity)

Having contempt for a group of people who keep you in a job is surely not a good quality to possess? He probably would do something like you suggest, and then be fliting off to the conventions to charge £70 a pop for a photo, like Shatner does.

I heard him recently on After Trek talking about the “nauseating” wave of love he got from the fans. I must say, I’ve never heard anyone combine those two ideas in a single sentence! More fool anyone who idolises a person who holds them in such obvious low regard.

It’s not contempt, it’s perspective. Some fans take Star Trek way too seriously, it is just a TV show. I doubt he thinks of himself as an idol. It’s seeing the funny side in a group of people that can get so riled up over something as trivial as improvements to Klingon makeup in TMP.

As for Shatner, he’s seen the ridiculous side of Trek and just decided to fully embrace it. Shatner is very smart and has cultivated his public persona in the same way David Hasslehof has. Both men are self aware and ironic. Both know their music is rubbish and that their now famous for being themselves. Hell, I doubt Shatner has watched any Trek since Generations came out. He just milks the cash cow for what he can and is far more interested in his horses. I’ve seen him at conventions where if he’s asked a question about Trek, he just goes off on a weird tangent and talks about something else that interests him. Conventions for him are just an ego trip.

Incidentally, I love Trek and have dressed up for conventions. It’s a bit of fun. I can understand that for the actors, it’s just a paying gig.

You’re right about Shatner and I don’t like him for the same reasons.

I think he may have contempt for those who take Trek so seriously that they “hate” this or that person or character, but I don’t get the sense that he has contempt for fans who love the show.

Isaacs is British and is probably a bit embarrassed over the “wave of love” and says it’s “nauseating” because maybe it’s a little scary or weird for him; maybe people get weepy or act sickly sweet. He got some strange adulation for his role as Lucius Malfoy too, and for some actors, it’s just incredibly weird and a bit tiresome.

Good actors aren’t in the business for adulation, they’re in the business to explore different characters and have adventures in fictional worlds or families. They can play “pretend” and get paid! I mean, who wouldn’t love a job like that?

[Except for 3 a.m. call times, 70 repeats of a take, repeating the perfect take because there was a technical goof &c.]

What I do like is seeing more websites talking about episodes of Discovery and really getting into the meat of it. They’re appreciating more than the recent Kelvin films and are able to dive in to the characters, plot, etc like most modern dramas. As a lifelong Trek fan, that makes me happy. The series as a whole is growing.

Piers Morgan is a moron. A complete idiot.

“How mature.” ~ AdAstra

Ironic, isn’t it? Calling me out as being “immature” for stating facts, and AdAstra him/herself acting immature.

I anost agreed with you, but your childish responses here aren’t doing you any favors.

It’s a statement of fact. Most people in the UK consider Morgan to be a moron.

Grow up.

Morgan is his own mind.

“We wanted to make sure that Discovery would be family-friendly. It may not be appropriate for 10- or 11-year olds, but it’s definitely something teen-agers can watch with parents.”

Given that nowadays’ parents are used to watch harder stuff with their kids, it may work. But the rating authorities in Europe (outside France and probably Italy) will have a hard time opening this up for teenagers under 15 (UK) or 16 (Germany). I envy you Americans. You don’t have any age restrictions punched in your face on DVDs’ cover art like in Germany, UK or Australia.

I know, there are parents who don’t care about these restrictions anymore, but others do. My late father would have never let me watch DISCO at the age of 12-13, when I started back in the early 90s. He was very squeaming about graphic violence and gore. Okay, but then, we are talking about todays’ parents who are used to dealing with GOT and TWD… It’s still so confusing…

I might want to conclude it is fear, German Angst, that’s the driving force behind my insecurity. In some way, I feel like a true Kelpian. That fear has always been with us and created that insane censorship system that, while slackened more recently, still dominates my mind when it comes to the mere idea of kids and teenagers watching “adult” stuff. Kelpian Angst, I guess :-) In that way, Discovery has truly been all about self-discovery for me. I certainly know more about my feelings that ever before. And yes, Lorca…er…Isaacs is right. I am VERY engaged, despite my constant criticism!

I’d say it’s fine for 12 and over. Some TOS episodes dealt with upsetting themes, for example, The Empath is pretty disturbing. Even TNG had an exploding head in Conspiracy, vaporised people to their skeletons- that one with the deaf guy and of course Chain of Command. I think the new show is tame by co parison to some of that stuff.

Incidents of really graphic violence were so few and far between, though. First Contact and Nemesis were PG-13 before Abrams came along, and Enterprise pushed the envelope ever so slightly in seasons 3 and 4 with the occasional TV-14 episode, but we almost never saw anything as graphic as even just the throwaway shots of Cromwell’s guards getting their throats slit or the viscera on display in that Klingon morgue this week. This is commonplace now, and it’s absolutely a little less family friendly than the other Trek shows were.

And then of course there’s the infamous F-word incident. ;)

Graphic violence in DSC have also been few and far between. A couple of brief shots here and there. My kids are older but if they were 10 today I’d probably let them watch this, assuming they wanted to. But not any younger.

Which sometimes saddens me– because I was 7 when TNG started airing and loved it as a kid.

But on the other hand, were only talking about a difference of 2-3 years.

All told I don’t have a big issue with the age appropriateness of DSC.

Every single episode has at least one incident of gore or graphic violence. That’s very different than before. I’m not saying it’s wrong, and parents certainly know what their kids can handle, but they’re certainly earning their TV-14+ ratings these days. It’s far more overtly adult a series than any of the previous ones.

I guess that I find the psychological horror of the Empath or Chain of command more disturbing than a bit of blood. Nothing has been as scary as those ear eels from TWOK though!

The ear eels are one of the only times as a child when I flinched while watching Star Trek. Tom Paris ripping out his tongue in “Threshold” was the other.

Trek is timeless. Kids can watch all of TNG and DS9 and VOY = 400 plus episodes to watch right there!

Wait, there aren’t ratings on North-American DVDs? It’s been a while since I’ve actually seen a DVD/bluray, but I thought we had ratings…


We do. But it is a voluntary industry standard. The closest we have to a law that could prosecute any vendor for ignoring a rating is the M that was created for Video Games. And even at that, I’ve seen it regularly ignored at retailers in taking kids monies. It’s just not treated as big a deal as selling cigarettes or alcohol to minors.

Smike, without being sarcastic, I understand what it’s like to be a sensitive person (under the clinical classification). This issue of onscreen violence seems to be a hot-button topic for you, and you seem to be working out a lot of personal issues in your discussion of it.

As I have learned from my own therapy, there is a strategy called “externalizing” to blame things on your parents, your nationality, school, friends, or sense of national culture/character, when in reality your reaction is personal. You need to take ownership of it and realize that your reaction is yours and yours alone. (Point: Uwe Boll is also German, and makes hyperviolent movies… so his nationality has nothing to do with it. Unless you want to get into a ‘No true scotsman’ logical fallacy).

You seem disturbed… at being disturbed. Ask yourself: what exactly are you trying to work out here? Do you think you *shouldn’t* be disturbed? Do you resent your father for what sounds like a very sheltered existence, and now that he’s gone, you can’t get any closure on that issue? Are you at odds with a world that is harsher than you were led to believe?

Fred, Are you a psychologist? I mean, it’s fine to ask questions of smike, but it seems like you’re psychoanalysing him and making recommendations, which … I dunno, I think I’d have asked if that was okay first.

You never know, Uwe Boll may make hyper-violent movies as a reaction to his own childhood in Germany, or his own family. Why does Quentin Tarantino make hyper-violent movies? Or Guillermo del Toro, his creepy horror movies?

Germans have been dealing with the consequences of history for the last hundred years, and after the devastation of WWII their country’s leaders took care that what happened to their citizens would not happen in future. They have taken very seriously the Jewish concept of “never again.”

Unfortunately, hate groups are on the rise in Europe. Germany has some controls in place for them, thanks be. Those controls may include the ratings system, to discourage teens [who can go to extremes] from enacting violence they may see in TV and films.

Ah, Piers … ever the pillock.

Sonequa handled this well. Such a classy lady in every one of her interviews. I’m so happy she’s representing Star Trek.

She sounds as intelligent as her character.

Very proud of her. Not once allowing the patronizing questions to get to her.

Sonequa is a BOSS. A great representative of the values of Trek: brilliance and compassion!

Ovaj Harberts je teška pederčina… xD

What could possibly be more important that this?

Piers Morgan is such s pompous fool. I love the way SMG put him in his place without going to the gutter.

He was just trying to “disturb shit”.

Yep, good ol’ Piers, always asking the “penetrating, incisive, disturbing questions.” At least I imagine that’s what he says to himself when he comes out with this stuff.

Definitely hasn’t won me over. Hideous uniforms, butchered Klingons, lip-service predictable social commentary buzzwords… yeesh. And barely any respect for canon. Yeesh.

They’ve definitely won me over! Cool uniforms, props, and sets, Klingons finally done justice as a well-rounded alien race, moral quandaries and social commentary in the finest tradition of Trek, and it all fits neatly with canon when you really look closely. Amazing show!

There I fixed it for you.



That’s at Burnham Alive’s comment, obviously.

Rolls eyes

Considering your continual presence here, I think you must love the show. I never frequent the boards of show I hate, don’t even know where they are.

You’re a strange person.

@ Gingerly. Spare me. I may “hate” Discovery. But, I LOVE Star Trek. I will always give Star Trek I don’t like a chance to grow on me. TOS, TNG, DS9, ENT, and the Kelvin-verse are my favorites, I love even the less than stellar episodes and movies because they were all at least fun, entertaining, and fit into the larger Trek world. I was not a big fan of Voyager or the TNG movies, but I found much about them to enjoy as well. Just as I find a few things that I enjoy about Discovery. I would like nothing more for Discovery to kick it up a notch and blow me away.

I think they will :^)

Well, except for Spock and Michael being raised together, and did I understand that Spock is YOUNGER? How old was he when he went to SF Academy? Because as of DISCO, he’s already been on the Enterprise serving with Captain Pike for three years …!

@ DejectedRedShirt I could not agree more.

And yet, here you are. Hmmm….

Why is Piers Morgan still on TV anywhere on the planet? FFS…

HOLY SH*T! Is that woman ever smug and pretentious! SJW monsters have hijaked Star Trek. “Gender-Fluidity” is evil garbage and belongs in an dystopian future, not a future of hope and humanity.

I don’t necessarily agree with or subscribe to much of what the far left says about gender fluidity, but I fail to see how it’s “evil garbage.”

It’s strikes me that at the heart of the issue is a desire for people to live their lives the way they choose and be treated equally.

I see nothing wrong with that. And in a very important way there is nothing more Star Trek than that.

You don’t sound much like a Trek fan with your vile hateful speech, either.

You can miss me with your BS. Thank you.

I was genuinely hoping for a rational rebuke clarifying your position in a way that would reframe the discussion and perhaps make me reexamine my evaluation of the issue.

Sadly you’ve shown your true colors.

The good news is your kind will eventually be lost to history.

If “my kind” is lost in histroy that will be the end of human procreation…. I don’t think your “gender fluid” friends will help you out much…..


Re: the end of human procreation

You understand absolutely nothing about the science of reproduction or the evolution from which human procreation fluidly developed its X and Y chromosomes or the fact that an identical twin forms from throwing back to naturally occurring cloning which is asexual and which has absolutely nothing to do with your preferred method of human procreation. Or as STAR TREK has always promoted: There are always possibilities.

Disinvited, Wow. What a brainwashed tool you are.

Or, um, maybe someone who’s actually interested in SCIENCE.

Trust me, people will be schtupping each other as long as there are people. And as long as there are people, some are bound to fulfill the role you feel is the ONLY role.

Sorry you can’t distinguish between BS and a well-stated position. Well, not that sorry.

“Miss me”? LOL, the irony of using SJW slang in your non-rebuke.

No one saying people can’t live their lives they way they choose. What should be said is people can not expect society to change and twist to accommodate the delusions of people who think they are the opposite sex/gender. If you are a man you the men’s restroom for example. If you are a woman you are going to be referred to with female pronouns is another example.

Jack D,

Tell that to the birds. These “biological” definitions are simply NOT as cast in stone as you and others assume. These sexual things evolved over millions of years from life that had been asexually reproducing for millions of years prior as well. Still do. Our very lives depend on our bodies’ cells being able to still do it every day for us to live.

Asexually reproductive life didn’t just get hit with lightning and suddenly there were two well-defined sexes. Sexual reproduction evolved fluidly over eons and still is.

Male birds have two male chromosomes in their cells pairs. Humans males have both a female AND a male in theirs. Are these dinosaurs’ older “biological” chromosome pairing definition the original and only “true” one for being “biologically” male?

When people can sprout dangly bits in their pants at will or retract them back into their abdomen at will, our society may need to address that by adjusting its social norms and language. But last time I checked, this wasn’t the case, and it is highly unlikely it will be the case any moment soon. Isn’t it a bit too early to worry about something that may or may not happen sixty million years from now?


Apparently you’ve never been a male in a cold winter clime.

But it is a biological fact that human babies have been born with both sex organs and it is till occurring. It doesn’t take 60 million years to wait for the supposed clear distinctions to be blurred. They always were.

In the long history of life reproducing on this planet male and female exclusive reproduction is in the minority.


Re: Isn’t it a bit too early

Here’s a news flash for you, people have been sprouting both bits for ages. That why medicine defines the organ expressions as 5 sexes for humans.

Yeah, you probably shouldn’t be a Star Trek fan. This universe clearly isn’t for you.

Piers Morgon is a moron. Gender is a silly social construct and putting people in boxes so the weak-minded can have everything in an easy box is a waste of time. Go Sonequa! This woman kicks ass. <3

Um no, gender is biological because gender and sex are the same. Guess what, men and woman are different.

Jack D,

Re: gender is biological.

It is biological in that for millennia its been defined solely by the possession of a particular sex organ. But it is also a biological fact across those same millennia that some individuals are born with both and clearly are therefore neither.

Guess what, evolving life is different.

Is it really? Most people who, you know, *actually* study humans know that there is a vast spectrum and most of us fall somewhere along it.

Gender is what you identify as, separate of anything else.
Sex is your biological, physical form, separate of anything else.
Sexuality refers to your preferences and activities, separate of anything else.

Even for nominally “straight” people, those three factors each contain a wide spectrum…of infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

And I ain’t gonna be the one to tell my many queer, trans, and nonbinary friends and colleagues that there’s something “wrong” with them!

Good on ya Fred! Thanks for saying it clearly.

Sonequa’s erudition in interviews has always impressed me, just simply fantastic, and she does it in such a classy way. That’s our leading lady right there.

I am so sick of this gender fluidity crap. For a show supposed to be about science (when possible unlike Star Wars) from Liberals always ranting about science, there is none with gender fluidity. To be blunt it is a mental disorder. You can dress like the other sex or act like the other sex or think you are the other sex or take hormones to look and sound more like the other sex or even get surgery to look limke the other sex but no matter what you do you are what your DNA says you are. Thats called SCIENCE so stop anableing and encouraging their delusion. These people should not be mocked but should get the help they need. This may sound harsh but people being PC isn’t helping them.


Being gender fluid is not a mental disorder. Having tolerance and respect for people is neither PC crap, nor encouraging delusional thought.

There are people born “intersex”. This means that they may have male and female sex organs. Some intersex persons may be assigned and raised as a girl or boy but then identify with another gender later in life. It is surprisingly common place, both in people and animals.

There is no delusional thought here, these people are gender fluid. If you’re interested to learn more about the SCIENCE, this Wikipedia article may be of interest.

People really are diverse and interesting.

Having both sex organs (intersex) doesn’t make you both sexes. As I said DNA. When you go to the hospital and they need to know your sex you don’t say both and if you were never told what specific sex then they will have to test you. Do you have a uterus and fallopian tubes? Difference in Hormone levels. Chromozones. You are exacly the problem I just mentioned. Transgender suicide rate is a staggering almost 10 times higher than the general population (higher than 40% compared to less than 5%) and this isn’t due to discrimination but due to their internal conflict even after surgery, etc. And nice try trying to claim lack of tolerance and respect. I specifically said they shouldn’t be mocked which means mistreated but instead need help. Pacifying them isn’t helping looking at the suicide rate. Perhaps you should try learing more. I bet you also believe in handing out free needles to heroin addicts just so they won’t get aids or another disease therefore letting the addict minimize the consequences of their actions. If you have kids no matter their age do you tell them when they are wrong or are you the parent that says they can never do wrong? Grow up instead of insinuating bad motives and insulting others.

Sorry if you felt insulted by my comment. I was using your words and not trying to be personal. As such, I will not respond to your personal attack on me here.

When it comes to someone’s sex, it really can be more complicated than deciding if someone is male or female. For instance, some people carry two x chromosomes mixed with a fragment of Y. Outwardly, these people look like males. However, the presence of two x chromosomes makes them female. It is possible that such a person could conceive or sire a child.

I don’t think that either of us will agree with the other. I do not think that sexuality is as binary a thing as I was brought up to believe.



If you are going to try to misapply DNA over the traditional believed organ expression definition, which I remind you was why parents bother to lop off one or the other when both occur simultaneously and medical science has NEVER nixed parental choice in favor of the newborn’s chromosome pairing as you seem to falsely believe, then X chromsome is female and Y is male but since the vast majority of humans with penises have BOTH X AND Y, unlike male birds, the vast majority of humans passing for male are therefore intersex by DNA as they have BOTH female AND male DNA.

@Disinvited you’re literally taking examples of people who have genetic deficiencies and/or mutations, it’s not normal and it doesn’t constitute people changing their gender.

Thank you…


Re: mutationa

Just exactly how is it that you believe on planet where life evolved things like sexual reproduction, that mutations are not “normal”?

The vast majority of life on our planet reproduced and continues to reproduce asexually. Sexual reproduction is the mutated abnormality according to the viewpoint that you are attempting to espouse.

Disinvited you are literally taking two different things and trying to turn them into the same argument. What does evolution and asexual reproduction have to do with people trying to nip-tuck their way to become the opposite sex? Last time I checked humans can’t reproduce asexually and humans also can’t reproduce with the same sex, also a man who tries to turn into a woman can’t produce eggs and a woman trying to turn into a man can’t produce sperm. I think you actually just made my argument for me as to why transgenderism isn’t natural so thank you.


Re: evolution and asexual reproduction have to do with it?

Because human sexuality arose from it and is not something apart from it.

Re: humans can’t reproduce asexually

Yes they can and do through the natural cloning which for some reason is occurring in ever increasing rates in humans that produces an identical twin. The identical twin does not result from the mother’s egg cloning and a clone of the father’s sperm fertilizing it. The identical twin occurs from asexual reproduction of the original zygote producing a clone of itself.

Evolution is important because the original male sex that evolved was from male-male chromosome pairs. Male mammals, and human males specifically are an aberrant mutation from that consisting of chromosome pairings from BOTH sexes. They aren’t true males under your nothing changes and everything fits into the categories that always been philosophy.

Your contention that women can’t produce sperm is just more willful ignorance of the science. Women’s skin cells have already been used to make sperm.

Identical twins being produced asexually in the womb has absolutely nothing to do with people changing their gender. Also humans can’t asexually produce a clone of themselves. You’re literally making comparisons that have nothing to do with each other. And you’re the one with ignorance of the science, women can’t naturally produce sperm and men can’t produce eggs, all the science states that there are only two genders for which each has its own distinct biological differences and needs the other to reproduce.


Re: can’t naturally

And who decides what’s “natural”? The humans that practiced husbandry on their branded slaves?

I think you lost the right to invoke nature as being applicable to the debate when you brought a wholly artificial act, circumcision, into it.

Pretty sure nature decides what’s natural in addition to scientific fact. And nowhere does slavery have anything to do with it so here you go again with your fallacies. Also circumcision may be artificial but like modern medicine it’s done for the health and well being of a person.


Nature decides what’s natural and scientific facts? Where do you come up with this nonsense? How does nature make such “decisions?” You may be invoking the word but you are not describing science.

Re: And nowhere does slavery have anything to do with it

So, I was correct. You do believe human practiced husbandry was and is a “natural” part of nature’s “decisions.”

And since organisms simultaneously sporting both sex organs occurs in nature, you dismantle your whole only 2 premise.

Re: it’s done for the health and well being of a person.

Good intentions do not count when it come to the health and well-being of a person.

You acknowledge circumcision is not a part of “modern medicine” and yet you claim health and well-being benefits for it. How was that conclusion arrived at outside of the scientific method? My father was uncircumcised and was not the poorer in terms of health and well being for it.

According to modern medicine, abortions are done for the health and well being of a person.

You are literally making up complete bullshit arguments trying to put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say that I believed in slavery or husbandry yet you wanna try to accuse me of it simply because I merely pointed out that it has nothing to do with the conversation. Also I did say that circumcision is part of modern medicine. And as for abortion, if a woman sacrifices their child’s life to save their own they were never fit to be a parent in the first place. I mean seriously do you not see how incredibly fucked up that is? You are making shit up about me and grasping at straws showing how riddled with fallacies all of your arguments are. GTFOH.


@G66 thank you! I am getting so sick and tired of people perpetuating the delusions of people who are obviously mentally ill and need help. They deny scientific fact and make up their own BS to try to justify it.

Except actual scientists disagree with you. Ah well.

And there are also actual scientists who agree with me. It was always scientific fact that there are only two genders, it only recently became up for debate because that’s the trend nowadays and the people on the left come up with bullshit pseudo-science to try to justify their delusions. Funny how all those scientists who don’t agree with me have the same political views, I don’t think that’s a coincidence.


It was ALWAYS a scientific fact that the first life and the vast majority of it to date reproduced without recourse to sex which evolved from later mutations.

That literally has nothing to do with transgenderism, stop trying to deflect.


Sure it does. Because humans began classifying things as male and female BEFORE the scientific method arose. You have been deflecting that fact to make it seem that it was always defined in a scientific manner as you assert, which it wasn’t.

Pretty sure there was always males and females as long as there have been humans. What are you smoking?


Re: What are you smoking?

Why don’t you just get off the stick and admit that you don’t believe that millions of years ago that our ancestors reproduced without recourse to sex because you don’t accept science and its explanation, evolution, for how we and all life on Earth arose?

Again that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument, all you’ve done is deflect with red herrings and straw man arguments. Evolution and transgenderism are two wildly different topics and have nothing to do with each other. Also nowhere did I say that I didn’t believe that life evolved from organisms that produce asexually, but again it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and I’m really confused as to what point you’re trying to make.


My point is the human genome was and is not as fixed and static as you continue to believe it to be.

Your contention that human males which contain both sexes DNA can NEVER be converted by modern medical procedures into fertile women is as ludicrous as claiming said medicine will NEVER unlock the regeneration of our reptilian ancestors for our healing benefit.

Evolution is germane because such things have already happened in the long line of it to arriving at our current stage. Its absurd to keep claiming that what has already happened can never be made to happen again.

Again you are confusing asexual reproduction with transgenderism which literally have nothing to do with each other. Humans can not reproduce asexually or change their gender at all and pointing to evolution as a reason why people can change their gender is absolutely absurd. And since you keep bringing up chromosomes, if there aren’t only two genders than why are there only male and female chromosomes for gender and no others? You’re argument is the combination of those chromosomes yet they are based on either male or female, showing that there are only two distinct genders.

I don’t plan on getting into the weeds here, but homosexuality was classed as a disease until the American Psychiatric Association updated the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in the early 1970s.

But then, some folks don’t hold with psychiatry either. Like Scientologists ….

Homosexuality is different because that is simply who you are attracted to. Gay men still say they are men and loesbian women say they are women. The two should not be conflated.

There is no such thing as “Gender fluid”. One is biologically male or female. Gender and sex are the same thing, regardless of the pretzels people, especially on the political left, like to twist themselves into trying to say otherwise. There is also nothing wrong with traditional stereotypical male and female characteristics. The entire idea that an individual can feel like they are the opposite sex so therefore they will become the opposite sex is denying science and biology.

I have to say I’ve never heard of the term before reading this article and its comments. Both of which I now wish I’d skipped.

Nope, biology isn’t nearly so neat and tidy. Read a book now and then. Or even a magazine article.

Actually biology is pretty neat and tidy, you’re either male or female and that will never change.

“biology is neat and tidy” would never be said by anyone who studied and understood biology.

Thanks VoR.
God I love TrekMovie

Either way you’re either male or female and can never change your biology no matter how hard you try. No matter how many pills or injections you take and no matter how many surgeries you get, you will still always be the same gender, the only difference is that you just mutilated your body.


Did you just deny that sexual reproduction evolved from sexless reproduction? Worse, you are claiming that as sexual reproduction evolved the distinction between the male sex and the female sex was always distinct and clear. Talk about giving one reasons to LMAO.

Nowhere did I say anything like that so now you’re trying to put words in my mouth that literally have nothing to do with transgenderism at all. If you’re a male why don’t you try to chop your junk off and turn into a woman and try to get pregnant, and if you’re a woman why don’t you add a penis and turn into a man and try to see if you can impregnate someone, oh wait you can’t do any of that so that flat out proves that you can’t change your gender.


Human males contain the genetic code of both sexes unlike the original males that evolved on this planet.

Likewise the female Komodo dragon has both sexes paired DNA in its cells and yet, it can reproduce sexually AND asexually. And it also can asexually produce offspring of either sex.

Evolution applies because if humans’ komodo-dragon-like reptilian ancestors could do it, then it follows that it is NOT as entirely out of the question for humans as you incorrectly assume.

Humans foolishly hold onto false aphorisms such “A leopard can’t change its spots.” when science has already proven that not only CAN the leopard change its spots, but it does so fairly regularly in response to its need for adequate camouflage.

And scientific knowledge depends on a consensus of experimental results duplicated by peers. Not what one or the other singular scientists’ BELIEVE.

None of what you said provides any argument whatsoever on transgenderism. If you don’t think there are only two genders how many do you think there are then?


I don’t think. I know from my college education and hospital employment.

From the ‘Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 18. 729—733 (2005)’ (Note: the traditional nomenclature’s, “hermaphrodite”, is currently being refined towards the more accurately descriptive term, “intersex”.):

The present taxonomy for congenital sexual
anatomies divides humans into five types:

1.Females: defined as presenting only standard
female sexual anatomy.

2. Males: defined as presenting only standard male
sexual anatomy.

3. Female pseudohermaphrodites: defined as pre-
senting some mixture or blurring of standard
female and male sexual anatomy with the
presence of ovaries (and not testes or ovotestes)
and of an ‘XX’ chromosomal complement.

4. Male pseudohermaphrodites: defined as presen-
ting some mixture or blurring of standard female
and male sexual anatomy with the presence of
testes (and not ovaries or ovotestes) and of an
‘XY’ chromosomal complement.

5. True hermaphrodites: defined as presenting at
least one ovary and at least one testis, or at least
one ovotestis. (The definition of true hermaphro-
ditism does not depend on the presentation of
other sexual anatomy or the chromosomal

So you think there are five genders then lol? How do you tell which is which? Also as I keep reiterating the others are mutations/deformaties, not entirely different genders.


I thought you said nature “decides?” Well at least now you admit that you’ve set yourself up as the sole husbandman arbiter of life.

And again, evolution IS the science and mutations are NOT “unnatural.”

And the reason the science defines 5 genders is because those patterns keep recurring and are viable in that if left alone the organism matures and lives.

Also, I take great offense at your constant insinuation that people are not human that are born outside of what you arbitrarily regard as “normal.”

If there aren’t just two genders than why are there only male and female chromosomes for gender and no others? You’re argument is the combination of those chromosomes which you say states there are five genders yet they are based on either male or female, showing that there are only two distinct genders and not five. And also I take great offense at all the things you are insinuating and making up about me.

James did you seriously just use a Wikipedia article as a source lmfao?

Wow, I am impressed by Sonequa Martin-Green! I stopped watching Discovery after the fourth episode, I just couldn’t get into it. But Sonequa is just so classy and intelligent, I love having her represent Star Trek right now! Maybe I will give Discovery another chance some day, maybe.

Oh, and to all those who do not understand transgender folks: they have been around forever, it is only recently they feel more empowered to come out. It is not a mental disorder, it is just who they are. They can’t help it, it is not a choice. And why would you care? How are they hurting you if they decide to get a sex change and take hormone pills? If getting a sex change makes them happy, then I support it.

They are hurting other people because they are trying to force others to believe in their delusions even going as far as abusing children by giving them hormone blockers because they believe they can dictate their child’s sex/gender as well. No one should be supporting the delusions of the mentally ill. Also they are trying to normalize transgenderism by trying to force it on straight people which can scar someone for life. They are hurting people.


Re: abusing children by giving them hormone blockers

You mean this is somehow more abusive than parents dictating their children’s sex by, on a whim, lopping off one set of sex organs in babies born with both sets as opposed to waiting and letting the child come of age and have an opinion?

Are you seriously trying to defend child abuse? Let me guess you’re probably one of those people who thinks that circumcision is the same as genitalia mutilation right?


Re: Are you seriously trying to defend child abuse?

No, but it appears you are advocating infant abuse in trying to equate unnecessary life threatening surgery as being less abusive than administering medication or circumcision.

Some people on this thread sorely need to read a text book about embryology. But beware, you just might become “left wing” afterward LOL