Star Trek: Discovery will continue the franchise’s history of celebrating diversity with the introduction of two new characters in the third season, which debuts in October.
Meet Adira and Gray
Today, CBS All Access announced that season three of Star Trek: Discovery will introduce the franchise’s first non-binary and transgender regular characters. CBS sees the addition of these new characters as furthering Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry’s original vision of celebrating diversity and inclusion.
Joining the cast in season three is Blu del Barrio, playing the non-binary character Adira, described as “highly intelligent with a confidence and self-assurance well beyond their years.” Adira will find a new home on the U.S.S. Discovery and form an unexpected bond with Lt. Commander Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp) and Dr. Hugh Culber (Wilson Cruz).
The character can be spotted briefly in the season 3 trailer released at NYCC 2019.
In an interview with GLAAD, Blu spoke more about the character
Adira is a wonderfully complex character. Mainly because of this duality they have within them: they’re astonishingly intelligent and yet they’re still a kid. They experience their emotions at a heightened level, like most teenagers. That’s what makes them so fun to play. I like to describe them as cerebrally brilliant and emotionally a puppy. Adira is an introvert, but they keep a few people close to the chest, which I definitely resonate with. I don’t want to say too much and get in trouble, but all in all, Adira is a uniquely strange and beautiful character.
Blu del Barrio is a non-binary actor who uses they/them pronouns. Del Barrio was in their final year of studies at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art when they auditioned for the role of Adira. Del Barrio has been acting in theater and short films since the age of 7, and they’re incredibly excited to make their television acting debut in season three of Star Trek: Discovery.
Also joining the cast is Ian Alexander, playing the transgender character Gray, described as “empathetic, warm and eager to fulfill his lifelong dream of being a Trill host, but he will have to adapt when his life takes an unexpected turn.”
Ian Alexander is a 19-year-old actor who uses they/them and he/him pronouns. He is best known for his roles as Buck Vu on the Netflix series The OA and Lev in Naughty Dog’s video game The Last of Us Part II. They are the first out transgender Asian-American person to act on television. He is also an advocate for transgender equality, racial justice, and mental health awareness for LGBTQ+ youth.
“Star Trek has always made a mission of giving visibility to underrepresented communities because it believes in showing people that a future without division on the basis of race, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation is entirely within our reach,” said Michelle Paradise, co-showrunner and executive producer. “We take pride in working closely with Blu del Barrio, Ian Alexander, and Nick Adams at GLAAD to create the extraordinary characters of Adira and Gray, and bring their stories to life with empathy, understanding, empowerment and joy.”
Season 3 arrives on October 15th
The 13-episode third season of Star Trek: Discovery will soon be upon us. Here is the latest synopsis provided by CBS:
After following Commander Burnham into the wormhole in the second season finale, season three of STAR TREK: DISCOVERY finds the crew of the U.S.S. Discovery landing in an unknown future far from the home they once knew. Now living in a time filled with uncertainty, the U.S.S. Discovery crew, along with the help of some new friends, must work together to restore hope to the Federation.
The third season of Discovery will premiere on Thursday, Oct. 15. New episodes will be available on demand weekly on Thursdays, exclusively for CBS All Access subscribers in the United States.
Additional Discovery season three cast members include Sonequa Martin-Green (Commander Michael Burnham), Doug Jones (Commander Saru), Anthony Rapp (Lt. Commander Paul Stamets), Mary Wiseman (Ensign Sylvia Tilly), Wilson Cruz (Dr. Hugh Culber), David Ajala (Cleveland “Book” Booker) and Michelle Yeoh (Philippa Georgiou).
Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news and analysis here at TrekMovie.com.
I can bet my life that Trill will host the Dax Symbiote.
You could have a Zhian’tara and bring back Nicole Deboer and Terry Farrell
I suspect Dax will show up, but it won’t necessarily be him. Dax might be his mentor or something.
I am certain we’ll see the Dax symbiote. I do hope it’s on a permanent basis.
The Dax symbiote isn’t the only symbiote in the universe.
But it is the only one of value to long-term fans of Star Trek. I doubt that making the one from TNG Crusher dated for two minutes a part of the DIS cast would carry as much weight as if they brought back Dax.
Dax is one of the most popular characters in Star Trek. And the crazy thing about it, is Dax can literally be ANYONE lol. No Khan controversies here, it can be played by a black girl or an Asian man and just knowing its Dax will still draw people in.
So Dax is Star Trek’s Doctor Who.
A34 I don’t like you or want to talk to you. I know you’re lonely but I been telling you a year now. So what is it? Are you just trolling or want me to talk to you? Answer or leave me alone please.
if dax was back i would plotz… but they don’t live that long… i would happily enjoy any canon twist for it to happen though
I might have this wrong but Dax had several hosts before Jadzia and this is only what 100 years before DS9, give or take? Why would we need any canon twist for Dax to have been around during this time?
Discovery season 3 is set in the 32nd century. This is 800 years after DS9.
The Dax symbiont was born in 2018 and had a total of 9 hosts including Erzi by the time DS9 ended.
And Discovery now takes place 800 years post-Nemesis. No one knows how long symbionts suppose to live so its possible Dax could still be around.
assuming you havent seen season 2 at least how it ended… (highly recommended) as someone else has said they are far in the future now
Dax insisting on returning to work with a Starfleet ship to restore/revive the Federation sounds spot on.
The symbionts need to go back to the pools at some point, but it might be possible for them to return to inhabiting hosts after a restorative break.
Or, perhaps Dax’s memories might have been passed on to a new and younger symbiont. I can’t precisely recall, but I believe that symbionts can reproduce by dividing: would the memories pass on?
I really love how Kurtzman considers any character or species from any Trek era fair game for inclusion. The arbitrary walls between series are gone.
OMG, a Dax on the Discovery! That would be cool
But I’m not going to over think it. More than likely we won’t see Dax, but I am guessing at the very least they will be referenced.
But I also agree with you, I love the fact that we can now see or have any species again. That was reason #32 why I wasn’t very excited about Discovery being a TOS prequel because that would rule out a lot of different aliens we come to know. Although I am happy they made it canon that Trills were known in the 23rd century and we saw one in Starfleet in The Trouble with Edward.
But in a post-Nemesis show you don’t have to do double flips trying to figure out which species is OK to show or not. Now you can literally show whoever you want and the universe suddenly feels more bigger and lived in again.
It’s never been said how long they live, so you don’t know that.
They were long-lived compared to most humanoid species, and could easily live beyond 550 years.
If Dax appeared, it would make it the longest-living symbiont on record.
I doubt that that record includes more than one or two symbiotes anyway. I don’t know where the 550 number comes from, but that’s probably just the oldest age that we know a symbiote reached. My guess would be that it was Dax in Children of Time. We don’t really know what the lifespan of a symbiont is, so we have no reason to believe that they can’t live to be a few thousand years old.
The constant rush to be “hip”, “inclusive”, and “relevant” is appalling. Almost as if those things are more important than a cogent story. My take is this: Have gay characters, have trans characters, have non-binary characters, have whatever characters you want, but TELL GOOD STORIES that make since first. If season 3 is good, it doesn’t matter what characters you have in it. If it’s bad, having “inclusive” characters won’t make it better.
I don’t perceive them rushing to be hip. I felt the inclusion of Stamets and Culber stemmed from a cogent and quality story. I’m almost certain the producers have set out to make season 3 good. And I agree with you that they can have whatever characters they want as they set out to tell more good stories. I see nothing appalling here.
It’s very obvious that all of this is being forced in to look relevant. It’s potentially insulting to those sets of people due to have much of a point system it is.
Meanwhile the actual “Star Trek” is turning to garbage.
This is not Trek being inclusive, it’s people trying to win points.
I’m transgender. This one got stuck in me. I’ve heard things you can’t imagine. To see someone who’s walked my journey get a chance to serve Starfleet while a jackass tries to deny us a chance to serve now? Listen, I’ll tell you when I’m being insulted.
I agree completely
And can we please get a new pronoun for the non-binary folks. Using the plural “they/their” for singular folks… my tiny little brain can’t wrap itself around that.
Use what Peter David came up with in Star Trek: New Frontier for Burgoyne 172: “s/he” and “hir”. It’s non-binary. It’s non-plural. It comes from Star Trek. What more do you need (aside from nicer human beings on this planet who are more tolerant and receptive to IDIC)?🖖
Grammatically, it drives me up the wall. Love that idea though.
Im sorry but this is such a bigoted and small minded view. You have absolutely no right to demand that non-binary individuals choose a new pronoun to use. It is their choice.
It’s not intended to be bigoted and small minded. It’s just not grammatically correct. Since we’re inventing new labels for all kinds of things these days (WTF is a “cis” and why was that label thrown upon me, I never asked for a new label; crap, I hate labels, especially since it never ends well for my people (Jews)) why not give the non-binary folks a new pronoun that is theirs and theirs alone and not repurposed.
It might have been intended that way- but the fact remains it was that way. You have no right whatsoever to determine or demand the pronouns others use. It is deeply personal. If it offends you (which is clearly does) then that says everything people need to know about your character.
It doesn’t offend me. I have no stake in this game. Call yourself whatever the f you want. I’m saying, grammatically it ain’t right, so why not invent a new term that makes more sense. We invent new terms all the time. Like I said, WTF is a “cis” and why was that term thrown upon me? I have a stake in that game, and that one bothers me (seriously, “cis”?!?!?!? No one asked me for my opinion on what I should be called).
Cis means “cis-gender”- your physical and genetic sex are the same as your gender identity. It’s not a label thrown upon you, it is the grammatically and technically correct term. I understood the term based on my scientific background, where cis and trans are terms used to describe molecular symmetry.
The term goes back centuries, and it’s even been used in the gender context for over 100 years.
For reals? Seriously? It’s that old of a term? Why is it only in 2019 that I first heard its use? Damn my non-medical/Biological background! Those terms do not appear in Physics or Geology, let me tell you. And if they do, then my Alma Mater has failed me.
Curse you, Perry the Platypus!
Cis and trans prefixes are used in geography (cis meaning “this side”) and in geology where it touches on chemistry.
Ah, my focus was Geophysics, not Geochemistry (and definitely not Geography). That’ll explain that one. That, and faulty memory, but I really don’t recall ever seeing the prefix “cis” anywhere prior to 2019.
“Cis” is in no way a new term. It’s a Latin prefix that has been around for centuries and is commonly used in science. I find it highly unlikely that you are in the sciences.
I think people might have the right to try and change the grammatical use of a word if they want, but the rest of the members of the society also have a right to reject the change if they want. So if someone wants to use a pronoun referring to multiple people to instead refer to a singular person, that’s grounds for rejecting that choice of words as bad grammar.
Clear communication is important so reducing language barriers as much as possible is a good thing.
“It’s not intended to be bigoted and small minded.”
And yet… it is.
Because it should be up to the non-binary community on how they wish to be labelled. It’s like in your Jewish Community. I know it’s offensive to use the word “Jew” as a verb. Saying – “I’m going to Jew you down ” when negotiating a purchase price of an item is offensive I’ll trust the non-binary community to assign their own labels.
Shakespeare used singular they buddy
I can understand Ian’s position : ” Adira is an introvert, but they keep a few people close to the chest” The question is : is this person pronoun ‘IS’ or ‘THEY’ ? ” Grammatically has no sense using two different pronouns referring to the same human being. Also you have to understand there are whole world with people that can understand English but they will be ‘lost in translation’ with this grammatical inaccuracy
Someone’s got an opinion that’s different from yours? No problem, just accuse them of being a bigot and you’ve won the argument without wasting any brain power.
They/them has been used to describe a singular person of indeterminate gender for literally centuries. It’s in Shakespeare for Pete’s sake.
You are 1,000,000 percent correct, and it bothered me back then as much as it does now (wait, what?). But, I try not to use “they” for singular unknown situations. I have enough time in my day to say “his/her” or “he/she” for those situations. I try at least. I’m not always successful. I am human after all. Flawed, feeling human.
His/her isn’t correct for a non-binary person though. If they want to be called them then call them them. Grammar can change. Its not a big deal.
Also, it bothered you back then, in Shakespeare’s day? How old are you?
Just seeing if anyone is paying attention. We all need a little humor (bad or otherwise) while we live in the Twilight Zone and argue over pronouns.
I still want to know how Peter David’s “hir” and “s/he” are actually pronounced.
And for the record, I’m 44. I may not act it sometimes (look at all of the toys on my desk at work), but that’s what my birth certificate says I am.
fwiw ze/hir is much more common than (s)he/hir, hir sounds like here, ze sounds like. well. the american way of saying Z
also many nonbinary people do use other pronouns, but many also don’t
I’m a nb trans woman and tend to use ve/ver/vis (which the cool SF writer Greg Egan invented). ver rhymes with there, vis rhymes with peace (though some other ppl say them to rhyme with her and his)
there’s dozens or hundreds of neopronouns, and it’s honestly a pretty cool world of experimentation and queering language
I know from english classes very early on that there is: He/she/it. So we got three. If it wants to call itself whatever it wants, let it do so.
apart from that, i have no prejudice against feelings and convitions of people, but i see only biological sex. while the strength of the exprimation can vary to the extent, that it is not distinguashable, i consider the internal diversion of gender identity from the biological one as a mental condition (that doenst need to be cured against the will of the subject). a trans woman should in my eyes not use a woman bathroom that is frequented by more than one person at once. solution to that are unisex bathrooms with one place each and lockable doors. so that the bathroom situation in public becomes as private as at home. improve bathroom siutation in general and that point vanishes.
Living languages grow and change in their own ways. We don’t have an “Academie Anglaise” thank heavens, but I’m convinced that many on this board wish there was.
(I have enough trouble helping our kids through usage, grammar and spelling tech that wants them to use either American or British English when as Canadians we have our own version.)
If English was able to evolve to using the second-person plural/formal your/your and ditch the singular informal thou/thy, I think we can cope with they/their as a nonbinary or non-specified singular third-person.
I’d suggest that anyone having difficulty needs a good dose of the “knights of Ni” scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. (“Ni” was the old formal “you” that the Swedes decided to ditch.)
Y’all might think I’m closed minded and what not, but trust me when I tell you, I’m not. I may be slow to adapt to change, but change I do. I don’t go out of my way to stop change and progress (and commenting on a message board doesn’t count). And if “they/their” is the wave of the future, then so be it, Jedi. That’s the way I shall roll. But we’re still at the beginning stages of this human awakening, so why not take advantage and add new words to the vernacular. Although, I’d have no problem bringing back ye olde thou/thy for fun.
All that being said, Monty Python and the Holy Grail needs to be seen again because, 1) you brought it up, and 2) it’s just damn good.
You/your originally being a plural form, but now is used for singular or plural, is an interesting example. As is your usage of “y’all” which is now one of the accepted plural forms. Perhaps in the future we will start just saying “they/their/them all”, or even “th’all” to pluralize it.
Isn’t th’all a Jem’Hadar or a Klingon?
Maybe the problem is your tiny little brain. The rest of us can deal with it just fine.
Tolerance is a two way street and we get a lot further talking to one another and trying to build understanding than we do with petty insults regarding the intelligence of a person you don’t know.
The show takes place in the far future. You shouldn’t be able to wrap your head around it.
Do we have to be so insulting? We can wrap our heads around it quite easily. We don’t live in the 1400s.
And remember, my problem, currently (and that will change in the future, assuming we survive 2020), is with pronouns, not who’s going to be on Star Trek. Keep telling good stories, as in Discovery Seasons 1 and 2, and I don’t care who is on Star Trek (well, I mean, keep people like Bill Cosby and Mel Gibson away from Trek, but you get the idea).
Star Trek needs to continue to inspire, get you to think, perhaps even change your views on humanity (although, currently, humanity can jump out of an airlock, like the morons did on Avenue 5), talk about current events (but caged in the disguise of sci-fi (not SyFy)), etc.
But hey, you keep thinking you know what’s inside my head and what actions I’ve taken in life and not what I’ve actually written and actually done.
You do you and I’ll do me and somewhere in the middle Star Trek: Discovery Season 3 will debut and many of us will enjoy it while others won’t give it the time of day.✌🖖🕺
No insult intended. Culture and technology is expanding exponentially. There’s no way that anyone back 100 years ago could wrap their heads around 2020. Just remember is that our view of the future is just as absurd as the views people had in the distant past. If you were dropped in the middle of the 24th century, trust me you would be freaking out.
Yeah…how you going to pronounce s/he and hir so that they’re clear? Sorry, it’s a stunt that works in print.
I agree with Sisko. The point of language is to clarify communication, and (Shakespeare’s one-off notwithstanding) they use of “they” to refer to plural and gender-neutral singular obscures, rather than clarifies. I would much rather use a neutral singular pronoun, such as “xe/xer/xem.”
“They/their” does make it sound like multiple personality disorder.
I agree with Sisko. He is trying to be pragmatic and I do not see how he is bigoted at all. He does not say anything about non-binary people or their existence. Words are tools and if someone invent a new tool people will pick it up in no time and the fact that most people cringe at the pronoun “their” (and people are allowed to do that btw) suggest that it is NOT a good tool. I think that the non-binary people should work on a word that works better and not ignoring the difference between singular and plural. Yes, I know that “they” can be used as singular, but it usually used to repair sentences or in old writings like Shakespeare. Also, I do not like the threatening tone and people be called bigoted. New words can be invented without force. A good example is the noun “Gay” that initially only meant “happy”. This was used inside the community and slowly became mainstream but without any force (calling people bigoted and flaming them on social media). It is completely legitimate and normal to question a word and its usage. It is NOT okay to be nasty to people who do not see themselves fitting in one of the gender categories. I hope that the story lines around this new exiting character is focused on the human condition and not just an oppressed/oppressor narrative. Yes, I can hold the two opinions simultaneously and do not have any resentment against non-binaries, transsexual or homosexuals.
Nope… you are a bigot. Lived experience matters more than your opinion and don’t go around telling people that they can’t use their pronouns
“Have gay characters, have trans characters, have non-binary characters, have whatever characters you want” you say, and yet when they do, you call it appalling.
I will to see your misunderstanding. The characters aren’t appalling. Putting their inclusion above great storytelling is.
Is the inclusion of straight white characters also dependent on the quality of the story? Or is their inclusion also appalling if the story isn’t good?
Who says it’s put above anything? If the cast was all white and male, would you say that that casting was put above good storytelling?
The two – casting and quality of writing – have nothing to do with each other.
Are you suggesting that the casting is somehow affecting the writing?
Oh you’ve seen the season already?
No one misunderstood you. You’re not that mysterious.
Whenever someone says the inclusion of a non-white, non-straight character is “forced” a red flag immediately goes up. It opens the doors to wrapping it up in whatever other type of clothing and bunting you want (ie, “unless it’s a good story”), without masking the shape of the bigotry beneath. Is the inclusion of straight white characters in a bad story “appalling?” Then why should the inclusion of black, brown, or queer characters be “forced” dependent on the quality of the story? People like the OP are bigoted and just want to conceal it in “criticism” to try to mask their bigotry.
And as they say… THIS!
Well, hopefully it’s not bad and this preemptive admonishment will be even more unnecessary.
Still, bear in mind that Trek has constantly tried to be ahead of the curve on cultural and social issues and representation. If anything, Trek was late to the party on positive LGBT representation apart from the rather hedged bets that were Jadzia and “The Outcast.” 2017 was quite late in the game for the first representation of a same sex couple.
Well by that reasoning you could also say Star Trek was unintentionally way ahead of the party because the rare occurrence of LGBT appearances means that future medical science was able to discover the health problems leading to LGBT abnormalities and reduce them. By that reasoning collecting together an even wider variety of LGBT characters on Discovery is outside of Gene’s vision of a more advanced human society.
If someone went with that reasoning the upside to Star Trek is still that humans are more enlightened and the show will have a chance to illustrate how they don’t mistreat people that slipped through the healthcare system’s cracks and grew up to be sexually abnormal.
Good post, Ioengard. Well stated.
There is nothing appalling about being inclusive, it’s Star Trek, they literally based the show on the concept. You can have issues with story, fine, but don’t pretend this isn’t literally Star Trek at it’s core. I’m not into the corporate bullshit whitewashing of things but I don’t think it’s fair to levy the same charges at a franchise that literally built itself out of inclusivity.
Okay, this is not a good thing for my first post on this site (which I’ve been following for years now), but did you notice that your comment here is actually the first one about the fact that these characters are non-binary? I found it quite heartening that people here mostly seem to be ready to just accept that these characters are who they are, and that the actual big thing for a Trekkie here is that we might see Dax again. So if you don’t want it to be about being “inclusive” or “relevant”, why do you make it a discussion about that? Why don’t you just take it for granted that non-binary characters can be a part of Star Trek (as you say you do) and there’s no reason to make a fuzz about it?
Appalling? And what rush, exactly? Star Trek is 54 years old.
What makes you think they aren’t going to tell GOOD STORIES?
In other words, loengard is a bigot who doesn’t understand Star Trek’s core philosophy.
“I just want good stories” is the “All Lives Matter” of people who are unhappy about diversity in their entertainment.
loengard, you took the words right out of my mouth! GOOD STORY is everything! Why does Hollywood have such difficulty in grasping that concept?
“The constant rush to be “hip”, “inclusive”, and “relevant” is appalling.”
Remember hearing stories about people who were outraged in the 60s when Kirk and Uhura kissed? Congratulations. You’re one of those people.
Well said! #BoringBigots
These comments need a “like” button.
This. Couldn’t have put it better. If it suits the story or feels natural, do it. But don’t shove things down our throats just to be diverse or whatever is hip nowadays. And I’m not a native speaker, but why would someone use “they/their” as a pronoun for a single being? Why not “it”? I know, that would make him/her a thing, but “they” just feels plain wrong and just furthers my not-understanding of the people in question (which is not to say I’m against them, I just don’t get it!)
Why is it always people who leave homophobic remarks on blogs who are inevitably obsessed with things being “shoved down throats?” Freudian slip much?
Methinks you people think about LGBTQ sex a lot more than we LGBTQ people do. Which is kinda telling.
It’s OK. The world is nice outside the closet. Drop the self-hatred and focus on living your life!
Joking aside, you don’t go out of your way to complain about hetero relationships.
Think about the fact of hetero sexuality being, er, “shoved” into everyone else’s faces, all the time, 24/7, from children’s programming to video games to advertising to comic books, “programming” you to think there’s only one particular way to be, when in fact even people who are normatively “straight” don’t all perform their gender or sexuality the same way.
What you are essentially saying when you say inclusion is “hip” is that my existence, my humanity, is at best a whimsical eccentricity to be ‘tolerated’, or at worst an aberration to be rooted out and destroyed.
My humanity, my existence, is not up for negotiation. Likewise, anyone’s pronouns.
If you’re uncomfortable with it, imagine living your whole life pretending to be someone you’re not, because you’re afraid of people who don’t see you as entirely human. _That’s_ uncomfortable.
I think there are two factors that probably contribute to people feeling like LGBTQ is being “shoved down throats”.
The first, is the belief that homosexual activity is a sin and ultimately harmful to humanity’s progress. So in the same way that lying shouldn’t be promoted as good, neither should the choice to have sex with like members be promoted as good.
The second, is that they’ve gone through their entire life without meeting a single LGBTQ person (that they know of). Therefore the trend to put one in most TV shows make it less relatable or like an artificially forced political statement. This is just compounded when interviews wave the inclusion of LGBTQ characters around like a show piece before we ever get to meet the characters.
Agreed, we don’t make judgements on characters based on anything but their actual individual character, sexuality doesn’t matter if the story isn’t worthwhile
Yup, I like to think that most Star Trek fans embrace IDIC or at least the ideals of infinite diversity, but IMO it is good for shows like Discovery to continually challenge viewers with things that may take us out of our comfort zone.
Definitely, challenging and providing representation are both needed.
“furthering Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry’s original vision of celebrating diversity and inclusion”
I’m sure that Gene Roddenberry, circa 1966, would have been delighted.
Perhaps 1966 Gene, “humanity needs struggle, not paradise” Gene, “she’s so much woman” Gene, “Kirk has to have hair” Gene wouldn’t really like it.
But 1987 Gene, or even 1979 Gene, who said he was wrong about women and gay people in the past, “Earth is a paradise” Gene, “they don’t care if Picard is bald” Gene, who even wanted polyamory to be the norm in the Federation, I think would’ve been ecstatic. (If he could’ve gotten over his hate for all Trek that he hadn’t personally worked on, at least.)
Hell, he tried to say clothing wasn’t gendered in the Federation (although the skant just looked terrible, it’s the right idea, boys in skirts are great). He wanted Deanna Troi to have a visible crotch bulge. (Although he probably wouldn’t have called her trans, he’d probably have called her a hermaphrodite, which sucks, but, he was still a man of his time.)
Late-in-life Gene wasn’t anywhere near as attached to binary gender and sex as mid-life Gene. Which I’m personally glad about.
Welcome to the new actors and their new characters! I certainly hope to love you. :-)
Growing up in small town Canada, I always assumed that the world was a simple place, made up of gender specific men and women. For me, this was an easy way to view the world. Over a lifetime I’ve discovered that the world is not that simplistic or binary – and that there are people who don’t quite fit into our world of males and females or have suffered pain and anguish trying to do so.
Star Trek has a long history of depicting non-gender specific characters – from the Trill in TNG and DS9, to the androgynous Janaii in TNG and the “third gender” Cogenitor species in Enterprise as a few examples. From its very first episode, Discovery has clearly tried to depict a multicultural crew with an emphasis on strong females and males, along with straight and gay characters. With these new cast announcements, it is clear that Discovery will continue this focus on inclusion and the depiction of diversity.
Who are the strong males in Discovery that didn’t come from the mirror universe?
I would say the most obvious is Captain Christopher Pike but you can add acting Captain Saru, Engineer Stamets, Ambassador Sarek, Science Officer Spock, etc. I know you didn’t want to include Lorca, but of course that is like saying you don’t want to include Georgiou either. Anyway, I think many of us have gotten used to strong males dominating our tv shows, but that started to change with shows like DS9 and other franchise shows like Stargate SG1 and Atlantis, where one or two female leads were put in Command positions. With Discovery, they are taking it one step further to really reflect the fact that about 50 percent of the earth is populated by women.
Christopher Pike is a left wing Liberal. LOL
I don’t think that you mean to imply left wing liberal cis-gendered males aren’t strong do you A34. ;)
I was joking. I’m with Joe.
Well, there’s Saru, and in Season 2, Pike. Stamets and Culber are two more… or did you mean to suggest that gay men can’t be strong males?
TNG already introduced genderless aliens, the J’naii. Odd that they wouldn’t use that species here.
Of course, even that was not enough to stop Riker…
Genderless and non-binary are not the same thing.
Depends if they were on Discovery’s crew already (i.e., pre-TNG) or are met in the future.
Well, given that nonbinary people have been around as long as people have existed, it is a statistical certainty that at least some were in Starfleet as far back as Captain Archer’s time.
love how the show keeps trekking along and not looking back… good for them… but the they their them pronoun thing messes with the wiring in my head… but it’s all good
Who cares if they are gay? Trans? or what ever? Hire better writers and story tellers. Hire people that know what Star Trek is.. I dont care with who they go to bed to have sex or if they have do it. Get that in your head CBS.
I assume you will be applying to CBS for the role of head writer since you so obviously know what Trek is?
A lot of gay and trans kids who grew up not seeing themselves anywhere care.
Just like black, latino and Asian kids care.
Get that in your head.
Yeah, stories should be better – but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a good thing.
It’s like saying, “I don’t care if Uhura is black, white or green – I just want better special effects!”
The two have nothing to do with each other.
Lol.. you dont even know who I am. I AM A LATINO, that lives in LATIN AMERICA (not in the first world, like EU and USA) and i still prefer a good star trek story over a good latino on star trek.
Representation is a distinct concern from quality.
And to those who don’t get it, let me pose the question:
“Why you think that female, people of colour or LGBTQ+ people whose eyes on Trek and purchases of Trek merchandise have been helping keep the franchise viable for over a half century should be asked to watch a show about a future without people like them in it?”
Right, but the people being represented DO care. Announcements like this are for them and for their allies. It’s very easy to be dismissive when you see people just like you in film, TV and video games every day.
This is a big deal for trans and non-binary people. Don’t be the kid who has to sulk because it’s someone else’s special day.
Because that’s all current Trek is.. A social points system.
Shows don’t get made and renewed on the basis of social points- they get renewed on the basis of viewers, fees and deals with other streaming services. The audience gets what they like (though not always what they demand) or else the show dies.
There’s enough interest in what current Trek is doing that Disco is in prep of season 4, Picard for season 2, LDS for season 2, Prodigy for season 1, SNW for season 1, S31… well who knows about that one. There has never been this much work and investment in Trek at one time.
If you think a multi-billion dollar media company invests in all of that, building it up over 5 years, for social points, you are staggeringly naive.
But lets face some truth here- the real reason you need an alternate explanation for why Trek pushes for inclusion, is because if it’s something Trek fans want, then you feel like you don’t fit in.
Bad news: you don’t fit in.
If the writing remains as awful as it has been the last two seasons, the gender (or lack thereof) of the characters involved won’t matter a bit, imo. Try crafting actual good stories, just a thought.
What would actual good stories involve? I would love to hear your detailed ideas
The stories seemed pretty fine to me, too. I’d love to hear this as well.
Streamlining their ideas would be a good start. Discovery and Picard tend to cram too much into a season, leading to convoluted storylines.
agree 100%. Spread that s around. Don’t start a war after a 3 minute convo with step dad. Don’t just have your lead start traveling around in a time traveling space suit after 5 min.
Right, and did Picard season one really need ALL those things? They could’ve easily saved the Borg and the Romulans for later and concentrated on synth rights in the Federation and Picard coming to terms with Data’s sacrifice and legacy. Plenty of material with just that one subject.
Picard S1 was just perfect.
Whatever you say, boss.
I didn’t mind that they tied the Romulans and Borg in with the Synth, its the fact they didn’t have a clue on what to do with all of it once they did do it. At the very least there was zero need to have the Borg there other than to just have the Borg there.
Funny how all the Borg theories people came up with ended up like all the Snoke theories in the other fandom had and absolutely nowhere.
Yeah well, that’s my point. If you don’t know what do with a character or story element, you can probably cut it.
The stories need some improvement but more inclusion and diversity is an important development. Whatever gender they have is not a detriment to anything.
A sad, sad day for Star Trek fans everywhere! It is NOT Star Trek’s responsibility to be relevant to the current culture. It is OUR responsibility to aspire to the optimistic future Star Trek represents. Cow-towing to the current political climate is a step in the wrong direction! Farewell, Discovery! This is where I disembark!
“It is NOT Star Trek’s responsibility to be relevant to the current culture.“
Have you seen Star Trek? The same argument could have been made against Sulu or Uhura.
Straight, gay, transgender, or gender non-comforming, these actors are human beings, not political talking points.
Well, there is one big difference between racial or national identities and gender indentities: while both identities are biologically determined, it is not necessary to advertise the latter. Everyone can see you are black or Asian, but there is no reason revealing anything sexual to the public eye. And of course this is also the case for heteros.
There simply is too much sexuality and sensuality in the media today. I just don’t want to deal with any of it. Banning or at least reducing all forms of public exposition for that subject matter would help to call it even.
Pretty much the only sexual content on Disco has been Ash Tyler/Voq engaging in two consecutive straight relationships. So unless you’re chafing at Stamets telling Culber he loves him (in which case you are a massive snowflake) then I don’t know what you’re referring to at all.
How can the addition of these characters or showing their existence mean that there is too much sexuality?
or a Russian
Wait… you’re angry that Star Trek is being inclusive?
Have you ever watched it?
I don’t get these people.
You don’t understand Star Trek.
TOS put an Asian man on the bridge during the Vietnam War. A Russian on the bridge during the height of the Cold War. A black woman on the bridge when MLK was marching.
Sulu, Uhura, Worf, Geordi, Sisko, Jake, Bashir, Tuvok, Kim, Chakotay, B’Elanna, Mayweather, and Sato all say, “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!”
And look at that, the future just became more optimistic because we don’t have to hear you whining about it in a few weeks time!
Indeed. He won’t be missed.
Don’t let the door hit you on the @$$ on the way out.
Maybe you should get trump to write an episode.
Ok. Enjoy watching your culturally irrelevant alternatives, I guess.
If you truly believe what you wrote, then you don’t understand Star Trek. At all.
“ It is OUR responsibility to aspire to the optimistic future Star Trek represents”. And how do your views contribute to the optimistic future of Star Trek? Current culture?
I loved Ian on The OA! Was heartbroken when it got cancelled. So excited to see he’s on Disco. All the more reason to bring in Prime Lorca and reunite him with OA cast mate Jason Isaacs ;)
This is excellent.
I’d also like to note that once again Discovery has successfully cast actors with well established skills for these novel roles.
It sounds as though Culber and Stamets will continue to expand Star Trek’s exploration of the meaning of family and the diverse ways families are made. Great choice.
To all those claiming they’re totally fine with trans or non-binary characters but they’re just concerned about good storytelling – literally what does that have to do with this casting announcement? Does their inclusion preclude the existence of good storytelling? Do you have access to the scripts featuring these characters? Would you be voicing the same ‘concerns’ so vocally if we were getting just another couple of straight white guys added to the cast?
Star Trek has always proudly embraced the idea of diversity but it’s execution has been hit and miss over the years, and it’s great to see the franchise finally embracing the inclusiveness it’s so long touted. Very excited to see what S3 has in store for these two.
I have nothing against non-binary And transgender people. This is great news for everyone. People deserve respect regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.
So excited for what season 3 has in store for these characters.
The word “regardless” says it all. French “regarder” means “look at”… “To regard” means looking at something. The word “less” takes that looking aspect away. You can respect everyone equally by just not considering the dividing aspects as relevant.
That “everyone is equal” aspect has been totally replaced by that strange craving for “awareness”. Nowadays every minority wants to be seen as special, as different, as carrier of a different identity. I don’t believe focussing too much on group identies is a good idea with regards to equality.
Gender idenity is especially tricky since lots of people – including myself – believe it should be handled privately. And that includes heterosexuelity as well…
It’s interesting that they voice their concerns about the writing most loudly whenever they cast anyone who isn’t another 30-40 something white man.
They’ll lobby for an alien captain, but a human who looks slightly different to other humans? Let’s loudly announce we don’t care and change the subject!
This is what gets old. Whenever its a straight white guy no one blinks and no one questions their inclusion or accuse them of casting a straight white guy as a ‘diversity hire’. The second it’s anyone else though, then its a problem.
Its STAR TREK people! We should be happy they are showing some real diversity. That is the other irony, we constantly shout we want to see multiple aliens on the show and the more different the BETTER. And yet when it comes to our own species, we want to limit our own representation on it. Huh?
It’s so odd to me. Isn’t Star Trek inherently about diversity and representation? Isn’t ultimately that’s what the Federation is???? Accepting of all cultures and forms of life while forming a society where everyone can exist happily and equally as themselves? I don’t understand how you can watch this show but get upset about skin color or gender 50+ years later when we now live in a time we can at least acknowledge diversity in a way Star Trek has always spoken about. It’s very weird to me.
They see Star Trek as a wish fulfillment fantasy alone. There’s an aspect of that to be sure, but they’re missing the larger point.
If only this wouldn’t smell so much like pure “tokenism”… See, I don’t mind characters of that kind, but I fear that it will be another case of “here’s the [insert sexual orientation] character – not much about it, except that it’s [insert sexual orientation]”. That’s what happened to the character of Culber in the second season: In the first season he was introduced as a competent medical officer who happened to be gay and in a gay relationship. In the second season it was merely his relationship to Stamets that defined the character and that fact was basically spelled out in one of the most cringe-worthy pieces of dialogue of the entire season (I mean the bit that had Tilly and probably much of the audience exclaim: “WHAT JUST HAPPENED?!”).
I wish the writers would start with “that’s a character – and it’s great because …” not with “this is a [insert sexual orientation] character – just forget about the rest”
I just noticed that “I don’t mind…” sounds terribly judgmental.So let me get this straight: I praise the idea! It’s just that – as I explained – Season 2-Culber left a bitter taste in my mouth and that sure won’t go away by Michelle Paradise using the GLAAD as a marketing tool…
I hear ya. But I’m cautiously optimistic that, since the trans actors are also giving their input, that things might be better than previous episodes might suggest.
Like, I was so upset they did Bury Your Gays. And of course, the black guy got fridged so the white guy could have an emotional scene.
But the fact they brought him back says to me they’re willing to listen to feedback, not to mention it was Aaron and Gretchen who Buried Their Gays, and they’re gone now.
I’m still a bit trepidant, but cautiously optimistic nevertheless.
I’m all up for having gay, non-binary and transgender characters somewhere in the Star Trek universe but all of them on one little ship? There are Stamets and Culber and now there are Adira and there is Grey. Philippa G. is bisexual. That’s five characters primarily based on a different gender identity. IMHO a tad too many…
The issue I have with this is my overall issue with visible sexuality in general. Being demisexual of sorts, I don’t get how anyone can base his identity on this singular defining element. It’s only one aspect of life among many and arguably a mostly private, intimate one that shouldn’t be advertised publicly.
And that’s got nothing to do with me wanting to discriminate against LGBTQ people, I want the very same discretion from heterosexuals. I guess one of the reasons some conservatives have issues with the LGBTQ movement is because they don’t believe any sexuality should be publicly advertised at all and people should not be viewed primarily as sexual beings whose identity is defined by ones bedroom habits.
Personally, I don’t like to think about sexuality, I don’t like being confronted with it at all in any visually or verbally explicit way and that includes absolutely any form of heterosexuality.
That said, I’m all up for IDIC – even sexual diversity – in a healthy dosage, I just don’t think it’s a good idea to further feed those individuals who refer to DSC as STD for that very reason.
Actually the addition of these two makes six sexual minority characters on Discovery — you forgot Jet Reno, who had a wife and is therefore either lesbian or bisexual.
But you’re wrong in suggesting that any of these characters is “primarily based on” their sexual identity, at least where the characters we already know are concerned. Each one has distinct character traits beyond their sexuality. Stamets is driven, neurotic, passionate about science and not great with people. Culber is, or was, great with people, but was traumatized by his death and resurrection. Georgiou is, of course, completely amoral and consumed by ambition and the love of power; her pansexuality is almost incidental to her character. And Reno is acerbic, no-nonsense and practical. Her character wouldn’t change at all if her late spouse were a man instead of a woman.
You may be right that some people who object to portrayal of LGBTQ characters do so at least in part because they are uncomfortable with any portrayal of sexuality at all. But when was the last time you heard someone object to a straight character refer in passing to his or her opposite-sex spouse? Where are the complaints about a male character showing romantic or sexual interest in a woman, or vice-versa? The only time we ever hear these loud objections is in reference to LGBTQ characters — which rather makes it appear as if it’s not sexuality in general that they object to, but specific forms of sexuality.
“I’m all up for having gay, non-binary and transgender characters somewhere in the Star Trek universe but all of them on one little ship?”
They aren’t that rare, dude. In fact, compared to my current place of work (rhymes with
“Target”) these type of characters are underrepresented.
I only know one or two gay people personally and I’ve encountered one single transsexual. Unless you go into a pub specializing on that target group or a pride parade, it is almost impossible to bump into LGBT people where I’m from. And the only pub of that kind had to close down years ago. Don’t ask me why.
At my work place – colleague-wise – I’ve never met anyone not straight, most of them married with children. But then my workplace rhymes with “fool” :-) Students, yeah, there is one in a hundred, maybe two in an age group that has an outing, but I guess most of them would keep it to themselves. Of course it’s a rural area, not a big city, so the situation may be completely different in other places.
I grew up in a rural area, went to a highschool with only 500 people, and still knew or knew of quite a few LGBT kids. And those are the ones that were out. I found out about more after highschool when they came out. Also, married hetero couples can still consist of one or two bisexuals. Or closeted homosexuals. And transgender people aren’t always noticeable as such. My point is, you probably have encountered more LGBT folks than you know.
I hear where you’re coming from, and there is in fact a term for this phenomenon in history: recompensatory representation. We go a little overboard to try to make up for the lack of prior visibility. It’s well known, and is an important first step to ultimately end up with a more balanced situation.
Also, I would argue that many people do take their sexuality or gender very seriously; but it’s usually a response to the culture saying that it’s bad or should be hidden. The focus on the category is, in some ways, created by the hostility. A hundred years from now, maybe people will be confused as to why we “needed” Pride Month.
Similarly, many people who grow up in places that are currently ahead of the curve (eg Brighton, SanFran, etc) who are gay or trans often don’t feel so invested in such things, as they didn’t have to fight for it. It’s understandable that a kid who was allowed to change pronouns to try them on would think it was NBD, but a kid who had to fight for years to transition, many having to wait until they leave home, well, we tend to put a lot of importance on our identity because we were denied it for so long.
I transitioned relatively early, ten years ago, in my mid to late teens. People ten years older than me were saying how jealous they were that I was able to do that. But that still took me 5 years of fighting a medical establishment to achieve, and I lost all my friends and some family. So similarly, I’m looking to Gen Z and beyond and I myself can get jealous that acceptance is already so much higher just a decade on.
Star Trek was sexual diversed from the beginning. Or how would you call the relationship of Spock’s parents? ;-)
Maybe you should lobby the creators for some ace / aro characters so you can feel included?
This is fascinating. Non-binary and transgender characters are not the norm on TV. Star Trek is leading the way as always.
Very excited about season 3 and let’s see what happens.
Trek unfortunately didn’t lead during the TNG era, when simple LGB representation would not have been outrageously ahead of the curve. It’s good to see the franchise quicker off the mark today. Long may that continue.
WE’RE GETTING A TRILL!!!!!
Exciting news! 😃
Not a huge shock since we know they will be in the show but it’s great one of them will be a full time cast member. And yes let the Dax speculations fully begin!
Excited about the new actors. Never heard of either of them but can’t wait to see them on screen.
Is this the first casting news we gotten? They are taking their sweet time with any updates but nice to hear something.
Non-Binary And Transgender Characters! Diversity never felt so good.
Trills are basically non-gendered or at the very least bi-sexual, at least the joined ones so it’s only fitting the actor to portray them is transgender.
And I agree obviously, its great to have these actors.
Tiger2, you’re right! The bigger news is that we are getting another Trill finally! We’ve had enough Vulcans and Klingons, let’s revisit some other Trek aliens!
I been wanting to see more Trills for ages now. Dax is really the only one we ever gotten just like Troi is really the only Betazoid we ever had. It would just be nice to see more variations of them and yes no more Klingons or Vulcans. at least for awhile. We gotten more than enough of them and they are practically in every show as it is although oddly I don’t think we saw either one in Picard.
I agree that they could use other species more, and go beyond the stereotypes.
There was a very interesting Betazoid character in the Relaunch TNG novels.
I liked that he was Betazoid, but from an ordinary background and was relatively “disabled” within Betazoid society because he didn’t have significant empathic ability. He just had a bit of an anticipatory sense of people’s actions. So, he ended choosing to serve in Starfleet in Security.
He also was a bisexual (or perhaps pansexual) widower. His human husband died in a Borg engagement, but after a long time grieving he got involved with a female half-Vulcan officer with identity issues. The half-Vulcan officer was also against trope, wanting little to do with her Vulcan heritage and ill-at-ease with her telepathic potential.
How utterly surprising. Not.
More time spent on telling good stories please.
Discovery filling the screen with as many female/black/gay characters at almost every opportunity doesn’t count for much when the vehicle for those characters is so weak and incoherent.
Not! Party on, Wayne!
Yeah exactly, Steve. I don’t care if the screen is populated by multi-colored unicorns and gremlins at this point, just put some cohesive storytelling together.
Buck from the OA. Cool
Instead of spending so much time on the backgrounds of these minor characters maybe they should really concentrate on giving us a complete, fully realized season. They have yet to even come close to sticking the landing on even one show. The first season of Disco (which I actually really liked) ended with a rushed one episode finale which was a complete letdown. The second season started strong with great aspirations of exploring faith vs science only to have that get thrown out in favor of mindless action and the whole AI thread. As for Picard – well that was the biggest jump the shark finale yet. The episode had a couple of great scenes only to get really muddled by the AI stuff (sound familiar?) and that absolutely horrible ending. What the hell were they thinking?
The status of a minor character won’t make me question keeping CBS, but the inconsistent storytelling will.
Well we can get both. ;)
And we don’t know if they are ‘minor’ since we know almost nothing about next season so far and what the new characters have to do with the story. They both might play major roles.
Frankly, what we’d like to see is an enrichment of character development across all the crew.
My only negative about adding another 3 new “regular-for-this-season” characters (including “Book” ) is that we still have seen so little development of the bridge crew.
And let’s not forget that we still have Georgiou, Jett Reno and possibly Nhan (if she survived) still along for the season.
We’ve heard hints that Dr Tracy Pollard may be given some development this season, and there were statements that now that Tyler, L’Rell, Pike and Spock were left back in the 23rd century, that the remaining crew would have more chance to shine, or at least to have the chance to get off the bridge. But that seems doubtful now.
With 3 more new characters we’re back to an enormous and talented cast with 14 episodes.
My goodness. As a lifelong Trekker, I believe that I have fallen in love with the franchise all over again. (I was 9 when TOS premiered waayyy back in ’66)
I am envious. I was 7 when I first got to watch TNG.
I see beauty in you.
Tony – you’re a good egg :D
(Sincerely, a trans NB woman)
I looked at Ian Alexander’s Twitter profile, which is labelled “IAN – ACAB”, @ianaIexander. ACAB is an acronym that has proliferated recently- it means “All Cops Are Bastards.” If Ian is using ACAB to mean something else, he might consider changing it, to avoid confusion. If Ian does intend to declare “all cops are bastards”, it is interesting that CBS didn’t get him to change it.
Why do you think CBS has any problems with it? American Big Business is in bed with the Riots (see: Nike). Its clear that to this faction of society being seen as anti-law enforcement is far less a problem than being seen as anti-whatever-letters-we-made-up-today sexual minorities …
You seem to be a few dilitium crystals short of a full reactor.
That’s quite the conspiracy theory you have cooked up there, and it’s quite sad to see in the Trek fandom.
Vulcan Soul, you’re better than this. This is something you hear on Youtube.
Why should he change it? They’re still shooting people for non-compliance, aren’t they? The ones who aren’t shooting people for non-compliance are still standing shoulder to shoulder with the ones who are, aren’t they?
As for ACAB being “recent”- you let slip an ignorance here. You should read up on what ACAB actually *means*, the history of the concept, and not just what the letters stand for.
Putting aside all arguments on transexuality itself, the question that really matters is will this increase viewership of Discovery?
Will this addition add to the profitability and marketability of the series?
I will argue no, in fact I will argue this will harm the series.
It is highly unlikely hordes of people will now watch because of the addition and more likely a substantial number will stop watching.
Also in many countries around the world it is a criminal offence to display transexuality and LGBT in general.
Netflix has been having enormous issues with this, just recently they were forced to cancel production on a Turkish series because the Turkish Govt would not grant a permit for filming as there was going to be a gay character.
This use to be said about blacks, women and ironically gay actors.. Today, no one blinks.
And you have to start somewhere, right?
And Netflix doesn’t need Turkey. It has tons of shows and movies with gay characters in it, that site is doing just fine.
This use to be said about blacks, women and ironically gay actors.. Today, no one blinks.
And you have to start somewhere, right?
And Netflix doesn’t need Turkey. It has tons of shows and movies with gay characters in it, that site is doing just fine.
You are taking a very American stand. Which makes sense if Star Trek is happy to just pretty much appeal to Americans. However in much of the world there is not going to be acceptance of anything LGBT for a VERY long time -if ever. Russia, India, China, Indonesia and even Brazil are enormous markets, a huge amount of money to be made from them, but LGBT will not be accepted in these markets.
ViacomCBS will need to get use to the fact that this franchise won’t be able to grow that much.
Considering its an American TV show we’re talking about, that shouldn’t be too surprising.
And I will repeat what I said, this use to be said about MANY groups, in America and otherwise, right? In time most got over it. And the ones who don’t, that’s their problem.
For pete’s sakes Discovery already HAS gay characters lol. And it’s in its third season, more than likely will be renewed for its fourth and as far as I know you can watch it in all those countries if you have Netflix minus China since they don’t. So what’s the problem?
Star Trek has been pushing these boundaries literally since 1966…and it’s still here. My guess is it will still be pushing them by 2066 too.
Its been around for 54 years already, its not going anywhere chief because somebody in Russia doesn’t want to see gay characters. ;)
I never said anything about cancellation. I said growth. The point of a franchise is to grow it, and not just a little bit.
Taking more steps like this will limit the growth on a global scale.
It’s already in 190 countries…how much more growth does it need lol.
Are you being obtuse? I would expect anyone on this site to know that simply being available does not equal profitability and revenue yield.
You’re clearly the obtuse one man. You have presented literally zero evidence, let me emphasize that again, zero, that the show is not growing in other countries due to having gay people on it because how would you have even know that?? You don’t man, you’re just another person on a message board, so stop ACTING like it.
And then what’s more funny is I pointed out to you the show already has gay characters in the first season. Right? And not only that, they added another one in it’s second season, Tig Notaro, and no one blinked. Never even saw a single article pointing out Tig was a lesbian…anywhere.
But NOW people are ready to angry about it? A little late, right? And I am 99.9% sure Linus is coming out this season too! I can’t prove it, there are no rumors, but I feel it in my bones its coming!!!
So follow the logic train here, if the show was really struggling viewership wise due to having gay characters, which has been there not only the first season but they added another character in second season, then my guess is CBS would’ve just told them not to add anymore gay characters since they do like money, am I right? Right? Right?? Instead they are just adding more.
The fact that its in its third season and they added more could naturally conclude the show hasn’t had any real issues with viewership or these issues. Sloppy story telling is probably high up there though.
I mean, stay with me here, if what you’re saying is true, then how come Russia, India, Brazil and/or Indonesia has simply not asked Netflix to bar the show from those countries? And not just that one, but ALL the shows and films that has gay characters and themes in it? Because my guess is its 2020 and most just don’t give a shit anymore and the few that do are clearly not enough to sway viewership.
Have you heard of any countries requesting this? I sure haven’t.
And lastly, if Netflix is still paying for the show and airing it in those countries then clearly its profitable, right?
What about the stand of ignorants? Having no problem Kirk kissing an alien species, but protesting when he kissed a black woman of his own species?
So American tv can only be as progressive as Turkish tv can stand?
That sound like a dubious business strategy.
Hollywood has its problems for sure but like I keep hearing from certain American leaders who say the rest of the world shouldn’t dictate our values or what we do, I am in agreement with this. And the fact is there are PLENTY of gay characters in movies and TV shows today and are seen worldwide. The other point is the world becomes more open as time goes on and it’s exactly shows LIKE Star Trek that does just that and pushes those values. If not everyone is going to like that, so what? Watch something then. I don’t care. Life will go on regardless.
Because I’ll say it again: This is what Star Trek is! Always has been! I don’t know how people can claim to be fans of the show but miss the point of it. I’t mindboggling to me.
If you can’t understand or accept this, then you are watching the wrong damn show!
No, again its like I am talking to brick walls it is about GROWTH. Revenue generation, merchandising, popular culture ect.
This is why Marvel and Star Wars are more successful than most other franchises, as they don’t engage (currently) in socio-cultural controversies. They keep their stories very simple and generic, not bringing in sexuality, modern politics or real religions.
The more controversial something is the less wide appeal it has and the less revenue it generates as a result. This is incredibly simple business stratagem.
Star War is literally about the rise of fascism. Marvel films have taken on women and black liberation.
Tiptoeing around social conservatives has never been financially rewarding in the long run.
Equating social conservatism with fascism now? Packing out the biggest sledgehammer today? ;) Nobody here is arguing for the persecution, imprisonment or enslavement of these people. Just to focus on what is important to the greatest number of people, which, as tezna points out, used to be sound business as well!
“Equating social conservatism with fascism now?”
No, but it’s interesting you did. And then jumped into persecution and enslavement. You brought that to the table yourself.
The OP brought up offending socially conservative governments and a reason to exclude certain representation.
Then the OP cited Star Wars and Marvel as franchises that avoid socio-cultural controversies, which makes me wonder if he’s ever watched any of them.
I cant speak for OP but I think the issue is two-fold. First, there are far less commonly shared universal human values among different cultures than the Western far left asserts today (and didn’t believe themselves just 10 or 20 years ago), which is where much division and disagreement stems from. Second, Trek should try to broaden its international appeal by focusing and promoting those values that are universal, such as human curiosity and thirst for exploration and scientific discovery instead of needlessly excluding a large number of potential fans by forcing through partisan issues. The question of course is where to draw the line, which is the ‘persecution, imprisonment and enslavement’ I mentioned.
VS, if what you said was true, then TOS should’ve been cancelled in the first season and that would’ve been the end of it.
It’s crazy 54 years later people still are having trouble with this. What do people think the Federation is suppose to represent exactly? And what is the point of seeking out strange new life and civilizations then??
This really just proves Star Trek is still very much a fictional show because if people are having trouble just ACKNOWLEDGING other humans on a TV show because they have slight differences from each other, imagine what it would be like to meet REAL aliens with extraordinary biological differences and cultures? People couldn’t handle it.
Especially when people are moaning about ACTUAL humans that exist today on the same planet as everyone else being part of fictional future centuries from now.
I mean clearly most here whining couldn’t handle real exploration and scientific discovery if you still can’t handle something that’s been in your own backyard for eons now.
It’s simple, I don’t think these issues are equivalent as civil rights issues, which is why I pointed out nobody is after enslavement or giving these groups anything less than equal rights under the law.
Of course, exactly what is “equal” is part of the issue. We are talking about a group that has not been persecuted for decades and is 30 times less prevalent than black people in America.
The question that remains unanswered is why their very specific and controversial demands, which even accomplished heavyweights like JK Rowling take issue with, are more important than highlighting the struggle of dozens of millions of people in America alone regarding sociopolitical class division and economic marginalization? Where is their representation?
Whenever Kurtzman and CBS come out to praise their heroic struggle for the newest tiny minority being pulled out of the hat, what is also communicated (unsaid) is “we don’t care about the common man/woman/fan”.
I didn’t realize to be represented on a fictional science fiction TV show they had to be chased by wild dogs at some point of their existence.
Couldn’t they just be on the show, because, I don’t know, they exist and should just be included in society like everyone else?
It’s nothing wrong with that basic idea either, right? That seems to be why most are on there now. Is the ‘common man/woman’ not represented on the show now? I thought Tilly represented that group. ;)
“We are talking about a group that has not been persecuted for decades”
Which group are you talking about? Because Trans people, LGB people, hell, most racial minorities have had severe systemic pressures and persecution put upon them for a looong ass time and it still continues.
And – even leaving out actual hate crimes against LGBT people, discrimination exists and causes people actual harm, both economic and otherwise.
The lead stat: 1 in 4 – a full 25% – of LGBTQ+ people surveyed reported experiencing discrimination, in this story from 2016.
If we accept current estimates of 5% of the US population being LGBTQ+, that means 14,400,000 people, and 25% of that is 3,600,000.
So that’s a LOT of people experiencing discrimination just in the USA. Now extend that worldwide to include countries with active discrimination by their governments.
And you’re talking about this as if you have any data to back it up lol. You don’t man, you’re just making assumptions, wild assumptions and literally noting more than that.
“This is why Marvel and Star Wars are more successful than most other franchises, as they don’t engage (currently) in socio-cultural controversies. They keep their stories very simple and generic, not bringing in sexuality, modern politics or real religions.”
Have you NOT been on a Star Wars message board for the last three years or something?? Man that’s ALL they talk about lol. Disney Star Wars is apparently too ‘woke’ now since the day they hired a girl to run it and been complaining about it with every freaking movie. Everything from ‘why do the leads have to be a girl and a black boy’ to ‘why is Lando a pansexual now??????’
I mean seriously, do you not know this?? I can’t even go on those message boards because its people bitching about the same thing since 2015.
Marvel has gotten less of it, but its there too. Soooo many people moaned about Captain Marvel. Many, yes, its true, even moaned about Black Panther at the time. But because the overwhelming response was positive, those people got drowned out fast. And especially now!
You have any idea how often people now use Black Panther as a backdrop to talk about the Black Lives Matter movement and everything happening around race today? Clearly not much.
So yes you’re naive if you think those franchises don’t deal with these things too. You just don’t pay attention to them like you do Star Trek, that’s all.
I might add that the first X-Men movies are an anology about gay liberation. And that Marvel put gay characters in their comics way before Star Trek. The Canadian superhero Nortstar for example.
How further can Star Trek go in terms of sexuality? Hmmm implying, that sexuality between different species is possible? Oh wait….
tezna, backing down on its diversity principles would be “off’brand” for Star Trek.
Tiger2 and others have accurately pointed out the risks the franchise took in the 60s. The balance between losing audience due to pushing the boundaries vs representation has been with the franchise from the start, and it seems that it’s always gone as far as the studio and distributor would tolerate – fortunately TOS was produce by Desilu and Lucille Ball was willing to support taking risks.
What you may not appreciate is that some of those things that Trek pushed the envelope on were barely legal in some parts of the United States at that time.
– interracial marriage was still illegal or only recently legalized in some US States.
– to be a native Russian speaker in the United States military or other NATO country or to have a security clearance was basically not permitted unless hired for that in intelligence;
– the Asian actor on the bridge had spent a formative period of his childhood in an internment camp due to his ethnicity and race.
So, as much as you’d like to get more Trek out to more viewers globally, as would I, it wouldn’t be Trek if it didn’t push beyond the comfort zones and even civil rights of the jurisdictions it’s broadcast in.
Ok, as a regular poster in these forums and being Turkish, I feel like I gotta jump in to this discussion since the issue relates to our government and general radical points of view. First of all I have to say not everyone in Turkey is a radical, there are quite a few liberals like me who are unfortunately in the minority these days. But at the same time I have to also acknowledge the fact that we are a very traditional society that have difficulty opening to LGBT issues. Many people here believe that this is something against the holiness of the family. I believe that if Star Trek Discovery was popular in Turkey and the issue of LGBT characters came up to the government ears then it would probably have been banned already, but unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) it is not as popular here so it can still be broadcast on Netflix without trouble. Looking at Star Trek’s popularity throughout the years in Turkey though, it is not surprising that TOS was the most popular here as that had the more traditional characters in it.
But how traditional is or was it, when Spock’s human mother was married to a non human, alien being? When Kirk kissed a gren skinned alien being? How “traditional” are families, if their members journey through space and a lightyears apart? Some viewers are not able think outside their box and see that there has existed diversity in Star Trek from it’s start. How do these labels work if a lot of characters in Star Trek are some kind of ” inter-species pansexual”? This goes waaaaay further than showing just a ” non traditional couple” of the same sex and species?
If true (which you have failed to prove to Tiger2), there are things that matter more than ratings, and being established in 190 countries, Trek has a platform and a responsibility to deliver it’s message with integrity to that platform.
Still waiting for the day Kurtzman Trek has something, or anything to say about the *economic* struggle and disadvantage the working majority increasingly faces in our age, and helped your favorite presjdent get elected, instead of virtue signaling to a 0.3% minority with genetic defects that don’t hamper their ability to make money in any way. The Fall of the Federation in Discovery season 3 would actually provide an excellent opportunity to take up this issue, wiping the slate clean regarding “post scarcity’ and” abolishment of money and poverty ” but instead Colonel Kurtz decides the most important issue of our times is which bathroom to use (while hundreds of millions of people outside America dont have *any*). I agree with those who say this is stunt casting to distract from the horrific writing, and it shows the extreme disconnect of members of the moneyed elites like Kurtzman or Stewart with the working majority and prevalent real issues of our times. It’s time for Trek to get back to its fundamental tenet, which is: the needs of the MANY outweigh the needs of the few… Let’s see some majority issues and some relevance for people outside your posh Beltway…
Ah… the old “pretending to care about the working poor as an excuse to ignore marginalized voices” response.
These replies have all the classic tricks.
I know which is far worse, doing it the other way round, like the ruling classes throughout history (in itself a minority). Simply based on numbers. Teleological ethics: maximum benefit for the greatest number of people (aka “the greater good”). There can be no justice based on anti-majority politics, which is what you inevitably get when the vast majority is forced to bend over backwards for the “special needs” of the few. ..
I didn’t realize two Star Trek characters getting screen time would cause the collapse of civilization as we know it. I’m glad you were here to save us all.
They are certainly getting it at the expense and exclusion of the wider issues I mentioned. I know you are arguing for ‘both can be done’ but this is not what is happening according to 50 hours of Kurtzman Trek. It’s a zero-sum game as always: screen time is limited, episodes are finite, choices need to be made, and these choices betray the believes of the writers what and who is more important…
Cast straight white guy! “Oh look, cool!”
Cast anybody else. Endless discussions how society will fall over it.
It is so head shaking I can get dizzy over it. It’s 2020. My god.
ooh, an oblique snide reference to disability activism too: fun! i’ve got a bingo!
Trek literally answered your problem decades ago… no more money, no more acquisition of wealth as the driving force.
If we cap the insane CEO wages, tax the insanely wealthy their fair share, end the corporate welfare and put in the damn free market, and put money into social infrastructure, we could see the problems you talk about finally addressed.
Mods, can we boot this guy? He’s indulging in known code words used as hate speech. Genetic defects? Slippery slope just got some grease poured on it.
I remember when Star Trek was first with things. Now it seems Trek is last. It’s about time.
Spock said Infinite Diversity. Infinite! He didn’t stutter!
It’s pretty distressing how many alleged Trekkies fail to grasp this.
It’s amazing how much people can filter out things that don’t align with the way they see the world.
I keep hoping the messages will get through by osmosis over time, but if people start flaming every time they are confronted by representation in a media release, I guess I’m too optimistic.
I use the pronouns ugh/meh and many eye rolls.
Your chosen pronouns suit you. We’ll happily use them when referring to you.
If that’s what meh wants that’s what meh gets.
Yes, let’s honor *rolls eyes for 5 minutes* wishes.
this got a good chuckle from me, a neopronoun user
Is this an attempt to distract from rumours claiming that there is an internal power struggle being waged between Emma Watts and Alex Kurtzman for the future of Star Trek? Coincidence?
Warning. Do not use this site to spread false rumors.
Amazing. Awesome. Perfect. Powerful. Loving this new era of Trek that shows that in the future LGBTQ people exist and are valued. (Now can we just bring back the dudes in the “skant” mini skirts from TNG season 1?) :) #WereHereWereQueerGetUsedToIt #BodlyGo
This is so awesome!
I can’t deny that the pronoun issue kind of gets under my skin, but that’s more of a grammatical thing than anything else. It’s also my problem to sort out, and having characters like these two will presumably be an aid in helping me do so. So welcome onboard, y’all! It’s about damn time.
You may even like the show next season dude!!
Don’t worry, that was just a joke! ;D
Okay that was a funny joke.
Hey, you never know. I haven’t given up on it (even though I have kind of wanted to at times); I’d love to love this show.
The pronoun issue can get complicated. These two characters add extra layers to the story.
Let’s hope they do. This show’s track record with its characters isn’t great. But who knows, maybe this is the season where that all changes. Wouldn’t that be nice?
“I can’t deny that the pronoun issue kind of gets under my skin, but that’s more of a grammatical thing than anything else”
Same for me. Which is odd, because I should be used to it. For some strange reasons Germans address each other in the third person plural.
“you” in english also started as third person plural, we’ve just forgotten and think “thou” simply sounds old.
Awesome. Better late than never!
I don;t like that they broadcast this information about the actors… It feels grubby, and exploitative.
Why can’t they just say ” we have cast these actors, they will play these characters”…
Then let us all discover their sexuality and gender in the show..
It seems like they want a pat on the back for giving minority people jobs..
It will only become a normal thing, when they stop making a big deal out of it.
Have you checked with any transgender people to see if they feel it is exploitative, or are you assuming offence on their behalf?
It is a big deal, and it’s important that they make it a big deal.
I admit I thought the same thing as Headcrash, but after reading the GLAAD Interview I changed my mind. It is obvioius that non bianary people have the deep need to be seen and that is an essential right. So they have to go public.
I do not know if they are men women or both. I am straight and I do not care. Give me good Star Trek!
It’s nice for trans and non-binary people to see people like them on screen though, isn’t it? I am straight and I feel happy for them!
Wonderful! Love the actors chosen. HATE the name ‘Gray’.
Why? Well, it’s sorta like a conversation I recently had about how gays are written and portrayed in media. At first one says “wonderful”, and then the characters are cringy or whatever. Naming the character ‘Gray’ is exactly that; cringy.
Great to be inclusive, but the problem with most of Hollywoodland is that these characters are generally written by straight-white-suburbanite-boomerspawn-boys from Wisconsin.
You do know that Michelle Paradise, the showrunner, doesn’t fit your description/characterization of the writers at all.
The needless melodrama in your post is what’s cringy.
I have the feeling some folks are too shy to outright say they do not want certain people in their Star Trek casts. IMHO they repeadedly hide behind the old “who cares, tell a good story first“ argument. I read itam here over and over again. As if its mutual exclusive. This article is not about the story, is it? It is about inclusion and casting decisions.
To show your displeasure by deflecting from the topic and conflate the casting department with the writing department is just a bit desperate.
Just say you are transphobic etc.
In the threats, other commenters poke and poke, and it then comes out anyway. Admit it to yourself.
Thats a good step towards betterment.
whatever, hipster-trek…get woke and enlightened and relevant and pat yourself on the back for being diverse…I don’t care. Just make them engaging and give them GOOD WRITING. Or it all means nothing.
That is all.
You so care.
In Danish they (de) was used as a polite way to address a person of both genders. But it was not a pronoun.. the only person that use something similar as a person pronoun is the queen. I hope the writers don’t go overboard on political correctness and just focus on compelling stories about being human
This flaming pile of garbage is still on? Geez. More tokenism also.
I am a cis-gender male, thus my views on the pronouns for non-binary or trans, or what have you are somewhat irrelevant. However, I have a couple of non-binary friends, and they too find the pronouns of they/them to be a bit frustrating – entirely because of the confusion b/w the singular and plural. With that being said, they (and notice the confusion, am I talking about a singular “they,” or a plural “they”) are more than happy to use these pronouns as no other viable pronoun exists (outside of it, which is just not great).
Unfortunately, the main stumbling block in the creation of a new non-binary pronoun that can be distinguished from the singular and the plural, is society as a whole still struggling to accept the fluidity of sexual identity. As such, since there are currently no other viable non-gender based pronouns (outside of “it,” which is not a great pronoun) they/them have become the norm, at least for now.
I look forward to Trek addressing detransitioning, regret at mutilating one’s body and thoughts of suicide . Warping engines is what Star Trek should be about, not warping fact.
You must be fun at parties.
I bet it took you hours to think of that comeback. Invest the time in seeking out a partner or employment. So much more fulfilling.
Such issues will be neatly bypassed by having advanced medical technologies that can turn you into a believable replica of another species if you wish so. It’s been done countless times. Compared to that, “(re)transitioning” is child’s play. No mutilation regret is necessary, it’s all just “a matter of microsurgery”, as Crusher once said.
But hey, I get your point. Star Trek used to tackle these painful issues. Heck, the whole Trill thing started as a metaphor for transitioning. Now they aren’t tackling anything anymore, they’re just crossing out the “participation” checkboxes. Perhaps they are too scared to insult anybody. Or perhaps they are too lazy to actually use those characters in engaging, well-constructed stories. Either way it’s annoying to watch. Peter David had all sorts of non-standard characters in his New Frontier series (that was twenty years ago!), and he still managed to tell good stories about them.
I guess my complaint is how many crew members there are that have been introduced already. VG’ER had 20 some episodes per season and couldn’t handle 10 characters. And I think even its most hard-core fans will admit characters like Kim got the short shift.
DISCO has half as many episodes per season, and we already learned of a couple new characters.
Something tells me the new characters will take away spotlight from all the non Burnhams. Sarus, and Stamets. DS9 is the only series I’ve seen that can handle so many characters. And it wasn’t shortchanged with 8-10 episodes.
Is it really a Trill? Because on the picture in the jeffreystube the character doesnt have the trill spots on the face.
And as far as we know also non-trill characters can host symbiotes.
could be a spin to the the non.binary aspect…