Are We Afraid?
Are we afraid of simply naming what we are? Do we so long for acceptance that we’re afraid of simply naming what we are? Does the Gay label so confine us that we believe we need to obscure it by blurring it into a vague spectrum we imprecisely call human sexuality?
So the idea that Star Trek should be colorblind and that sexual labels don’t matter feeds right into the agenda of homophobes who want to prevent any depiction of homosexuality. Note what msspurlock went on to say in his TrekWeb post:
And anyone who claims that putting such storylines into a show doesn’t make it “all about the gay characters” is an either an idiot, lying to others and themselves, or self-deluded in that aspect as well. Pathetic.
That sentiment isn’t too far removed from how even well-meaning fans put it. In a comment on TrekMovie.com regarding the gays in Voyager article, “star trackie” wrote:
Gays … are already in the Trek universe. Why some feel the need to make a point of showing it and drawing attention to it is what I really don’t understand. Understanding and tolerance is one of the great aspects of Roddenberry’s future. That is exactly why we DON’T have to draw attention to the fact that Uhura is black. Or that Number One was a woman. … The need to showcase intolerance by hanging a sign on a character and saying,”Hey look at me, I’m different and yet I’m a professional in starfleet” is absurd. … Other than being gimmicky there really is no reason to glorify any of it.
It was, however, no less a gimmick for Roddenberry to cast a black woman, an Asian man and a young Russian in the Original Series. In fact, casting Walter Koenig as a Beatles-esque Russian was completely a gimmick to boost ratings; you can read “The Making of Star Trek” if you want the backstory. And Star Trek did “hang a sign” on Nichelle Nichols more than once. Re-watch “The Squire of Gothos” and listen to Trelane’s reaction when he meets Uhura; or take a look at “The Savage Curtain” and hear what Abraham Lincoln says to her.
I think it’s the height of disingenuousness to claim that Star Trek didn’t make a point of parading its diversity. Of course it did. We wouldn’t be talking about it today if it hadn’t done so. The real issue is about this new brand of diversity — homosexuality — and how uncomfortable it makes people. Even some who agree in principle with depicting gays in Star Trek don’t want to actually see it. Note the comment by “josh” in the discussion thread on TrekMovie.com:
The thing is, a lot of people don’t want to see direct homosexuality; they don’t want to see men kissing — I know I don’t. I feel that adding a gay character that makes a point of being the ship’s or cast’s homosexual would bring attention to a minority group that wouldn’t necessarily exist in the Star Trek future. My dad always complains that there has to be a gay guy in everything. And he has a point. Because throwing a stereotypical homosexual into a plotline that doesn’t call for a homosexual character just furthers homosexual stereotyping and makes the issue of judgment worse not better. As far as I could tell Lt. Hawk was gay, do we need to see him making out with a man to prove it? Do we need to see waving his hand effeminately calling people “girlfriend,” to be aware? I think not.
[...] Peter as one part of the male couple. Interestingly, two decades later, that portrayal proved controversial when “Blood and Fire, Part 1″ debuted a year [...]