“The Outcast”

I agree with you that they blew it on the "exploring sexuality" front. Just like the episode where Beverly can't handle that Odan is now female--she was all excited to meet the new Odan until she sees her, then it's "Damn. Wrong genitals."

But I disagree that Soren is unsympathetic, or that falling in love in three days is unrealistic--at least on TNG. Characters would have to be on multiple episodes to extend that time limit, and that would get difficult to execute. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of keeping the series uncluttered with potential lovers all over the place.

I really liked Soren's character--her cute little questions about sexuality were adorable. I was very sad when all that was taken from her.

I know many people find the portrayal of Riker in this episode completely unbelievable, but I loved it. Probably the romantic in me, but I loved seeing him willing to "risk all" for his "girl"friend.

Minor nitpick: It's "J'naii" instead of "Genai".

Glad you're back, Jammer!

I see from StarTrek.com that it's "J'naii." I'm pretty sure I got the spelling I used from the DVD captions.

Who's right? Who's wrong?

Let's chalk it up to multiple translations.

Disagree disagree disagree!

This episode affected me profoundly as a teenager and I still love it to this day. 3.5 stars.

Look on the bright side. Only five more years until 'Rejoined'. I didn't care much for the episode itself, but it certainly rights the wrong of this episode. DS9 was also similarly blazé about lesbianim in 'Let He Who Is Without Sin'. I know it is considered the second worst episode of DS9, but at least give it credit for the way Worf could become jealous of Vanessa Williams without so much a hint that Jadzia having a lesbian affair would be regarded in any way as - well - queer.

Modern Trek has did well with acknowledging homosexuality in "Rejoined", but they've never done an story that examined sexual orientation as we've seen it in modern society. On one hand, this is valid because humankind hold different value systems than us in the present. However, it becomes a bit of a cop-out (as in this episode) when they cannot even discusss from a historical perspective their own past, particularily to an alien who is surrounded with sexual stigma.

I always felt that the easiest allegory for Trek to have done would've been an extradition/Prime Directive epsiode surrounding an alien race's stigmatization and percecution of homosexual behaviour. Hell, if they didn't want to offend anyone they could even make the circumstances of the story even worse than 1992 America.

As a gay man, I want to like this episode, but you're right, Jammer, the hypocrisy just flies in one's face. Most telling is Riker's explanation of human mating and how uncomfortable he is even saying "sexual organs." It's painful. I do, however, disagree that the mischaracterisations of Picard and Riker are "interesting." If anything, they worsen the episode and divert one's attention completely from the issues at hand (poorly handled though they were). Regarding "Rejoined," I also agree with Jammer that the episode was NOT about homosexuality at all.

2 stars for good intentions is about right.

Maybe it's that I was 13 (and gay in rural Ohio) when this aired, I really did appreciate at least the acknowledgement that intolerance and inequality were wrong, and that society would protect its values over protecting its citizens. It was a lesson that helped me as I was growing up.

At 31, however, I can 100% understand and even logically agree with your assessment, Jammer. But the 13 year old in me will always remember and cherish this ep.

@Brian: I think that just goes to show that there's no one way to react to these stories. It depends not only on who you are, but what stage in your life you're at.

I read somewhere that Jonathan Frakes had pushed for a man to be cast as Soren, but they didn't go for it.

You make a good point, Jammer, about the good intentions foiled by hypocritical execution. Especially sad given that, in all the time since this episode aired, Trek hasn't had a straight-up gay character (or, at least, cast-member character). Way to have it both ways, guys.

I'm always a little fascinated to see people complain about how this episode fumbled on its gay-issues allegory, but completely miss it as a transgender-issue story. That's not even allegory. That's text.

I agree with Frakes that this story would have been more effective if Soren was a man. Having said that, it was a nicely played drama with an appropriately downbeat ending. I remember reading a 4 star review of the episode in USA Today the very night it aired in my area.
I must also point out that the makeup job on Melinda Culea was really good. Check out how hot she is on "The A-Team" & "Family Ties" and you'll see how good the makeup was at changing her appearance.

This episode failed on any number of fronts including:

Makeup on the Genai: not androgynous enough. It was too easy to tell male actors from female making Riker's attraction to Soren too understandable.

The story didn't work as a homosexual allegory because the desire of Soren was to become normal...as nature intended not abnormal (the male/female division of the genders is apparently the norm throughout the Federation if not the galaxy so far as we've seen of the Trek universe which begs the question as to how the Genai can hold on to their ideas of physical superiority in the face of so much overwhelming evidence)She/he was already abnormal. So her/his struggle to be free was a sympathetic one and her/his subsequent reconditioning tragic.

The story makes far more sense when any consideration of homosexuality is removed from it.

Riker's totally unbelievable actions at the end of the episode was ridiculous! Not only is it impossible to believe that he could fall so head over heels in love in so short a time, but that he could do so with such an unattractive lump as Soren after making love to some of the most beautiful women in the galaxy! On top of that, he breaks the prime directive in the most blatant fashion, even to crashing a legal proceeding! Compounding that, Picard says nothing of his trangression! Anybody else doing such a thing would be brought up on charges but would forever lose any possibility of commanding a ship of his own. How could Starfleet ever trust an officer like that for such an important responsibility?

So far as hipocracy or tap dancing by the writers is concerned, Trek is primarily a family show so who needs it to be cluttered up with such sordid subjects as homosexuality? Ugh.

--So far as hipocracy or tap dancing by the writers is concerned, Trek is primarily a family show so who needs it to be cluttered up with such sordid subjects as homosexuality? Ugh.--

I think that is awfully short-sighted, pviateur. Trek may have become homogenized/sanitized in the Berman years, but once upon a time, Trek was a show that actually pushed people to think about the world they lived in by presenting stories of peoples "out there"

Was the first televised interracial kiss ever sordid and family show un-friendly?

Family shows doesn't have to equal unchallenging or safe. Kids like to think too.

I think my biggest problem here is that her so-called "female urges" are never explained (and that they probably couldn't be). The only way they seem to manifest themselves is in attraction to male aliens. Perhaps the allegory would have worked better if there were two groups of J'naii, one evolved into androgyny and the other still male/female, who interacted but not sexually, and the evolved 'deviants' found themselves attracted to the unevolved.

"So far as hipocracy or tap dancing by the writers is concerned, Trek is primarily a family show so who needs it to be cluttered up with such sordid subjects as homosexuality? Ugh."

The spelling error says enough about this comment. Ugh, indeed.

Imagine that gay people are in families, too.

This episode is more directly applicable to transgender/intersex issues than it is to homosexuality.

However, the "psychotectic treatment" program is indistinguishable from today's "reparative therapy", with two exceptions. 1. The former actually does convert the person. 2. Perhaps the converted person will be happy. The so-called "reparative therapy" (ex-gay hate yourself to heterosexuality) con doesn't convert people, only their behavior. It doesn't lead to happiness, only denial. It's also not done for the good of society; it's merely a business.

While there is research that suggests that homosexuals are sexual hybrids to some degree (brain studies find that gay people use reasoning strategies of both sexes to some degree, finger-length patterns of 80% of gay men match heterosexual women's, etc.) homosexual men are still more man than woman and lesbians are still more woman than man. The perfectly neutral androgyne is rare indeed. Jamie Lee Curtis is a potential case. I say potential because she chose to behave/dress/act in a feminine manner. Biologically, however, she is XY.

Recent research has also contradicted earlier research and supported the existence of bisexuality.

One other problem with this episode is that it doesn't clearly distinguish between orientation and behavior. That's quite lazy, given that it's a critical matter in today's politics to realize that virgins have just as much of a sexual orientation as prostitutes and porn stars have — that sexual orientation isn't about "acts" as much as it's about desire.

I think it's tremendously shameful that Star Trek has committed genocide on the gay people of the future by refusing to give them space. This episode certainly does not qualify.

Bisexuality needed support?

Trek message episodes are rarely subtle (He''s black on the left, and white on the right!), so this one kind of fits into that dynamic, but it doesn't make it any easier to watch. I can totally understand anyone growing up LGBT connecting with the message here, however the writers skip around the issue as it actually applies to the audience. As an adult tho it's groan worthy how ham fisted it all is handled.

Found it funny that after 5 years of basically trying to out-Kirk Kirk, Riker has a sit down with Deanna to explain he's seeing other people.
Speaking of Action Man -

Alien Judge - "These proceedings are closed!"

RiKirk - "I just opened them!"

Putting the social message aside for a moment, I want to point out how sub-par both the writing and cinematography were in this episode.

It is boring both to watch and to listen to. Beyond the guest actress's monotone, the conversations were unusually long; the technobabble was particularly uninspired; the scenes were static and slow; and, during one scene (the one where Riker talks with Troi in her quarters), there was even this strange slow zoom that I don't recall seeing in any other TNG episode. It felt like a soap opera in its production values. This could have been much more passionate, but it ended up being very insipid.

I agree with Jammer's "Good intentions. Not much else."

Worf sure healed fast from his traumatic injury...he's already back on duty here...

Riker to Soren: "I love you".

Yeah, right...

BTW. This episode was evidently inspired by Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of the Darkness".

For my two cents, this would have been more interesting and plausible as a Wesley-centered episode. I really have a hard time accepting that Riker, a man whose had plenty of relationships would be so indiscreet and impetuous. Wesley I could believe.

Making the Soren character a youth subjected to this corrective therapy and Wesley trying to prevent it would have made this theme more daring and plausible.

Mike... or given Wesley's absence, LaForge might've been more plausible. Desperate for dates, likely to fall for brains not boobs (more likely than Riker, anyway), plus he literally sees people by their auras, not their surface features.

Funny how the episode completely ignored the Little Green Man in the room, as Nathan alluded to earlier: "The only way they seem to manifest themselves is in attraction to male aliens." That is, the J'naii authorities couldn't stand that Soren wanted to tug on Riker's... beard... but seemingly had no problem with the fact that he's a *different species*!

As some have pointed out this episode is rather about transgender issues than gay issues. Aside from telling us how wrong it is to impose ourselves on other peoples sexuality, it also raises an important point of that it's just as right to embrace your gender (whatever gender you want) as it is to distance yourself from it. It's a good intentioned episode that fall short because of writing and "tip toeing" around what they thought the audiences would perceive as "offensive".

I actually didn't mind the ' tip toeing.' it seemed to me that the point of the episode was not to tell us how to think on the issue, Rather than tackling the issue it appeared to me that they were merely presenting both sides of the issue and leaving the audience to draw its own conclusions.
People who side with Riker will find the judge to be close minded and offensive. People who side with the judge will find Riker 'preachy' and offensive.
I know this kind of writing can be seen as cowardly because we like to know what side somebody is on. As a big fan of 'Boston Legal' however, it is always clear what side David Kelley is on, on any issue, many times to the detriment of the show imo, because the show became his pulpit.
Whether or not transgenders/homosexuals existed in the TNG universe becomes a moot point if they are not taking sides.

Count me among those who agree with the episode's intentions but find the result sadly terrible. A lot of this comes down to the concept chosen to represent homosexuality in the episode, which is to create a race of androgynous people, and to represent a person questioning one's own gender and sexuality by asking a lot of questions about gender of the main cast. Then the main cast, without fail, describe gender and sexuality in the most normative and stereotypical ways. Men are sometimes attracted to demure women, sometimes attracted to other kinds of women [but always women]. Women style their hair more elaborately and wear makeup, while men play it cool. Worf inexplicably becomes extremely sexist suddenly during the poker game, hating on the J'naii for having no genders (is this really the first androgynous species they have ever encountered?) and declaring that only women are weak and have so many wild cards. It's not so much that Worf could never behave sexistly, but his overt "women are weak!" attitude comes mostly out of nowhere, and one wishes that Tasha were there to give him a smackdown (Ro or Guinan would do). Geordi grows a beard for this episode because, um, men have facial hair being men and all (all except Data, who's an android, and Picard, who's totally old). And as Jammer points out, every discussion of gender assumes that gender and sexuality go hand in hand, that a defining trait of maleness is being attracted to females and vice versa.

Somehow, the episode becomes even worse in its second act, zooming through improbable scene after improbable scene. We have the Riker/Troi scene in which he asks if they can still be friends while he dates Soren, as if their breakup was a month ago rather than around seven years. There is Soren and Riker's kissing scene, following stilted dialogue about beautiful plant life which is some attempt at romantic which fails entirely. And then comes the tour de force, the courtroom scene. In his review of Patch Adams, the late, great Roger Ebert said, "Any screenwriter who uses a courtroom scene in a non-legal movie is not only desperate for a third act, but didn't have a second act that led anywhere." Whether this is true in all cases, it certainly seems true in this episode, in which the courtroom gives Soren an opportunity to get up on her pulpit and deliver her "hath a female not eyes?" speech with passion. Alas, her speech, like most of the episode, falls apart in part because the literal and metaphorical meanings of the speech clash. Soren caps her speech by talking about how the state has no right to interfere in the way people love one another, which, yes, I agree with -- but it caps off the episode's misguided conflation of gender and sexual orientation into one thing, wherein the only possible meaning of being female or male is that you fall in love with other males or females respectively. Not only that, but at no point in the episode has Soren given a single line of dialogue which indicates in what way a male/female J'naii relationship would be different from a standard androgynous/androgynous J'naii relationship; there are no restrictions on who J'naii can be attracted to, and the method of procreation is presumably the same. Does the J'naii government lay in wait, trying to catch couples where (to use Beverly's examples) one styles their hair more elaborately and the other pretends not to be interested in impressing the other. And there it is. What does gender mean to Soren? What does Soren's lifelong repressed urge to be female mean to her? It means that when she meets a man like Riker, she wants to date him. That is it -- that is the entire meaning that this episode can manage to apply to Soren's plight, the only concrete identifier that anyone can think of to identify either gender or sexuality for the character meant to represent a whole wealth of complex issues.

Riker's deciding that he's in love with Soren is indeed unlikely; really, while TNG often goes to the well of the one-episode relationship, for the adult cast members it actually has been pretty good about recognizing the difference between instantaneous infatuation and a deeper connection. And the times in which a one-episode relationship was presented as a chance at real love, it was with characters -- Beverly, Lwaxana -- who had been established as lonely, worried about never feeling something again. Riker may have been pained when he fell for Yuta, but there was no indication that he *loved* her; Picard liked Vash a lot, but, you know, that was as far as it went. Riker's ILY at the episode's end feels painfully unconvincing, which is a matter of the problem of the premise itself of presenting a one-episode love for womanizer Riker, a failure of the writing to indicate what distinguished Soren from Riker's other one-episode flings, and a lack of chemistry on the part of the performers.

I'm actually neutral on Riker's rescue attempt -- TNG has some precedent, from "Half a Life," that it's possible to grant asylum to someone if they request it; and so the fact that Soren clearly would *want* asylum (at least before her treatment) should perhaps count for something. That Riker's going in and punching a bunch of guards has zero consequences is another frustrating point -- at least a line indicating that Picard had to clear up their scuffle would have helped. I do very much like Worf joining with Riker.

The ending is memorably downbeat. I do grant the episode that it went for full-on tragedy, and demonstrated the unsettling consequences of this society's actions. I was reminded of something like The Twilight Zone's "Number 12 Looks Just Like You" or some such -- in which the possibility of a break from conformity eventually is naturally stamped out, and the person is transformed so that they can't recognize what they lost. It's the one thing in the episode that does stand out as successful, in what is otherwise a hopelessly muddled and poorly characterized work. I think even 2 stars is far too generous, even granting good intentions; I would probably give it 1 star, all things considered.

I had meant to say, at the end of the first paragraph: and as Jammer points out, the episode presents no examples of gay people in the 24th century, implying that they don't exist. (I think I got my wires crossed a little while writing.)

I do not agree with the assumption that the episode is about homosexuality, instead I think it is a perfect allegory for transgender issues. It is simply inverse transgenderism we see in this episode. The basic issue of course is still the same: irrational traditionalism that one would presume to have vanished in the enligthened 24th century.

Anyway, I hate it. Two lines of conversation were cut, where Riker would have implied that restrictions on sexual orientation would prevent the J'nai from being considered an enlightened race (www.st-minutiae.com/academy/literature329/217.txt):

----
NOOR: In fact, we are a remarkably free and open society. Our people have rights and liberties which give them a great deal of self-determination. We are, by all measurements, an enlightened race.

RIKER: Then how is it... that Soren has no choice about her sexual orientation?
------

Also, the end is unnecessary and might be seen by a conservative viewer as justifying the therapy. Instead, she could have been found dead from suicide for the episode to be a good statement on the issue. The episode fails to give any definite indication of the status of sexual minorities in the Federation.

The choice of Riker as the one falling in love is a strange idea as well, but I am mainly frustrated by the political stuff.

Enterprise (!) tackled a similar issue better with Cogenitor, an episode far more interesting that this one, and with a downer ending that outdoes even this one.

I think it's wishful thinking that it's a transgender allegory and that what resulted owed to the fact that the writers didn't have the balls to openly cover homosexuality.

Dear all:

What I am about to write may seem provocative. Please read exactly what I write, and don't read anything that isn't there.

Also, I would like to add that English is not my first language. I'm European, and where I come from, we don't suffer from some of the nomenclature issues that seem to be important in the United States. Where I come from, blacks call themselves blacks, and so on. If anyone feels offended by my choice of words, please just insert the word you would prefer. I mean no disrespect.

Regarding this episode: first, I believe this to be an allegory about gays, not transgendered. In March 1992, gays (and AIDS) were being discussed much more than transgendered. The analogy is clear, if inverse: in our old-fashioned world, you were supposed to choose your opposite (sex); choosing your equal was "wrong". In modern J'naii society, you are inversely supposed to choose your equal (genderless); choosing your opposite (being a "sick" male/female) is "wrong". The analogy is as clear as it gets, only inverted.

Secondly, about the absence of homosexuals in Star Trek: what if - just what if - there are no homosexuals in the 24th century?

What I mean is this: I have no doubt that we in Picard's era will be much more "enlightened" (see below) than we are today. Nevertheless, I am convinced that no matter how enlightened, there is a very good probability that, given the possibility to screen and genetically modify embryos, we will make use of that technology. And given that possibility, I believe extremely few people, if any, will be born as, for example, dwarves, or albinos, or blind, or with Down Syndrome, if a simple genetic modification is all it takes to make the embryo "normal". We can all agree that there is nothing wrong with any of these people, but nevertheless, I am convinced that virtually all parents would prefer said small "corrective" genetic modification(s).

There is no doubt that it will some day be possible to do this, and all human history shows us that what is possible to do is also done. All we need is to get used to the idea. A hundred years ago, the notion of cosmetic surgery for no other reason than vanity would be considered wrong, and the idea of having an organ transplant from an animal donor would have shocked every ancient philosopher since Socrates and Plato. Can you imagine how Seneca would have condemned it? Will it shock anýone in three hundred years?

The question is, where does homosexuality stand? I can't help but wonder how many parents, if given the choice, would/will prefer their child to function "within normal parameters"?

Did the producers of Star Trek ever contemplate these matters? Why do we virtually never see anyone outside the norm in Star Trek? On TNG, we never even see any overweight humans. (David Ogden Stirs' character in "Half a Life" was an alien. So are the Pakleds. Other than that only a couple of guest stars are slighty chubby). Is this a mere coincidence? What do you think? What will happen when we finally begin to be able to make such precise modifications to our genome?

I would argue that there is a significant difference between aborting a child and genetically modifying it. Personally, I consider abortion immoral, not on religious, but rather on philosophical grounds. Most classical philosophers - but not all - would agree to this; curiously, some of the early and mediaeval Christan theologians, notably Thomas Aquinas, would say that it depends somewhat on the time elapsed since conception. Now, whether genetic manipulation is immoral from a philosophical point of view is an open question. However, whether it will be done in future centuries is not, I believe. What do you think?

We know that genetic manipulation takes place in the Trekverse, and while "enhancement" is prohibited, what do we know of "corrective" procedures? Can genetic manipulation be the reason why virtually every human on Star Trek is so "normal"? Why we never seen any disabled, or even overweight, human of any kind? Can this be why we never encounter homosexuality among humans on Star Trek? (The only two examples I can think of were both Trills). More profoundly, is it thinkable that humanity in the future will voluntarily eliminate homosexuality along with other "anomalies" by simple genetic modification? That in enough centuries, we will all be some sort of "perfect" mainstream beings? Or is it thinkable that we will leave such technology, which undoubtedly will be developed, unused?

Finally, on the issue of "enlightenment": I find it incredible that so many comments on this site state that DS9 (or BSG) are more "realistic" than the "utopian" TNG. Does anyone have any idea of how much human values in some aspects have changed over the past centuries?

250 years ago, in any major European city, people would rejoice at public executions; depending on region, entering a city you might be greeted by a row of impaled criminals left to rot, or pieces and bits of quartered criminals at city gates, bridges, and similar city crossroads. You might witness a criminal being dragged to death by a horse in the city streets, people being burned alive, or simply the rather mundane beheadings.

250 years. With a bit of luck, one of our great-grandparents' great-grandparent witnessed such events in their youth. Think of it: with a bit of luck, one of us may actually have known someone who knew someone who had witnessed such events. It really isn't such a long time ago.

When our great-grandparents were young a hundred years ago, in virtually every country masters were allowed to hit their servants (or apprentices), parents were allowed to hit their children, and men were allowed to hit their wives. Women in virtually all countries weren't allowed to vote, and most places they weren't allowed to have their own bank account, let alone buy say, a house. And all this had always been considered obvious.

Fifty years ago, smoking was comme il faut, driving after enjoying a bottle of wine and a cognac was no problem whatsoever, gays were sick, you were of course still allowed to hit your children, and any man pushing a pram must of course be a closet gay. And very few people would ever dream of quitting their job to embark on a journey of "personal growth and development".

Now tell me humanity isn't moving forward. Tell me mentalities don't change. Look at how far we've come in the past 250 years, and tell me that in another three hundred and fifty years (350!), Gene Roddenberry's vision isn't possible, that it's "utopian" and "unrealistic".

Look at Scandinavia today; they're almost halfway there, so to speak. Roddenberry keenly observed the evolutionary journey of human (Western) society, and extrapolated. His social vision will, I believe, come true, and quite possibly around the time he predicted. Anti-consumerism will rise, "personal growth and development" will become paramount, and money wil lose most of its significance. We can already see the beginnings to all this.

I'm sure that in the 24th century the BSG approach, which so many here seem to praise, just like most other "dark" and "realistic" sci-fi will be derided, and that Roddenberry will be considered a visionary and a genius for having seen which way the world was heading.

The bottom line is: people calling TNG "utopian" seem to forget that it's set in the late 24th century. They consistently judge it by today's standards - and they seem to forget the fantastic journey we as a people have always been on - and still are.

@Andy's friend

Your comments on homosexuality in the future certainly got me thinking. While it's an issue I regularly fight for, to be honest if I knew my unborn child was gay and I had the opportunity to "fix" it, I might even do that...not out of shame or anything, but because I can see in my friends how much harder it is to live with. But then that's probably more an indictment on our society than on them. Ideally we reach a place where it's not such a negative, in which case even if the option were available, it may not be something that's taken up.

I won't go on that topic too much, it's a big one, but it also leaves me wondering why Geordi's vision wasn't caught earlier either.

What I really wanted to reply to was as far as TNG's idealism goes. The thing about the Roddenberry vision that bothers me is that it presumes humanity moves forward in one collective heap. But we don't, there are always outliers. Most of the things you listed still happen. "Society", as a set of regulations that overlays the way we interact with each other, might condemn them now but it doesn't stop them from happening.

So I liked the middle ground that DS9 took. I still argue that it had an optimistic view of the Federation, that by and large it was made up of good people, but they were willing to say there are bad apples. There will always be bad apples because what society defines as a "bad apple" is someone with a different idea, and if no has different ideas then we never move forward. I don't believe that Section 31 *could not* exist in the Federation, but I do believe it would be small, it would struggle to gain traction amongst the wider human society, and the majority of Starfleet citizens would react just like Bashir and O'Brien did: with horror.

On top of that, people seem to ignore that DS9 was able to put most of its dissenting "voice" into alien characters like Quark, Kira or Garak. I think that's fair. Roddenberry had a vision for how humanity would evolve, but we would still have to interact with the rest of the galaxy.

To put it another way, just because we're a moneyless society in 350 years doesn't mean Starfleet doesn't have a stash of Gold-Pressed Latinum, or else what are they trading with the Ferengi? They can't say "oh we're a moneyless society", the Ferengi reply "well, too bad, we're not giving it to you for free".

My point is I think we'll go a long way in 350 years, but who knows what we'll find out there when we get there. "Utopia" sort of implies a closed system in a way, but what happens when utopia has to interact with everyone else? *That* was the interesting question I thought DS9 was asking. Because it's easy for someone on Earth to never see Latinum and live in harmony, but a posting on the fringe like DS9 requires a different skill set. Example 1: if you want to bond with the locals, you can't sit in your quarters drinking your free Starfleet beverages, you need to hang out where they hang out, and bond. And to do that, you're going to need a stipend of local currency of some kind, which I assume is how they paid Quark's tab. Example 2: religion may have died off in the Trek future, and fair enough, but if you want access to another culture's wormhole you can't go throwing it in their faces.

Eh, I'm rambling slightly now, haha, hopefully there's some cogent message in here. The point is, I loved TNG and I loved DS9. A metaphor I've used before here: sometimes I like a restaurant and sometimes I like a bar. They both serve different functions, they have different atmospheres, and they are both true. Some people find restaurants stuffy and boring, some people find bars uncouth and messy and dangerous. But for me at different times, in different moods, I like them both. But most importantly they can be true at the same time.

This episode is a complete cop-out. it would have been interesting to study a genderless society. But of course, the episode just goes to demonstrate the exact contrary to the premise: there can never be a REAL genderless society according to Star trek. OF COURSE in the end they're all either male or female, and OF COURSE the one Jnail they encounter is very interested in genders and wants to be one of them... Pff.

I haven't been so disappointed in a Star Trek for a long time. As often, ST pretends to explore different types of societies but usually ends up being incapable to sticking with REALLY different cultures. The Vulcans are emotionless, except that we see them struggling with their emotions 90% of the time. The Jnail are genderless except they actually have genders that they repress and any genderlessness is naturally born out of a dictature etc...

@Jons:

It's a valid point, but I think perhaps you're missing the point.

Star Trek, in many, many (most?) cases, isn't attempting to depict utterly different societies. Many times, Star Trek is attempting to hold up a mirror. A slighly twisted, distorted one, that forces you to have to look twice before thinking, "Hey, could this actually be me...?"

Strange, I really liked this episode.

I did get a not annoyed at yet another speech about the Prime Directive. I think quoting the Prime Directive in the face of abuse, torture and cruelty is a moral cop-out. It always bothers me a lot when it happens.

I like Riker even more after this.

I love Star Trek, but I hate this episode. I just do.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I think that sums up this episode. I have to commend them for trying to address the sexuality issue, but the episode waters it down so heavily and has the characters mention so many sexist stereotypes that it sabotages itself.

Similar "contemporary issue episodes" also took the time to make at least a cryptic reference to the "real" issue being discussed in the dialogue; for example, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" had Chekov and Sulu mentioning that Earth was prejudiced before and "In The Hand Of The Prophets" included a line from Keiko asking Winn what she would do when the class covered theories of evolution. No such luck here, and it's not like there was any lack of opportunities; when Riker was describing male sexuality to Soren in Ten Forward, he could have easily said, "Also, believe it or not, some men are actually attracted to other men." Or go with a continuity nod to "The Host" during the sickbay scene.

All in all, I appreciate that they tried, but it needed to be a lot less watered-down.

A boring episode, filled with implausible moments. I didn't buy the relationship between Riker and Soren for a second. The actress who played Soren gave a numbingly monotone performance. Just terrible acting on her part, and terrible casting on the producer's party.

I also have to say that I found some of the comments here to be offensive. Being gay isn't something to be cured, ignorance is.

Maybe you all would understand that better if the producers of Star Trek had tackled this subject hesd on even once.

An aside -- I remember watching this episode when I was 14. I reacted quite emotionally and cried throughout the courtroom scene.

My reaction was prescient. Not long after watching that episode, my parents found out about my sexuality and reacted in an abusive way which still haunts our relationship to this day, 14 years later.

Jammer's criticism to this episode is completely valid. It's not well written. It's clumsy. And perhaps most importantly, it's tame.

But let's not forget that this episode was created in 1992. Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case which would declare unconstitutional laws against homosexuality, was not decided until 11 years later.

This episode was ahead of its time. In the intervening years between then and now, anti-homosexuality became a key point between the two major parties in the United States. Anti-homosexuality continues to be an important part of many of the major religions in the world. And it's even a crime punishable by death in some countries of the world.

I, for one, can forgive the flaws considering the radical message of this epside. I can hardly believed it aired at all, considering that TNG was pretty popular, and most people in the United States at the time disapproved of anything other than heterosexuality.

I agree that this episode was ahead of its time. I think others make a convincing argument that the episode was meant to stimulate support for the gay rights movement. What's so great is that one can easily see the application to equality for transgendered people. One can even tease apart issues of sexual identity (Soren identifies as female) and sexual orientation (Soren is a female attracted to a male). Implications of Soren's and Riker's speeches are that any person has a right to identify as male or female (or androgynous) and that any person has a right to develop a relationship with any other person, regardless of that person's gender. Very progressive, even if the writers chose to depict the least controversial pairing.

As an aside, I missed having a compelling music score in this episode. Others have commented on this drawback to Season 5. Now that I'm conscious of it, the silence is deafening.

This episode works a lot better if you see it as a story about gender instead of sexuality. Gender is a choice, sexuality is biology. Soren wants the freedom to make a choice. Etc.

"This episode works a lot better if you see it as a story about gender instead of sexuality. Gender is a choice, sexuality is biology. Soren wants the freedom to make a choice. Etc. "

I don't think gender is a choice and I don't think Soren's identifying with being female or attraction to males was a choice either. I really just don't get this comment.

I think 2plix was trying to say that for this episode to make sense as an allegory, you have to view gender in the way we view sexuality. At least, I think so.

And for the record, I agree with the above comment by Sonya: the music in this episode is absolutely horrible. Why did they ever fire Ron Jones?! The later seasons really have terrible droning soundtracks.

I said what I meant. I don't know who "we" is. Sexuality is your urges. Who you are attracted to.

Gender is how you act.

www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

The episode is literally about gender. They planet is entirely sex-less. They are asexual. But Soren wants to act a certain way. And she CHOSE TO DO SO.

Soren doesn't just want to act female. She has urges of attraction to people who are acting male. In fact, I would argue that the largest component of how she is different is her attraction to Riker, not any choice of how to act (I still don't think gender is a choice but even using your words I think you are wrong).

Here is a link to a helpful site re: definitions of gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.

http: //www.hrc.org/resources/entry/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-terminology-and-definitions (omit the space between the colon and the first two backslashes)

In the past (including recently), I've used the term sexual identity, but I think gender identity is closer to the intended meaning. Using these definitions, I think gender expression is a choice, but not gender identity or sexual orientation. (Also note that sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior... just because someone has sex with a person of a specific biological sex, it doesn't mean he or she necessary gravitates towards that sex in terms of attraction.)

Again, part of what makes this episode a good one is that it prompts these types of questions, and hopefully promotes greater acceptance of diversity and empathy for others among viewers.

Hm, lots of potential landmines to wade through here.

I watched this episode today for the first time (I think), and I think the 'message' holds up as a product of its time. I also think it's a case where if one gives it a 'low-level scan', the hypocrisy can be ignored in favor of a straightforward idea: people should be free to love whomever they wish. Bundle that message into a primetime television show in the early 90s and you get this.

For me, the heavy handedness of the monologues was dragging the episode down, but count me among the people who was suitably gutpunched by the ending. As soon as Riker and Worf beamed down, I thought about it for a split second and realized what was about to happen, and I was pissed. Regardless of any and all problematic implications of the script and Star Trek at large, the simple idea that a person's right to choose unharmful aspects of their identity is taken away is just the saddest thing ever.

[Comment deleted by Jammer]

::Hangs up the "Don't Feed The Trollz" sign::

::Walks away quietly::

@Joshua : When you're ready to come out of the closet, the Jammer community will be here for you.

@ Joshua

I'm a gay dude, and trust me when I tell you it's not a choice. If it were, I'd be straight. lol

Although . . . I have to agree with Elliot, I suspect that you already know that better than anyone.

@ Robert & Elliot & Sonya & Andy's Friend & everyone else besides Joshua:

Thanks for being open-minded and inclusive. Trek fans really are the best people!

If Star Trek teaches us anything its to embrace diversity - that, and simple metaphors are a great way to explain away complex technobabble.

I'm sorry to see the gay agenda is alive and well on here. I expected most of you to have drunk the kool aid, but i was surprised Jammer would censor my comments when he talks about freedom of speech so much.

There are no gay people in Star Trek because no one chooses perversiont in the future. End of story.

IDIC

Vulcans don't even have emotions, so I don't see how that applies here. Diversity is not a virtue.

Dave in NC isn't the only one who should be worried for his soul, i hope you know that promoting sin is almost as bad as doing the act.

"Dave in NC isn't the only one who should be worried for his soul"

Agreed.

::Points to "Don't Feed The Trollz" sign::

::Slaps his present self in the head::

::Slingshots back around the sun::

This is what I never get about religious people. One would think that if Dave's soul is doomed, why would you care feeling so satisfied in your correctness? Let him burn if that is the will of the universe, which in all its wonders and complexities has awarded Earth (and I suspect, in your ONE religion) as being the center for moral correctness... for some reason.

The fact that there aren't gay characters in Star Trek (although the topic is broached in a handful of episodes across all the series) says more about our societies present view of sexuality than it does about the future.

Although I fundamentally disagree with Joshua, I believe its a topic worth of discussion in the context of Star Trek, especially with this episode.

On another note, now that I think of it, Odo can be seen as a kind of transgender/no gender character. One who chooses his sexuality... or does he? hmm

"Although I fundamentally disagree with Joshua, I believe its a topic worth of discussion in the context of Star Trek, especially with this episode."

The lack of gay characters in Trek is certainly worth discussing. In the context of a 20th century TV show that was ground breaking in it's exploration of other kinds of diversity. DS9 for example had exactly 1 white male on the show (characters of course, not actors). And he wasn't even an American. For a franchise that had the first interracial kiss and people from different colors and countries flying on a starship together 40 years ago, it is notable that they never really boldly went there with a gay character.

So yes, it's totally a valid discussion to speak on why there were no gay characters written into Star Trek by the writers of our time. It is NOT a valid discussion to speak on if there will be no gay people in the future. That there is troll bait.

If there is a hell, I'd imagine it's a lot like South Park's depiction as a never-ending luau replete with the sexually, intellectually, spiritually, interrogatively, communally, conversationally, historically, physically and socially interesting lot of humanity (aka "the sinners").

Joshua, I'm sure Jammer would agree that your comment was not censured because you have a radical opinion, but because you used a hateful slur.

@ Dave in NC--see you at the luau! (you, too, Joshua)

@Robert :

2 words : Rick Berman

I was pleased that DS9 was willing, at least, to address the topic of fluid sexuality (Dax in "Rejoined," Odo in "Chimera, Quark, God help us all, in "Profit and Lace"). I was far less impressed by the silliness in, say "Body and Soul," or, God couldn't help us if he were real, "Bound."

SIgh, and of course the Abrams' flicks are just dripping with "not-gays" (see RedLetterMedia).

"On another note, now that I think of it, Odo can be seen as a kind of transgender/no gender character. One who chooses his sexuality... or does he? hmm "

I choose to think Odo and Dax are nearly pansexual (and Dax is genderless). Jadzia obviously has a gender, but the Dax symbiont cannot possibly have a gender as we understand it and seems to be capable of romantic relationships outside the consideration of gender (a trait that Jadzia Dax has demonstrated to have obtained via joining most likely). There was no element of bi-sexuality in her attraction to Lenara Khan, it was much more gender blind/pansexual.

As to Odo? He only exhibits sexual attraction towards women, but I don't think he selected his gender anymore than Data did. Odo's is modeled after his "father" Dr. Moya and Data's is modeled after his "father" as well. I would assume that both of them would be capable of attraction to their same gender, since the entire great link is well, practically the same organism?

"ODO: To differentiate yourself from the others.
FOUNDER: I don't.
ODO: But you are a separate being, aren't you?
FOUNDER: In a sense.
ODO: When you return to the Link, what will happen to the entity I'm talking to right now?
FOUNDER: The drop becomes the ocean."

That basically means that, to my understanding, they should all be the same gender (or lack there of). And unless something in them programs them to like humanoid females, I'd imagine that, should the right man come along, Odo could be attracted to him. (I'm SURE there has got to be some Odo/Garak fan-fic somewhere).

@ Elliot

I've never been to a luau, so it should be fun. :)

@ Joshua

It's sad that you are so judgmental . . . obviously your parents failed to teach you about empathy or respect for your fellow man. Apparently Star Trek didn't help either.

I can only hope one day that you'll see that bigotry and fear is no way to live a life.

@ Robert/Elliot/bbhor

Your discussion of Odo's gender/sexuality is fascinating.

My two cents? In the episode where Odo boinked the hideous "female" changeling as the solids do, the dialogue basically stated that linking is the Shapeshifter equivalent of sexual intercourse.

This is interesting because there was also an episode where Odo linked with a "male" changeling. If we DO accept that changelings have a gender, the Odo was definitely double dipping.

"This is interesting because there was also an episode where Odo linked with a "male" changeling. If we DO accept that changelings have a gender, the Odo was definitely double dipping."

Agreed. It was stated (in some ways) that linking is even more intimate than sex. But even if Odo is confused by solid terms I don't the "female" changeling would actually consider herself female or consider her or Odo bi-sexual. That's why I went with pan-sexual... I just think it's about the person, not about an attraction to a gender.

In a lot of ways DS9 was very progressive about sexuality. I particularly liked that in "Rejoined" nobody even blinked that Lenara was a woman. It was all about violating the Trill taboo that people were upset with. DS9's progressive take on sexuality was, to me (especially as a product of the time) a natural progression from TNG being willing to dip their toes into such subject matter in this episode. Sadly future Trek series dropped the ball.

When I was younger and watching Star Trek I couldn't understand why people were clamoring for a gay character. I mean, I wouldn't have had a problem with it (my parents were pretty conservative, and my father even fairly religious... but they actually never tried to teach us there was anything wrong with being gay, and I had already watched gay characters on Roseanne) but I didn't see the need. I suppose it comes with being a straight white male.

With a little more perspective I see the legacy Gene left. A Japanese man, a black woman, a Russian (during the cold war) and even an alien first officer (how nice to think that when we finally meet another species we'll be friends with them). That's a legacy of inclusion. A show that had the first interracial kiss written by a man who's pilot included a female first officer!

For all of Gene's faults it's a hell of a legacy and one that I'm proud to be a fan of. With a little more perspective I do see that Rick Berman dropped the ball. It might not have meant much to me as a middle schooler watching Voyager, but to the kid who just realized he was gay it might have meant the world.

A quote from Whoopi Goldberg :
"She said, 'Well when I was nine years old Star Trek came on,' and she said, 'I looked at it and I went screaming through the house, "Come here, mum, everybody, come quick, come quick, there's a black lady on television and she ain't no maid!"' And she said, 'I knew right then and there I could be anything I wanted to be, and I want to be on Star Trek.'"

Now that I'm older I could see what seeing a gay person on the bridge of a starship in an accepting future could have meant to that kid. And I'm sad that Rick Berman decided he couldn't boldly go where no one had gone before.

@Joshua: ”There are no gay people in Star Trek because no one chooses perversiont in the future. End of story.”

@Robert: "Although I fundamentally disagree with Joshua, I believe its a topic worth of discussion in the context of Star Trek, especially with this episode."

@Everyone else:
Joshua’s fundamental attitude is of course not worth waisting time on. However, I wholly concur with Robert. However, I disagree on the final outcome.

Yes, “seeing a gay person on the bridge of a starship” far in the future could be very meaningful and important to the viewers, and especially to the particular viwer. But the question is actually: would it be realistic, i.e., consistent with the view of humanity in TOS and TNG?

I believe it’s short-sighted to focus on gays, or the absence of gays, in Star Trek. There’s a much, much more obvious absence in all the series that is indicative of the much greater issue at hand: that of obese humans. In other words: in Star Trek, what we see in the future is ideal humans.

Consider that.

This is especially true in TOS and TNG, where every human is more or less an ideal human, in every way, except for a few individuals who turn out to be more or less insane or otherwise "inhuman", such as Bekker in "The Doomsday Machine", or even better, Korby in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?". But see also Satie in "The Drumhead", Marr in "Silicon Avatar", Maxwell in "The Wounded", or Graves in "The Schizoid Man", just to name a few. Apart from such "wounded", "schizoid" people, and the very rare example of Pressman in "The Pegasus", humans on TOS and TNG were virtually always near-ideal: physically "perfect", and morally paragons of virtue, much like Jean-Luc Picard. There are very few shades of grey here.

This poses a much, much more fundamental question than the superficial gay issue; the gay question is interesting, of course, in late 20th/early 21st century contexts, but less significant in the grand scheme of Trek.

The real question is: why are there never, apart from such clinical cases as the above mentioned, any anormal people in Star Trek, apart from the genetically enhanced in "Space Seed", before DS9 revisits that exact same theme with "Doctor Bashir, I Presume?", and "Statistical Probabilities"?

[It’s interesting to note how DS9, which completely subverted what humanity and the Federation had evolved to in the course of TOS and TNG, also subverted their very idea of ideal people.]

Allow me to quote my previous comment on this thread of Dec 28, 2013:

"Secondly, about the absence of homosexuals in Star Trek: what if ― just what if ― there are no homosexuals in the 24th century?

What I mean is this: I have no doubt that we in Picard's era will be much more "enlightened" (see below) than we are today. Nevertheless, I am convinced that no matter how enlightened, there is a very good probability that, given the possibility to screen and genetically modify embryos, we will make use of that technology. And given that possibility, I believe extremely few people, if any, will be born as, for example, dwarves, or albinos, or blind, or with Down Syndrome, if a simple genetic modification is all it takes to make the embryo "normal". We can all agree that there is nothing wrong with any of these people, but nevertheless, I am convinced that virtually all parents would prefer said small "corrective" genetic modification(s).

There is no doubt that it will some day be possible to do this, and all human history shows us that what is possible to do is also done. All we need is to get used to the idea. [...]

The question is, where does homosexuality stand? I can't help but wonder how many parents, if given the choice, would/will prefer their child to function "within normal parameters"?

Did the producers of Star Trek ever contemplate these matters? Why do we virtually never see anyone outside the norm in Star Trek? On TNG, we never even see any overweight humans. (David Ogden Stirs' character in "Half a Life" was an alien. So are the Pakleds. Other than that only a couple of guest stars are slighty chubby). Is this a mere coincidence? What do you think? What will happen when we finally begin to be able to make such precise modifications to our genome?

[...]

We know that genetic manipulation takes place in the Trekverse, and while "enhancement" is prohibited, what do we know of "corrective" procedures? Can genetic manipulation be the reason why virtually every human on Star Trek is so "normal"? Why we never seen any disabled, or even overweight, human of any kind? Can this be why we never encounter homosexuality among humans on Star Trek?"

And to finish, what follows: "More profoundly, is it thinkable that [...] in enough centuries, we will all be some sort of "perfect" mainstream beings? Or is it thinkable that we will leave such technology, which undoubtedly will be developed, unused?"

This is really the main question we should be considering; homosexuality is merely part of a larger question.

I’m guessing all of us ― apart from Joshua ― can see no moral wrong in being a homosexual. I’m guessing most of us ― including me ― can see no ethical problem with civil marriages for gays. I’m guessing some of us ― though not me ― can see no ethical problem in gay adoption. But *when* a bit of genetic resequencing of an embryo is all it will take to make the future child a person who will not be blind nor deaf, nor have some other physically or mentally crippling genetic disorder [I’m *not* including homosexuality in this category], and who will be able to fall in love and have children with a person of the opposite sex as the most natural [no pun intended] thing on Earth, who will refrain from doing it? I’m guessing not many.

To me, there's nothing as beautiful in creation or evolution (your choice) as the ability of two people of the opposite sex who love each other to have a child that is, quite literally, a part of them both. This is something truly amazing. For no other reason than that, I would feel extremely sorry for being gay, just like I feel extremely sorry for all the people who for one reason or another cannot have a child with the person they love.

I think adoption is a beautiful thing. I think the capacity to love a child that is not your own is a beautiful thing. But don’t tell me that that is what every straight couple in love dream of. No, we dream of creating new life, unassisted by technology, that is, magically, a part of ourselves and the very man or woman we love. And I believe (though I may be wrong), that this is some sort of longing, and a problem, that at least some homosexuals who truly love each other somehow must feel, at some point. “Ahh, if only we could...”

So please don’t take this the wrong way. But who on Earth would deny their future child the possibility of having a "normal" family, if all it took was a visit to the doctor?

I seriously believe that someday in the future, there will be no homosexuality. I seriously believe that in the future, every human being will be near-perfect. And yes, I’m sorry to say this, but there is such a thing as "perfection" to most humans. We all know that, let’s not pretend otherwise. When the technology becomes available, we’ll all have different eye and hair and skin colours, but we’ll all have essentially the same build, etc. No one will chose their child to have short, crooked legs, or be bald, or with a tendency to be fat. We’ll all look essentially alike. Hell, to any alien species out there we probably already do.

That’s actually something I like about TNG. In TOS it would of course be totally unthinkable to mention homosexuality. But by the time TNG was around, the issue could have been adressed. By season 7, we could have seen a gay captain in one of the episodes. In a way, I’m actually glad we didn’t. I understand Robert’s argument that that would be an important message to the viewers back then, or even today, twenty years later. But I actually believe that doing so would be an undermining of the “ideal human” idea that pervades TOS and TNG.

No, some of you may be thinking: “What is this idiot talking about? There is no such thing as an ideal human.” I share that sentiment, but again, please, let’s not fool ourselves. There’s nothing wrong in being very short, and yet we give people growth hormones these days.

I’m sure that in the real 24th century, no one will be missing homosexuals in TNG; in fact, they’ll probably praise it for not caving in to that particular social issue of its day, and having been so far-sighted in predicting the human trend for perfecting ourselves as soon as the relevant technologies are becoming available. In that way, we humans aren't really that different from the Borg.

But I may be wrong. Who knows, by the 24th century, maybe we’ll see it as something natural that two male homosexuals, one of whom is some sort of cyborg, have their DNA matched in a laboratory, and then have their scientifically engineered child implanted in the cyborg for gestation. It could certainly be done, and would merely be another take on our resemblance to the Borg. All I’m saying is, the other way around would make a lot more sense.

What do you think?

"So please don’t take this the wrong way. But who on Earth would deny their future child the possibility of having a "normal" family, if all it took was a visit to the doctor? "

I do agree. I just wonder if the trip to the doctor would simply mean that 2 men or 2 women could combine their DNA and create a child that is half daddy and half daddy (heh, I actually wrote this part before I read your ending... to me this would actually make more sense based on current trending morality).

"What do you think?"

I also think that people TODAY might choose to make their child not gay (if only to spare them some difficulty in life), as it becomes less difficult to be gay... well I don't know. In 100 years will people even think it's worth designing your designer babies around that?

I also think that Star Trek (and modern morality) have an unspoken "don't mess with nature" law built in. The Prime Directive seems to lean that way. I think that designing our babies to do anything other than not have horrible diseases will probably be off limits. Obviously time will tell though.

I agree with Robert, I believe. I think we are closer to engineering babies with same-sex biological parents (with donor eggs and surrogate mothers for the male couples, it can probably be done *this* century), than to eradicating homosexuality. By reasons of both science and culture. I think it will become accepted that gay people are as natural and *desirable* a component of human diversity as any other.

Also, Andy's Friend, I'm sure that we see mostly 'ideal' humans in the shows because we are mostly watching the exceptionally talented and motivated people who chose, and succeeded at, careers in Starfleet.

@Andy's Friend :

I appreciate that you're making every effort to present a genuine argument and are not purposefully promoting a prejudiced view, but your argument is specious.

Being gay (or possessing any number of sexual orientations other than what you are calling "normal") has no bearing on one's ability to interact with society. Unlike a mental or physical disability, non-hetero orientations are simply different flavours of human sexuality, akin to race.

Being gay also has absolutely no effect on one's ability to raise a family, work, attend social functions, etc. The affinity with race comes in the fact that the difficulties associated with being gay are socially imposed, not empirically determined.

"I’m sure that in the real 24th century, no one will be missing homosexuals in TNG..."

Um, homosexuals have been a part of every society since the dawn of recorded human history (and most likely long before). Being able to make babies within the confines of one particular socially-imposed monogamous sexual relationship is not what I would call a determining factor in choosing an "ideal human." Making babies is really, really easy. It's the raising them part which requires a bit of effort, don't you think?

Andy's friend said:
Yes, “seeing a gay person on the bridge of a starship” far in the future could be very meaningful and important to the viewers, and especially to the particular viwer. But the question is actually: would it be realistic, i.e., consistent with the view of humanity in TOS and TNG?

I believe it’s short-sighted to focus on gays, or the absence of gays, in Star Trek. There’s a much, much more obvious absence in all the series that is indicative of the much greater issue at hand: that of obese humans. In other words: in Star Trek, what we see in the future is ideal humans.

Consider that.


Reply:
Except Geordi is blind. Counselor Troi loses her powers. Admiral Clayton, Sarek, Picard and Tuvok have incurable illnesses. B'elanna, Troi, and Spock are mixed. Half the TNG cast are social outcasts. Many nationalities and worlds are represented. People from young to old serve in Starfleet. Sisko was a grief-stricken widower. Barclay has a anxiety disorder. Miles has PTSD. Bashir was genetically manipulated by his parents. Admiral Hanson and the admiral in the "Drumhead" were far from svelte. (I suspect limited budgets led them to save the over-sized uniforms for the Bolian extras).

So why is the "focusing on the gay issue" "short-sighted"? It seems to me that you are casually dismissive of the big civil rights issue of our time.


Andy's Friend said:
This poses a much, much more fundamental question than the superficial gay issue; the gay question is interesting, of course, in late 20th/early 21st century contexts, but less significant in the grand scheme of Trek.

reply:
How can you refer to being inclusive of gay people as "superficial"? Having even one gay character isn't too much to ask, especially of a forward thinking franchise like Trek. The implication that we don't exist is wrong for a lot of reasons.


Andy's friend said:
Allow me to quote my previous comment on this thread of Dec 28, 2013:

"Secondly, about the absence of homosexuals in Star Trek: what if ― just what if ― there are no homosexuals in the 24th century?

What I mean is this: I have no doubt that we in Picard's era will be much more "enlightened" (see below) than we are today. Nevertheless, I am convinced that no matter how enlightened, there is a very good probability that, given the possibility to screen and genetically modify embryos, we will make use of that technology. And given that possibility, I believe extremely few people, if any, will be born as, for example, dwarves, or albinos, or blind, or with Down Syndrome, if a simple genetic modification is all it takes to make the embryo "normal". We can all agree that there is nothing wrong with any of these people, but nevertheless, I am convinced that virtually all parents would prefer said small "corrective" genetic modification(s).

There is no doubt that it will some day be possible to do this, and all human history shows us that what is possible to do is also done. All we need is to get used to the idea. [...]


reply:

Get used to the idea that eugenics is ok?! You have no idea how offensive it is for you to say that my life is broken and needs to be fixed! Saying I'm a DNA edit away from "normal" is NOT a compliment.

I'm sure you feel what you wrote is very even-minded and logical, but your conclusion that being gay is comparable to having a disease is wrong. Even more offensive is your oh-well attitude toward eugenics.


Andy's Friend said:
The question is, where does homosexuality stand? I can't help but wonder how many parents, if given the choice, would/will prefer their child to function "within normal parameters"?

reply:
So I'm abnormal? I'm defined by one characteristic of myself? I know you don't mean to be offensive, which in some ways is even worse. You don't understand what you are saying.

Andy's Friend said:
We know that genetic manipulation takes place in the Trekverse, and while "enhancement" is prohibited, what do we know of "corrective" procedures? Can genetic manipulation be the reason why virtually every human on Star Trek is so "normal"? Why we never seen any disabled, or even overweight, human of any kind? Can this be why we never encounter homosexuality among humans on Star Trek?"

reply:
Starfleet, like our military, probably has fitness standards just as we do. Besides, the replicators are probably to the point where they can remove calories/fat without effecting taste too much.

The civilians we DO see definitely run the gamut of body-types.


Andy's Friend said:
And to finish, what follows: "More profoundly, is it thinkable that [...] in enough centuries, we will all be some sort of "perfect" mainstream beings? Or is it thinkable that we will leave such technology, which undoubtedly will be developed, unused?"

reply:
You should read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

Andy's friend said:
This is really the main question we should be considering; homosexuality is merely part of a larger question.

reply: When Gene R. decided to include Uhura, Chekov, Spock, Chapel and Sulu in the cast, was that part of a larger question?

Sometimes, just the act of showing different kinds of people are still people is enough.


Andy's Friend said:
I’m guessing all of us ― apart from Joshua ― can see no moral wrong in being a homosexual. I’m guessing most of us ― including me ― can see no ethical problem with civil marriages for gays.

I’m guessing some of us ― though not me ― can see no ethical problem in gay adoption.

reply:
Ethical problem with gay adoptions when so many children live in foster care and group homes?


Andy's friend said:
But *when* a bit of genetic resequencing of an embryo is all it will take to make the future child a person who will not be blind nor deaf, nor have some other physically or mentally crippling genetic disorder [I’m *not* including homosexuality in this category], and who will be able to fall in love and have children with a person of the opposite sex as the most natural [no pun intended] thing on Earth, who will refrain from doing it? I’m guessing not many.

reply:
You assume it is genetic and NOT epi-genetic, which is a much different beast. I suggest you do some research before you start fantasizing about deleting aspects of society you have a "etchical problem" with.


Andy's friend said:
To me, there's nothing as beautiful in creation or evolution (your choice) as the ability of two people of the opposite sex who love each other to have a child that is, quite literally, a part of them both.

reply:
First off, I can still have children.

Secondly, If the technology for two males/females to reproduce does develop, doesn't that throw your whole "beauty" argument out the window?


Andy's friend said:
This is something truly amazing. For no other reason than that, I would feel extremely sorry for being gay, just like I feel extremely sorry for all the people who for one reason or another cannot have a child with the person they love.

reply:
Spare me your false pity. Just because I can't combine my genetics with someone (at the moment) doesn't mean I need someone to feel sorry for me. Besides, currently there are many ways to conceive a child that CAN involve sibling DNA, etc, if that is your big thing.

I
Andy's friend said:
think adoption is a beautiful thing. I think the capacity to love a child that is not your own is a beautiful thing. But don’t tell me that that is what every straight couple in love dream of. No, we dream of creating new life, unassisted by technology, that is, magically, a part of ourselves and the very man or woman we love. And I believe (though I may be wrong), that this is some sort of longing, and a problem, that at least some homosexuals who truly love each other somehow must feel, at some point. “Ahh, if only we could...”

reply:
Thanks for filling us gay people in on why straight people like to have kids.

Andy's friend says:
So please don’t take this the wrong way. But who on Earth would deny their future child the possibility of having a "normal" family, if all it took was a visit to the doctor?

reply:
I am not an aberration. You make it sound like being gay is Lou Gehrig's disease.

Besides, one could argue that since gay poeple are inordinately involved percentage-wise in high culture (music, the arts, architecture, etc) that we serve a vital social and intellectual function.

Andy's friend says:
I seriously believe that someday in the future, there will be no homosexuality. I seriously believe that in the future, every human being will be near-perfect. And yes, I’m sorry to say this, but there is such a thing as "perfection" to most humans. We all know that, let’s not pretend otherwise. When the technology becomes available, we’ll all have different eye and hair and skin colours, but we’ll all have essentially the same build, etc. No one will chose their child to have short, crooked legs, or be bald, or with a tendency to be fat. We’ll all look essentially alike. Hell, to any alien species out there we probably already do.

reply:
That will only happen if people decide that tinkering with non-disease related aspects of their children is the right thing to do. The fact that you have decided that I am an aberration and "not normal" is where you need to start over.

And frankly, your sort of back-handed endorsement of the process is just the sort of thing that gets the slippery slope started.


Andy's friend says:
That’s actually something I like about TNG. In TOS it would of course be totally unthinkable to mention homosexuality. But by the time TNG was around, the issue could have been adressed.

reply:
It doesn't surprise me that you would like this.

Andy's friend says:
By season 7, we could have seen a gay captain in one of the episodes. In a way, I’m actually glad we didn’t.

reply:
Of course you are. That whole diversity and inclusion thing was so 1960's, wasn't it?

Andy's friend says:
I understand Robert’s argument that that would be an important message to the viewers back then, or even today, twenty years later. But I actually believe that doing so would be an undermining of the “ideal human” idea that pervades TOS and TNG.

reply:
You are wrong. Khan was exiled for this, Julian shouldn't have been in Starfleet. They've established pretty firmly that it's a big no-no in the Trekverse.


Andy's friend says:
No, some of you may be thinking: “What is this idiot talking about? There is no such thing as an ideal human.” I share that sentiment, but again, please, let’s not fool ourselves. There’s nothing wrong in being very short, and yet we give people growth hormones these days.

reply:
That shows how little you understand biology. There are physiological MEDICAL reasons why an extremely short stature can be non-advantageous. Doctors don't just hand them to kids that are a little short.

Andy's friend says:
I’m sure that in the real 24th century, no one will be missing homosexuals in TNG; in fact, they’ll probably praise it for not caving in to that particular social issue of its day, and having been so far-sighted in predicting the human trend for perfecting ourselves as soon as the relevant technologies are becoming available. In that way, we humans aren't really that different from the Borg.

reply:
Well, they'll definitely be some bored humans, because their art, music, fashion and architecture will probably suck.

Andy's friend says:
But I may be wrong. Who knows, by the 24th century, maybe we’ll see it as something natural that two male homosexuals, one of whom is some sort of cyborg, have their DNA matched in a laboratory, and then have their scientifically engineered child implanted in the cyborg for gestation.

reply:
I love how you wax rhapsodic about the "loving process" of ejaculating semen into the vaginal canal, but somehow creating a process where I could reproduce with my partner is deserving of this Borg-analogy-heavy description.

Andy's friend says:
It could certainly be done, and would merely be another take on our resemblance to the Borg. All I’m saying is, the other way around would make a lot more sense.

reply:
And that, my friends, is a textbook example of how to campaign for racial purification.

Oh, and "Andy's friend", please stop referring to us as "the homosexuals". We generally prefer the adjective gay, because after that comes the word it describes: person.

You definitely could use the reminder.

I'll quote from an episode of Star Trek that I think is relevant to this discussion.

HANNAH: May I see it? Your visor?
LAFORGE: Sure. So, I guess if I had been conceived on your world, I wouldn't even be here now, would I?
HANNAH: No.
LAFORGE: No, I'd've been terminated as a fertilised cell.
HANNAH: It was the wish of our founders that no one had to suffer a life with disabilities.
LAFORGE: Who gave them the right to decide whether or not I should be here? Whether or not I might have something to contribute.
HANNAH: I don't know what to say. Here you go. How does it work?
LAFORGE: Well, the visor scans the electromagnetic spectrum between one hertz and one hundred thousand terahertz, converts it all to usable frequencies and then transmits that information directly to my brain.
HANNAH: What about the data conversion rates? How do you avoid a sensory overload?
LAFORGE: A bank of pre-processors compresses the data stream into pulses, you see. That way, my visual cortex never. Wait a minute. Wait just a minute. We should be able to send a high-energy pulse through the tractor system. If it's short enough, it shouldn't overload the emitters. The technology is right here. If we could adapt those pulse compression routines and then apply them to the warp power conduits.
HANNAH: We'd have to avoid tractor force rebounding, but that shouldn't be hard.
LAFORGE: Sure. With a few modifications. Oh, that's perfect.
HANNAH: What?
LAFORGE: If the answer to all of this is in a visor created for a blind man who never would have existed in your society. No offence intended.

Actually that entire episode makes a good case against "ideal humans" the way you'd describe it (via designer babies).

I choose to believe nobody is overweight in the future because replicated chocolate ice cream has no calories and that nobody is gay in the future because Rick Berman has no balls. But that's just me :P

@ Robert

I said the same in my mega-reply. :)

BTW, apologies to Jammer and the visitors to this forum.

I know huge posts are irritating to read, but I felt that Andy's friend needed to be addressed point for point.

"I said the same in my mega-reply. :)"

Your comment about Geordi being blind is actually what made me think of this episode.

Dave in NC, thanks for the above. I must admit, I skimmed Andy's Friend's comments and certainly overlooked some key points. The "ethical objection" to adoption by gay couples is striking, for one thing.

I have to say, while we all can debate many points of the depicted Trekverse/future culture, it is pretty strongly established that *eugenics* is seen as wicked, in the canonical history and in specific contexts such as Robert points out.

Bravo, Dave in NC! I've always been bothered by the idea that straight intercourse can be described in flowery 19th century poetic terms while gay intercourse is, as you put, an aberration. It's all equally gross and beautiful depending on where you're standing.

Worth pointing out that Andy's Friend specifically said "obese" people--which is as ridiculous as complaining we don't see people with cancer--a diversity of body types should be shown, but obesity is a product of poor health and poor diet, both of which are antithetical to Federation economics and technology. My issue is that it seems like only the males show a diversity of body types, whereas *all* the women we see have to be petite, busty and generally gorgeous (psst, it's a TV show after all). Now that I think about it, I think everyone in Trek was portrayed as rather fit until Jonathan Frakes started putting on the pounds...

@ Peremensoe

Not to be overly personal, but I've thought about maybe adopting one day (once I find the right person to spend my life with), but in my state I would never be allowed to.

It really saddens me when I see a majority of people say I'm unfit to care for a child (and especially when they rationalize it away like Andy's Friend).

@Dave - I'm really sorry to hear that. I know it's easier said than done (or impossible in some cases), but there are many states that will welcome you. And in the absence of being able to move, things have changed a lot in a short period of time. ::Fingers crossed::

@ Elliot

Thanks! I was trying *really* hard not to get too soap-boxy.

Also, you may actually be onto something there with Riker's slow bloating process. ;)

He clearly got his hands on some un-replicated chocolate iced cream.

Hopefully society will progress before I'm 90. lol

^

That was @ Robert

Just wanted to share some solidarity with Elliott, Robert and Dave in NC on this one.

It actually MAY be true that genetic engineering may be used to eliminate homosexuality, and certainly may prospective parents, if given that choice right now, would make the choice to have straight children rather than gay children. However, I don't think that's true of all parents at all, and I think it's very likely this will become less and less true.

If I may share a little snapshot of my own life to (hopefully) showcase that attitudes are changing for the better :

At this moment, I am 26 years old and engaged to a man. My devoutly Catholic parents and I have a fantastic relationship and are tremendously excited about our wedding. Just a few days ago, my fiancé's 82-year-old grandfather (a personal friend of John McCain's no less) asked us when he could expect great-grandchildren. I have never considered my life or experiences to be exceptional, except I would hope, in what I have *accomplished.* Although it's the last thing I'd aspire to, this thread has provided an enlightening revelation that my life is exceptionally normal. Go figure.

Expanding the boundaries of the normal. Sounds like a Trekker to me...

"Although it's the last thing I'd aspire to, this thread has provided an enlightening revelation that my life is exceptionally normal."

No worries, you still like VOY better than DS9. You're hardly "normal" :P.

Seriously though, congrats on your upcoming wedding/marriage! Wishing you both lots of happiness!

@ Elliot

Congratulations! I'm just a wee bit jealous. ;)

@Dave in NC: I’m sorry that you felt offended by what I wrote. It is ironic, as my actual views on the use of genetic engineering are very different from what I predict will be done. But this is a sci-fi forum, so I offered those predictions. You seem to have chosen to believe that I endorse them. I do not. I'm a historian, and a fan of sci-fi: I gave you a vision of a foreseeable future.

I was hoping the readers would be able to see that I am not claiming that you, or any gay, is an “aberration”, to use your word, but simply implying a known fact ― that there is an overwhelming preference for the “normal” man & woman relationship in the world ― and that because of this, most people will certainly, when the technology becomes available, ensure that their children will follow that norm.

Apparently you didn’t notice the difference. But how can we talk about this if you allow the very topic to offend you?

Nevertheless, consider this: you would still be you if your parents had played any genetic tricks on you while an embryo or a foetus ― and made you, among other things, straight. Please don’t tell me your whole identity is based on your sexuality, Dave. So what if they had changed your hair colour, and eye colour? So what if they had made you love cheese? So what if they had made you fall for girls? As much as I oppose genetic engineering: do you think any of it would matter at all to you today?

I understand that reading about how a majority of the world’s population thinks you’re an “outcast” ― just to mention this episode’s title ― can be very unsettling. But there you have it: *that’s reality*. It is a fact. If you can’t discuss it, don’t. But please, don’t make the classic mistake of mistaking the messenger for his message.

I never accused you of being “unfit to care for a child”. I stated that I consider there are ethical problems about gays adopting.* You could have asked which, but you didn't. You seem to just have assumed that I must somehow believe gays are “unfit to care for a child”. Who’s being prejudiced here? I also believe that there are serious ethical considerations attached to various technologies used today to help people have children.** Likewise, I also believe there are deep ethical problems attached to certain types of straight adoptions. There are many kinds of ethical considerations, Dave. Only irresponsible people disregard them.

Have you ever read any statistics on children from third-world countries adopted by straight couples in Western Europe (take Koreans or Indians in Scandinavia, for example), and how a majority of these have psychological issues ― low self-esteem, etc. ― and questions of who their real parents were, and why they were “abandoned” by them, not to mention issues created by being obviously different from the average population and from their adoptive parents?

There comes a time when every Korean kid in say, Sweden realizes that everyone knows he or she is an adopted child. Do you have any idea of what that realization does to *some* of those children? Have you ever personally known mentally screwed up adoptive children, perfectly normal on the outside, but deeply self-destructive inside, and recognized the patterns? Did it occur to you that my ethical qualms about gay adoption might have very little to do with your ability as a gay to care for a child, which I don’t question for a second?

[* As I said, I have very serious doubts on the adoption issue, because I do believe there is such a thing as gender: we’re not just persons, we’re ladies and gentlemen, different as we may be, with different qualities and attributes. This should really be self-evident: it’s what the women’s rights advocates argued for the better part of a century ever since the late 19th century, and is the very rationale for saying that ideally both sexes should be equally represented in parliaments and governments and, and, and... everywhere ― a claim I have no problem with whatsoever. For that very same reason, I think that ideally children should have a male and a female ― diversity ― in their home: the relationship between a father and his son, a father and his daughter, a mother and her son, and a mother and her daughter are all slightly different, and I feel that children should, ideally, be given the opportunity to experience this wonderful diversity. Of course the two men or two women will be different, and the child will experience something similar. But similar is not identical, and I really do believe that the child is entitled to a male and a female. It’s the child’s interests that matter to me. Of course, if we want to be merely pragmatic and not idealistic, and just to mention one of the worst possible alternatives, if the alternative is being sold to child prostitution in India, being adopted by any loving couple, straight or gay, in say, Finland is infinitely better; and there are many other alternatives when adoption would seem a better destiny for the child. But *ideally*, I still believe the child is entitled to a man and a woman. For the exact same reason, I am against single people adopting, which sincerely annoys me, as it strikes me as the ultimate egoism: instead of a pet dog, they would buy a pet child.]

[** Allow me to quote an earlier comment by me in “Dear Doctor”:

“Think of the technological advances of the past decades on Earth. Several of these, some decades ago, allowed us for example to help people with difficulty in conceiving to have babies of their own. And now, several decades later, research suggests that on average, those who were conceived thanks to such technologies have somewhat greater difficulty themselves in conceiving than the average population. What will happen if/when those people also receive technological help to conceive? How many generations will it take before we have succeeding in "breeding" an otherwise barren "sub-species" that can only conceive by technological means?”

Again, as you can see: there are many ethical considerations.]

Also, do you have any idea how much it hurts some straight couples not being able to just make love and have babies like the rest of us lucky healthy couples? How devastated some men and women get, how “faulty” and “defective” some of them feel, after years of trying to have a baby? Have you ever witnessed someone’s marriage disintegrate because of just that problem? Ever listened to a man talking about this problem ― and then, a few days later, his wife? Have you ever had women ask you to sleep with them so they could get pregnant because their husbands couldn’t have children and you have a physical similarity to them and are an intelligent and mostly amiable fellow; and then had long talks with them about all the problems and the pain and the moral questions involved, to talk them out of it and help them in some way?

Have you ever seen that wonderful film, “Magnolia?” I’ve been woken up in the middle of the night by a female friend on the phone, having a complete breakdown and revealing that she had begun to work as a prostitute and was on the verge of suicide. I’ve been woken up in the middle of the night by another female friend on the phone, crying and having a similar breakdown because her family had finally decided to marry her off to some distant cousin she hated and would mistreat her on a daily basis. I’ve been called at work and taken the day off to talk to yet another friend who had attempted suicide three times, and prevent a fourth attempt. And you pass by these people every day on the street. There is so much sorrow in this world you wouldn’t imagine it, Dave. So please, don’t presume to lecture me on morals. I've experienced my share, in very different cultures at that. I know full well that life isn't black and white.

It is something of extraordinay beauty and wonder to spend hours just observing your children, and recognizing traits of their mother, and traits of yourself, in them. This is a simple fact: don’t twist it into an anti-gay statement. I merely said that I could imagine some gay couples must feel some similar longing. This was not “false pity”.

So try turning your “automatic defence mode” off, and read what I write. I was posing a problem, not passing moral judgement. I don’t know you, and don’t know the story of your life, and I’m ready to believe that you may have very good reasons to react as you did. But read again closely, and you’ll see that you were reading things I never wrote.

I hope we can have some nice conversations again someday; perhaps about other subjects. If not: good luck on your travels.

PS. Regarding some of your specific replies:

― On epigenetics: please, be serious. By the 24th century, we'll be able to make a hippo go transvestite if that's what we want.

― On ST eugenics: you're mistaking the "corrective" procedures I predict and "enhancements". ST explicitly is against the latter; no questions there. But little is known of corrective procedures. In real life, given enough time, I predict we'll do enhancements as well. Do you seriously doubt this?

― On Geordi's blindness and "The Masterpiece Society": a valid point... sort of. Because we all know that the only reason Geordi was blind was so that he could sport a cool-looking visor with fancy abilities. This was then used as an ironic element in that episode, granted. But "The Masterpiee Society" deals with something much, much closer to eugenic "enhancements" than the "corrective” procedures I’m talking about.

― On growth hormones: not true. I have no idea how this is done in the US, but in most European countries, children are entitled to them if they appear to reach a specified height below the (variable) national norm, whether it's due to hormonal defficiency or simply a very short child in a family of short people.

― On art, music, fashion and architecture: they already suck! :D

― On "Brave New World": I've read it, thank you, and am known to quote from it. But who cares about you and I? The real question is: how many Indians and Chinese and Muslims have read it? See where I’m heading at?

Excuse me for interrupting the flow of discussion, but I just noticed a nitpick that I never saw before. In "The Outcast," who, exactly, is cast out? Not Soren; her society keeps pulling her back *in*.

@Andy's Friend : as I said in my reply, it is quite clear that you are not *trying* to offend, and I for one appreciate that, but your views are heavily coloured by unspoken presumptions, thus making your conclusions and "predictions" rather upsetting :

"...there is an overwhelming preference for the 'normal' man & woman relationship in the world "

You are conflating what is common (heterosexual coupling) with what is normal. There is an overwhelming preference for being filthy rich in the world, but it is neither normal nor common. This commonness is not important in considering anything other than averages and other statistics.

"...because of this, most people will certainly, when the technology becomes available, ensure that their children will follow that norm. "

I have no doubt that some or many parents would choose this if it were an option, but I wouldn't say "'most." More to the point, it doesn't matter if they would (under current social conditions) make this choice, the morality of the situation would not change. As you yourself I'm sure would note, this kind of non-essential genetic tampering is a slippery slope of Huxleyan conditioning.

"...you would still be you if your parents had played any genetic tricks on you while an embryo or a foetus ― and made you, among other things, straight. Please don’t tell me your whole identity is based on your sexuality, Dave."

I won't presume to answer for Dave in NC, but while sexuality is not my *whole* identity, it most certainly is an important part of it--as it is for most people. Sex is a regular part of life and it isn't up to other people to dictate the acceptable terms under which my sex life can operate.

"...don’t make the classic mistake of mistaking the messenger for his message."

The issue isn't that you necessarily harbour the same beliefs as the those who brandish the "message," but you are looking for ways to avoid holding those people accountable for their misguided beliefs. Rather than advocating taking them to task for being prejudiced, or analysing the root of such prejudice, you are thinking of ways to avoid the conflict all together--sweeping it under the rug with a bit of genetic tampering.

"I stated that I consider there are ethical problems about gays adopting.[I think that ideally children should have a male and a female ― diversity ― in their home: the relationship between a father and his son, a father and his daughter, a mother and her son, and a mother and her daughter are all slightly different, and I feel that children should, ideally, be given the opportunity to experience this wonderful diversity.] You could have asked which, but you didn't. You seem to just have assumed that I must somehow believe gays are 'unfit to care for a child'. Who’s being prejudiced here? "

You are prejudiced, sir, in your assumption that diversity of gender (need i point out that this diversity in your prototype is exactly 2 types of gender?) is more valuable to children than other forms of diversity, such as racial or sexual. Are we not harming our children in your view (or denying them "wonderful diversity") by not insisting that straight couples of the same ethnicity not procreate?

Your statements about the problems with adoption are a non-issue here--though certainly worth considering in another context. Gay couples are perfectly capable of having biological children with donors and surrogates. The problems facing families where adoption is concerned are universal regardless of whether the parents are or aren't of the same gender.

"But similar is not identical, and I really do believe that the child is entitled to a male and a female. "

So much for wonderful diversity. Look, you're entitled to your beliefs, but there is no empirical basis for thinking that children need their *parents* to be opposite gender. As a child, I had relationships with dozens of adults--uncles and aunts, grandparents, family friends, mentors, teachers, and my parents (I had three of them [my mother remarried], so I guess my gender ratio was off). Children are social creatures as much as any other people. What matters to a child's development is that he or she is loved unconditionally, cared after and educated, not whether he has the option of developing and Œdipus complex.

The logical question that emerges is, if there's really an "ideal" family unit, why stop at opposite gender parents? Aren't there other "ideals" after which we should mould our families? Number of pets, number of vehicles, environment, wealth, etc.? Can you not see how ridiculous your assertions of idealism are in this context?

"I am against single people adopting, which sincerely annoys me, as it strikes me as the ultimate egoism: instead of a pet dog, they would buy a pet child."

Some people certainly do this, but that's incredibly presumptuous. Many single people adopt or conceive because they want families, not pets. And many more couples conceive children by accident or for reasons of vanity and status.

"There is so much sorrow in this world you wouldn’t imagine it, Dave. So please, don’t presume to lecture me on morals."

This is a non-sequitur; your personal anecdotes about pain and loss do not exempt your from justifying your moral positions.

"On ST eugenics: you're mistaking the "corrective" procedures I predict and "enhancements". ST explicitly is against the latter; no questions there. But little is known of corrective procedures. In real life, given enough time, I predict we'll do enhancements as well. Do you seriously doubt this?"

See Voyager's "Lineage."

"Because we all know that the only reason Geordi was blind was so that he could sport a cool-looking visor with fancy abilities. "

Um, no, that's not why at all. His rôle was to represent the disabled in Gene's diverse bridge crew.

"The real question is: how many Indians and Chinese and Muslims have read it? See where I’m heading at?"

Actually, no, I have no idea where you're heading [at].

^@Grumpy: Hehe, good point! ;)

@Dave, Elliott, Robert, & all: allow me to make my point much clearer. And please note: I do not condone genetic engineering on humans.

I live in Copenhagen, and Elliott lives in San Francisco: arguably two of the world's most progressive cities when it comes to their inhabitants. Are places such as these representative of the world? No.

Madrid alone has more inhabitants than all of Denmark; the city of Bombay, where I've also lived, has more inhabitants than all of Scandinavia; and the state of Maharashtra of which Bombay is the capital has twice as many inhabitants as California ― and isn’t even the most populous in India.

We also have places like Amsterdam and Seattle and Stockholm, cities with generally equally progressive and open-minded inhabitants. But again: Mexico City has more inhabitants than the Netherlands, the Cairo has more inhabitants than the state of Washington, and Moscow has more inhabitants than Sweden.

The point is, what we in Copenhagen and San Francisco think and feel and believe is largely irrelevant: there’s a much larger world out there. It’s what they think, and what they’ll do, that matters and will influence how the world will look like in say, the 24th century.

I was personally utterly amazed, some fifteen years ago, by the attitude towards genetic engineering in South Korea: it is considered a simple tool, which requires as many ethical considerations as say, a screwdriver to use. When the technology one day becomes available, they will look at a “genosequencer” (or whatever) the way I look at my razor blades. And if this, as it seems, is any indication of the feeling towards genetic engineering in China as well, what we feel and do in Scandinavia and California truly becomes totally irrelevant.

So let’s all step out of our little worlds of Star Trek and [your other favourite series here] and look at the real world out there:

The overwhelming majority of the world today still sees homosexuality as something undesirable. The overwhelming majority of the world merely *tolerates*, at most, homosexuality. To most, it’s akin to prostitution: sure, it exists, but it’s not what people wish for their children. And a very significant part of the world's population is no candidate for changing their mentality on this specific issue in the foreseeable future.

Roughly speaking, we have a billion or so Muslims. They’ll screen out homosexuality or actively induce/imprint heterosexuality genetically on their unborn as soon as it becomes technologically possible ― and they will continue to do so in any foreseeable future. There will exist no homosexuality in Muslim countries in the future.

Take a billion or so Indians: ditto. Look at how Indians are aborting girl foetuses by the millions today just because they're girls, and you’ll get the idea.

Take half a billion or so Latin Americans. The overwhelming majority of these will also screen out homosexuality from their foetuses or use whatever other technology is available to affect their sexuality as soon as they’re given the chance.

Take some four hundred million Southern & Eastern Europeans: ditto.

On China, I can only refer what I have read. They would appear to be less opposed to homosexuality than Muslims, and Indians in general regardless of religion, and Latin Americans, but still in the “as long as it’s not my children” line of thought.

Sub-Saharan Africa? I’ll leave that to your imagination.

And lastly, take a look at the US and Northern Europe: even here a very considerable part of the population would do the same the moment they had the chance. I suspect that the state in which Dave lives is a good example of this.

Yes, more and more countries are passing legislation to allow for same-sex marriages and even adoption by homosexuals. No, this does not mean that everyone is beginning to truly accept homosexuality. There is a big difference between truly respecting and merely tolerating.

The truth is that the technological advances are happening at a much faster pace than the changes in mentalities around the world. And the truth is that people in the majority of the world will have no qualms whatsoever about using genetic engineering to have more “perfect” children. Just look at how Indians are obsessed with having "fair skin". The minute the technology is made available, you'll see a middle-class larger than the US population rushing to clinics to have "fairer" babies. If they can make sure that the baby besides healthy will also be straight while they're at it, does anyone doubt they'll do it?

This is what you should be considering, not your own personal experiences or what's happening in the US. Allow me to quote Elliott's comment the other day on economics on “The Siege of AR-558”: “But like in most things, this is no longer the 20th century and the US is no longer the trend-setter.”

The bottom line is that what we, a tiny bunch of intellectuals and free-thinkers and fans of Star Trek living in insulated pockets of the world, a mere hundred or two hundred million individuals at most, think or believe is unimportant: there are billions out there who will eliminate homosexuality as soon as it becomes possible.

This is a higly plausible, and in my opinion even perhaps probable, scenario, which shouldn't be dismissed out of hand: the end result of which would be an inverse "The Oucast".

And the question is: if and when that happens, when homosexuality has been largely eradicated in most of the globe ― what will people in California and Scandinavia do?

I don't have the time or energy now to pick through all this at moment, but I must say for someone who "doesn't support this position" you seem awfully invested in making the point in as dramatic fashion as possible.

I will give you a +1 for a passable Michael Chrichton impression in the second post.

*I will return to reply in full at a later time

^@Dave in NC: hehe, I wish I were; I'd write "Last Days of the Last Gays" and make more money than I'll ever do as an academic ;)

But in truth: I'm a historian, mostly influenced by the analytical-critical traditions of Germany and Scandinavia, but also with some elements of the "Annales"-school. Normally, unless you belong to the Marxist school, which emphasizes emotional detachment from the subject matter, we do tend to investigate issues that we find personally interesting. That does not mean that we have to agree with the trends we study; and we must always be prepared to study and discuss events which we find strongly objectionable with as much objectivity as possible. In this case, the theme that most interests me is genetic engineering; the homosexuality aspect of it is, to me, only a facet of this issue. The question is: how far will other cultures go, and how far will we follow?

Just to give you an idea: my research areas concern essentially two distinct but somewhat related problem complexes, both cases of "longue durée" comparative social history, one in the 1550-1750 period, and another in the 1675-1925 period. In both problem constellations there are events and trends that I am happy took place and likewise others that I am sorry took place; but my job is to collect evidence that suggests or proves patterns and trends over time that would confirm or disprove my main theses, whether I like it or not. Every now and then, as happens to any other historian, the evidence I find doesn't support my original assumptions, and I must adjust the thesis accordingly to match the findings. Whereas a dishonest, proud, or stubborn scholar might make more selective use of his source material in order to twist the results into proving his original thesis, for example. Some people change their truths according to the facts; others change the facts according to their truths. I'm sure you can see the parallels in life.

In this case, I'm merely looking at the evidence like in any other case. Regardless of whether this is the scenario that seems most likely or not, as a worst-case-scenario it's in my opinion the most interesting to debate: because it is actually a possibility. To dismiss it out of hand would be foolish. I have actually studied this in some detail, because the issue of genetic engineering does interest me, and could describe several variations, including scenarios that have more moderate or the opposite outcome. But again ― unfortunately, as I really am opposed to genetic engineering ― I actually believe this is a very realistic and probable scenario. And as the most radical and controversial, it is the one I chose to share, because I believe it's important that people face the (possible) realities. I'm not the sort of fellow who merely tells people what they want to hear.

Consider this my take on "Statistical Probabilities": we must surrender to the Dominion. I may be just as wrong as Dr. Bashir et al.; but I find that the scenario merits a serious consideration or two. I thought we could discuss it here without being accused of promoting anti-gay propaganda. Having lived in Southern Europe, India, and now Scandinavia makes me very fond of comparative social studies, and I believe it's important more people in the insulated West start looking at what's really happening out there in the world and the mentalities of other cultures. As the Chinese recently said, the US is a small country; in the 22nd century, India and China will be dictating the ethics as much if not more than the West. Many people in the West seem to be completely oblivious to this, and to just how vast the differences in mentalities really are. Do you think that given the possibility, the 50 million-strong Indonesian middle-class will care the least about Swedish ethical guidelines, and will refrain from using genetic engineering to do various "corrections" to their unborn? What happens when that middle-class is 200 million-strong ― and the Indian half a billion?

This has very scary potential long-term consequences, the perpetuation of caste systems in India and elsewhere being assured at the very genetic level merely being one of them. Believe me when I tell you that there are hundreds of millions of Indians who would like nothing better. That's part of what I meant when I said that the issue of homosexuality is but part of a much bigger problem complex.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to your comments.

Andy's Friend is *your* whole identity...based on your sexuality? Your rhapsodizing about the joy and beauty of het sex suggests it's not irrelevant. Would you "still be you" if your genes had been flipped to make you gay? It's pretty clear you, the present you, would see that as a meaningful difference.

Sexuality, and gender identity, are important components of *everyone's* whole personhood. They are not the totality, but they are inseparable. The post-treatment Soren may retain memories, other aspects of the pre-treatment Soren, but they are not the same person.

Also, your argument that being adopted by gay parents is somehow harmful to children is very weakly reasoned. Not only does it imply that children (like mine) are harmed by having single heterosexual parents, it completely ignores the *fact* that children are far more likely to be neglected, abused, or killed by either their own biological (heterosexual) parents, or the state foster system, than they are by loving adoptive parents of any description. Think about this. Plenty of het folks fall into parenthood without a lot of thought; they do it because they're 'supposed' to, or because they're just not concerned with birth control. By contrast, gay couples have to *really* want to be parents. As a class, they're certainly not perfect, and a few may even turn out to be awful--but a kid's odds are better when parents *want* them, and have fully committed themselves to the concept.

@Peremensoe #1: thanks for your comment, which opens up for interesting talks. Here’s my first, very short answer:

”is *your* whole identity...based on your sexuality? Your rhapsodizing about the joy and beauty of het sex suggests it's not irrelevant.”

I was not in any way rhapsodizing about the joy and beauty of sex, I was rhapsodizing about something completely different: the birth of new life, unaided by technology. I was writing about the absolutely wondrous thing that the natural conception of a child is.

So read again: “creating new life, unassisted by technology, that is, magically, a part of ourselves and the very man or woman we love.”

This is not about the sex act, but the very creation of life. I was writing about the end, not the means.

@Peremensoe #2: just to answer your specific question:

” Would you "still be you" if your genes had been flipped to make you gay?”

Yes, I would still be me if all my parents had done had been making me like guys instead of girls. I wouldn’t be quite the same me, but I would be essentially the same ― and the present me wouldn’t give a frak, as he would never have existed.

This reminds me of that extremely imbecile DS9 episode, ”Children of Time”. In that episode, there is no ethical question whatsoever: the moment the Defiant leaves the planet, those people down there won’t merely cease to exist: they will *never* have existed. There is no dilemma whatsoever. The script manipulates its (less attentive, or more gullible, if you will) audience with various smokescreen maneouvres, and tries to create an ethical dilemma that simply does not exist: they are *not* killing 8,000 colonists by leaving. Sadly, that episode makes the DS9 crew remember them: the correct thing to do would be to make them forget, and let them only be remembered by the audience. This is one of the reasons VOY’s ”Course: Oblivion” is a far, far superior episode, with a truly tragic dimension.

Similarly in your scenario. If my parents had chosen to give me purple eyes and white hair, and made me hate cheese and olives and love guys instead of girls, no, it wouldn’t be the present me ― but the alternate me wouldn’t give a frak. He would be him, and be perfectly happy that way. And who I am to say that I’m better than him?

@Peremensoe #3: Here’s an answer on the matter of adoption:

All your arguments are valid ones. And for the record: your understanding is not correct. I know for a fact ― this is a matter of statistics ― that being adopted *by anyone* is harmful to *some* of the children. I therefore consider that there are ethical problems concerning gay adoption just like any other adoption.

I should have written this from the very beginning; that was my fault.

In one of my posts to Dave in NC I gave a specific example of how many third-world children in Western Europe suffer various types of psychological problems because they feel different. It might be argued that it would thus be better ― more ethical ― for say, Italian or French parents to adopt a child from Romania rather than Korea or Sri Lanka, as the likelihood of that happening would be much smaller. This is an example of the ethical issues I’m talking about.

Other adopted children suffer simply because they realize they’re adopted. This is of course a universal problem, i.e., it wouldn’t matter whether the parents were gay or not.

Some children adopted by gay parents will also suffer. How many? I’m guessing not many. How much wiill they suffer? Hard to tell, but some probably to the point of the typical self-destructive behaviour of those children adopted by straight couples who experience similar psychologic problems.

What I am thus trying to say is that adopting, in itself, is unfortunately connected with various, if mostly small to moderate, degrees of risk of psychological damage to the children. Some of these risks are easier to calculate and thus avoid than others. Some kids just can’t deal with the fact that they’re adopted. We cannot predict which ones. But adopting a child from Uganda in Finland will expose that child to a much, much greater risk of suffering certain issues than adopting a child from the Ukraine.

Unfortunately, there is no way to similarly estimate which children will most likely suffer problems specifically because of being adopted by gays. I believe that risk to be small, and I recognize that it is not the gay couple’s fault in such cases. But the risk exists.

The question is: when kids suffer issues because they can’t handle the fact that they’re adopted, they do just that. It’s an inherent risk that we must be willing to accept if we wish to have an adoption system. Whereas it is unacceptable, in my opinion, to expose a child to higher risks ― such as the examples with Koreans in Sweden or Ugandans in Finland.

*Ideally* there should be no problem in a couple of Finns adopting a Ugandan baby. But when *reality* shows us that that child has a severely higher risk of suffering from psychological side-effects because there are just virtually no blacks in Finland and the child naturally feels different (the symptoms themselves can very different, and can lead to psychoses or neuroses, depending on the personality of the child), I consider it wrong to adopt one ― the parents should choose a child from say, Moldavia instead.

*Ideally*, there should likewise be no problem in a gay couple adopting any child. But the truth is that this is adding another level of uncertainty to the equation. As such, ethical logic tells me that we have a dilemma: should we, for the sake of the few percent who actually develop some psychologic problems specifically because of this, not allow it? Should we allow that concern for a few to prevent the many from living a happy life adopted by gays? It’s an ethical dilemma in the best tradition of Star Trek: do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? This is what I meant.

Adopting is a risky business. When the kids find out, most of them have to work out the problem that their parents aren’t really their parents. Most of them deal with it just fine. But some don’t. You can’t ignore that.

In this aspect, children adopted by gay couples are of course better off, because they cannot obviously be the children of two men or two women, and they will know that from a much earlier age and thus in the majority of cases have accepted the fact that they’re adopted much sooner. However, at present we simply don’t know enough about how growing up with a gay couple affects the psyche of the kids, and how many or how few of them develop problems specifically because of the fact. As I said, I believe that few will. But this raises the question: is a few a few too many?

So therefore, yes, I consider gays adopting as irresponsible as the Finnish straight couple who chooses to adopt a baby from Korea. It’s gambling with other people’s psychological well-being. And regardless of the odds, that should just not be allowed...

...but on the other hand, we also have to consider the alternatives for the children. Chances are the kids will be happy being adopted. But if not, is being a depressed child in Western Europe better than being a child labourer in some third-world country? The scenarios are many. So are the ethical considerations.

It’s merely because of this that I give serious thought to the issue of adoption. Being a parent, you know that dealing with children is not all as simple and easy as some people out there seem to think it is. Even in Scandinavia adopted children suffer many more problems than the average child. You don’t just get adopted and live happily ever after.

Finally, we also have a very fundamental question: is having a child a human right? Can anyone just say: ”Hey, I want a kid” and fill a requisition form? Many straight people who are irresponsible do have children. But does invoking that entitle anyone ― a single person, for instance ― to a child? Because that places children in a category dangerously close to a product.

So as you can see, there are many ethical considerations. And this is want I meant: I have ethical considerations about gay adoption. Just like any adoption. We're talking about human beings. How could there not be ethical considerations involved? I cannot believe that I in a Star Trek forum would need to explain this.

Anyway, as I said, in the majority of cases ― any types of cases ― the children grow up just fine. We normally accept the reality that is given to us; that’s how people survive in hell-holes plagued by war and poverty in the third world. A child adopted by Data would probably get used to growing up with an android.

Consider that. Is Data alive? Is he sentient? We’ve seen him care for Spot. We’ve seen him in command of the flagship of the Federation. We've seen him create Lal. Should Data be allowed to adopt a human child?

@Andy's Friend - Most adoption research these days believes that you should eventually tell your kids that they are adopted. I'm not entirely sure that your point that kids who are a different color or could not have been biologically reproduced* are necessarily at much worse risk

"You don’t just get adopted and live happily ever after."

Some people do (I happen to know one who was adopted outside her race and is doing awesome, but anecdotes make lousy statistics). But more to the point.... there is no other choice. These kids have already been given up. The choice is not be adopted or be raised by your responsible biological parents. Obviously that's preferable, it's be awesome if kids never ended up in an orphanage, but it's hardly reality.

h t t p ://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/family-dynamics/adoption-and-foster-care/Pages/When-to-Tell-Your-Child-About-Adoption.aspx

"If your child is already of school age and has not been told that he is adopted, you need to talk with him about it, as early during this time of life as possible.

Adoption should not be a secret. Every youngster needs to have an honest understanding of his origin. Adopted children who have not been told seem to sense that somehow they are different; this nagging intuition can in­fluence their self-image. "

Also, to chime into the other discussion.... everyone is a sum of their genetics AND their experiences. If I were flipped to gay I'd have had a different set of experiences and would be a very different person. That's way more tweaking of the genome than I will EVER be comfortable with.

@Andy's Friend:

All you have done is identify problems that happen to be unique to adopted families, not endemic to them. Every family has it's issues and whether or not you have two parents and their genitals are different from each other is amongst the least concerning qualifications I would worry about on your "requisition form." While I occasionally get frustrated by how ignorance and stupidity in parents leads to innumerable problems our societies (I know a woman, in progressive San Francisco, who has birthed 11 children, because, you know, condoms are a sin), having children really does have to be a human right. We aren't animals competing for mates, we're evolved human beings.

For an historian, your arguments against adoption (or more accurately, in favour of being skeptical of adoption on ethical grounds) are incredibly specious and reliant on considerations of a child's hypothetical happiness. There's not a lot of science to consider in a position like yours; it's mostly cultural bias and sentimentalism about familiar forms.

Finally, I think Data would make a great father/mother--certainly better than Worf.

I like this epidode, to me it was the gay rights version of the original series episode with the anti-racism half black/half white aliens.
One thing I do have a hard time seeing Riker going gaga for Soren. Star Trek accelerated love montages are usually weak, this one especially so. I have to respect Jonathon Frakes advocating a male candidate for Soren, though that's a bit of a stretch since Soren identified as female, in fact they might have made "her" subtly more feminine.
A previous comments suggested Wesley might have been a better candidate, I have to agree.

"I have to respect Jonathon Frakes advocating a male candidate for Soren, though that's a bit of a stretch since Soren identified as female, in fact they might have made "her" subtly more feminine."

If memory serves the aliens were all played by women. If they were all played by men they could have just picked big burly men and then one who had softer features. I think that cast properly it would have worked.

Obviously if the love interest was the ONLY male that would have been bonkers, but I assume it would have changed the casting of the entire episode.

Watching this episode, I did not think in terms of it's being an allegory for homosexuality so much as transgenderism and intersex.

Let's look at the facts as they are laid out in the episode. Here you have a race that has "evolved" to reproducing by husks (without some pressure necessitating such an adaptation, that would not make sense biologically, but whatever). The majority of the J'naii are now undifferentiated in terms of gender. But there exists a minority who are born "in the more primitive state," according to Soren. Soren explains that it involves not only distinctly male or female "feelings" and "longings" but some vestige of differentiated sexual organs. Rather like intersex babies in the past, whose parents were pushed by doctors into assigning one gender or other to the baby, Soren explains that those J'naii who still carry a vestige of gender are pushed toward full genderlessness. She even mentions that, in addition to the "psychotectic" treatments, "any remaining physical sign of gender" is eliminated. In other words, Soren must have been born with some female organs, and those would be surgically removed in addition to the psychological treatment.

This is all besides the point, of course. Riker could well have pointed out not only that homosexuality exists in his world, but that there is also such a thing as intersex and transgenderism. It makes no sense that all of those things have disappered in the future. Even if they had, Riker could have pointed out that they used to existt. The episode fell a bit short in that regard.

I realize the null-space pocket shuttle rescue plot line was just a pretence, but it bothered me a bit that the shuttle crew was alive and simply suffering from a harmless "lack of oxygen" (i.e., asphyxiation?). How long were they in trapped in the null space pocket? Presumably, they also ran down their shuttle's power in trying to get out of it. Even if they had not, wouldn't their life support systems have eventually powered down? Unless they lost life support just moments before Soren and Riker arrived to rescue them, the lack of breathable air would have certainly killed them.

Regarding the Prime Directive aspect to his episode... Why does it even apply? Previously, in both TOS and TNG, the Prime Directive was explained as applying to interference with the normal development of technologically less advanced cultures. The J'naii have space travel and seem to be more or less on par technologically with the rest of the Federation. In fact, a similar level of technological development seems to be a requirement for membership in the Federation, and the J'naii seem to be members since they can call on Starfleet for help finding a missing J'naii shuttlecraft.

Picard and company have interfered in the affairs of advanced cultures before. In the leadership battles on the Klingon homeworld, for example. And then there's the episode where Wesley was sentenced to death for accidentally trampling someone's garden. They certainly interfered to save him.

"Previously, in both TOS and TNG, the Prime Directive was explained as applying to interference with the normal development of technologically less advanced cultures. The J'naii have space travel and seem to be more or less on par technologically with the rest of the Federation. "

The Prime Directive prohibits Starfleet personnel from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations.

That doesn't JUST mean pre-warp civilizations. It means ANY civilizations. Janeway won't trade replicators to the Kazon... even though they have warp. And there are a LOT of situations like that. The only way it differs with pre-warp society is that contact with pre-warp society is prohibited, because contact AT ALL with pre-warp society will alter the course of their history pretty badly.

We can contact post-warp societies, but we cannot interfere in their laws/development. Picard even cites the prime directive as to why he cannot interfere in the Klingon civil war (even though it'd be beneficial to the Federation if Gowron won). The Prime Directive applies here if Riker/Worf decide to go break the local laws heavily.

If she requested asylum.... different story. But the Prime Directive applies here for sure.

"Watching this episode, I did not think in terms of it's being an allegory for homosexuality so much as transgenderism and intersex."

For what it's worth I think the episode can serve as an allegory for any taboo sexuality. And back then all of these things pretty much were.

Oh God. I hesitate about wadding into this potential mine field. Well, here goes nothing....

"Good intentions here. Not much else."

Couldn't have said it better myself. However, with the exception of not liking the heavy-handed nature of the allegory, I have different problems with "The Outcast."

First and foremost, why the hell is Riker, of all the main characters, the lead in this story?! Look, I'm sorry, but Riker just does not strike me as the kind of man who would fall head over heels in love with Soren - a dull, uninteresting, mouse of a person whose sexual organs consist of a husk inseminator (or, as Phil Farrand said in his "Nitpicker's Guide for Next Generation Trekkers," "I never pictured him as a person willing to marry a small-breasted boy."). This is a story that almost screams for LaForge to be the main character. Given all the trials and tribulations we've seen with LaForge's romantic life, it would make much more sense for him to the one who falls in love with Soren. I can picture him being much more open to the emotional side of a relationship (which Soren could provide) than Riker, who strikes me as someone much more concerned with the physical side (which Soren can't provide). And given the fact that the way Soren and Riker first interact with each other being a tech-heavy plot it feels like the story was actually written for LaForge but the writers plugged Riker in instead just to give Jonathan Frakes something to do.

Second, there's some rather contradictory messages being sent out here. The episode goes out of its way to say that differences in people should be celebrated and people shouldn't be forced to be the same as everyone else. I agree (what kind of person wouldn't?). But then, during the poker scene with Troi, Worf, Crusher and Data, Work is portrayed as primitive for finding the J'naii off-putting for all being so similar. Um, which one is it guys? Either we celebrate diversity or we celebrate non-diverstiy. Pick one. Then, in the same poker scene, it's decreed that it's horrible to think of women as the weaker sex. But earlier, in Ten Forward, Riker explicitly says that "physically men are bigger, stronger in the upper body" and there's no denunciation. Again, pick one.

And, or course, there's the heavy-handedness. I usually hate it when Trek tries to do a "Message Episode" because that usually means they're going to break out their trusty 2x4 and beat the audience upside the head with it for 45 minutes. "The Outcast" is no different from any other message episode in that department. Several people have pointed to DS9's "Rejoined" as a much better look at the issue of homosexuality and I couldn't agree more. What made that episode so good is that, unlike this one, it was subtle about its message. The fact that it was two women considering a relationship didn't even register with the rest of the characters, nobody even raised an eyebrow (and isn't that what gay rights activists say they want - a society where nobody cares if you're gay or not?).

I can't bring myself to dislike "The Outcast" because its heart is clearly in the right place. And there is some good stuff on display - the Worf/Riker friendship and the fact that we don't get a trite happy ending. But I can't really bring myself to like it either.

And just one nitpick - how is it that the J'naii are part of the interstellar community (to the point where interacting with Federation ships is second nature) and yet they have no idea that their own freaking star system has these huge pockets of "null space" in it? I find that a little hard to believe.

5/10

"Then, in the same poker scene, it's decreed that it's horrible to think of women as the weaker sex. But earlier, in Ten Forward, Riker explicitly says that "physically men are bigger, stronger in the upper body" and there's no denunciation. Again, pick one."

Context, context, context.

Women are physically weaker. This is a fact. Riker mentioning it is pretty irrelevant.

The average woman athlete cannot compete against men. I do believe there's likely more room for overlap than most people think there is.... but on average the female "Michael Jordan" would just rather be the best in the WNBA than mediocre in the NBA. But edge cases aside, Riker is not wrong.

That said, unless poker suddenly involves a push-up contest, that is NOT the kind of "weak" that Worf and Crusher are referring to. Worf's "men don't need wild cards" is out of character for him (because somebody needed to be the neanderthal), but in addition it's ridiculous. Are men more likely to win a game of luck because there are less wild cards? Are women more likely to feel happier playing a game with more wild cards as though they need a security blanket or something??

I mean, it was a stupid statement that the writers put in there so that somebody would stomp on the chest thumping "manly" neanderthal. But jumping on Worf's misogynistic stupidity does not invalidate Riker's comment. At all.

As to your other problem with that scene... what makes you think the J'naii are so similar? Because they lack ONE difference that we have? I'm like every guy? That's preposterous! Worf is being called out for his xenophobia. It's actually funny he ends up with Dax, because she's constantly calling out Kira for being too xenophobic.

For what it's worth I didn't like the scene either, but mostly because they assassinated Worf's character to make a stupid point.

As for the rest of the episode? I pretty much agree with everything else you said. "Rejoined" is less heavy handed, Worf's sticking by Riker is great character building, skirt-chasing Riker was the wrong fit for the story, etc., etc.

I'll also say the episode has aged poorly. I think it was better 25 years ago.

As a message episode this is as typically blunt as many similar TNG explorations. Personally I found the Soren character to be nicely underplayed - there was a subtlety in the character development that was perhaps not entirely matched by the more heavy-handed script. I didn't feel it needed to be a more passionate performance. And that it was Riker, the ultimate TNG man's man, to fall in love with an androgynous character seems a sensible choice.

For me, at least, I thought it had something interesting to say. 3 stars.

The episode sucked..Have only watched it once, never again.....If we are here in the 24th century(which I know we won't last that long), and there was a planet where only homos would live, it would by like that Symbiosis episode, where the whole population HAS the disease...Except in this case, it would be AIDS.....State don't lie....

When I watched this in it's original run, I never thought about homosexuality. It never occurred to me. It seems they had Sex1 and Sex2 in the past, but combined/evolved them to become Sex3. If anyone shows traits of Sex1 or Sex2, they are re-programmed to become Sex3. And Sex3 having relations with Sex3 doesn't strike me as homosexual at all. Sex1 with Sex1 (or 2 with 2) would have been. Sex3 with Sex3 just... IS. And Riker having relations with a Sex2 (in my scenario), isn't homosexual to me.

I watched it again recently. I suppose I could see a homosexuality angle, if I tried hard enough, but I believe some folks are just reading too much into the show.

It was a poor episode. They tried to save it, but nothing they did helped, and they ended up with a convoluted mess.

Lastly, I didn't find it believable Riker would potentially throw it all away to go and 'rescue' Soren. Troi, at another place and time? Sure. Soren? Naaah...

Live Long and Prosper... RT

@RandomThoughts - It's about being closeted because of gender/sex non normative behavior. Which obviously has real life parallels.

The fact that she lives out this sexually non-normative behavior in secret has parallels to being closeted and the way they fixed her has parallels to gay conversion camps.

I still found the episode mostly stupid but somewhat thought provoking. The final scene where she is "fixed" (brainwashed) and the callback to the scene where she describes having seen the same thing happen to a classmate is chilling. It makes you wonder how we'd view homosexuality in a world where gay conversion could actually work because brain washing is successful. That was the part of the episode that stuck with me the most (both her speech about the "boy" and her brainwashing).

"And Riker having relations with a Sex2 (in my scenario), isn't homosexual to me."

Agreed. But this episode wasn't about Riker's sexual-normalcy or lack thereof. Though Frakes did push for his co-star to be a male.

This episode was not weak or a cop out. You have to remember this was done in 1992. We were still on the tail end of the 1980's Aids hysteria that had most people thinking ALL gay men had aids and shaking a gay person's hand would get you killed. TNG had to tread lightly here.

They wanted to do a gay rights episide AND a rebuke of relgious "methods" of curing people from being gay (which included drugs, to electric shock therapy, chemical castration, and many other things).

I feel it was creative to do it with this angle and so they could could get out their message while still playing it safe with hetro relationships in humanity. You can't expect them to acknowledge LGBT in a Trek show in 1992.

yes, it would have been much better if the character was played by a male actor. Alas, that would have generated way too much controversy and people would have been outraged thinking "riker is gay".

I honestly loved this episode. And with all of us rewatching the series decades later, we need to remember the time period this was written for and the pressures of syndicated television at the time. They could not take huge risks and I commend the writers for being able to do this message in a way that would fit with the broadcasting standards of the day.

And PS--

I think after Deanna and Minuet, this is the most seriously in love Riker got in the entire 7 year run of TNG. That to me makes the episode even more important.

I should say, my girlfriend, more in tune with queer and trans issues than I am, really loved this episode when she saw it, and her experience helped soften me on it quite a bit. I am looking forward to seeing whether I see it differently next time I watch it.

What they really should have done was leave out the stupid "Riker falls in love at first sight and wants to spend the rest of his life with her" crap.

Without that, it's actually a good story because it reverses thing. They made the odd-sexuality/gender-out people the oppressors and the familiar-gender/sexuality-to-most-people-who-watch-the-show people the oppressed, as if to say "Here's how it's like from the other side. What if society told you that you were wrong for being male or being female?"

I must say, it wasn't excellent, but it pulled off this "role reversal" 50x better than Angel One did.

The first time I watched this 2 years ago I actually didn't realize that this was a homosexual allegory until Sorens big speech. I thought this would just be an episode on an androgenus species and their wacky encounters with the enterprise crew. Amazingly this 24 year old episode has much better acting and plot than the Enterprise episode "Stigma" which dealt with a similar issue and also did its best to avoid mentioning that gays exist while also making as many awkward allusions to it as possible. 3 stars

I've disliked this ep ever since it first aired. I was 21 at the time and struggling with my own coming out in college.

I'm surprised that nobody in the comments has made reference to David Gerrold's TNG script "Blood and Fire" that featured a gay couple. Roddenberry and TPTB of course shot the script down. I remember reading in the early 90s that Roddenberry regretted trek not being inclusive of homosexuality and pledged to introduce a gay character in a trek series. Of course he ended up dying before anything substantive happened and trek devolved (de-evolved-?) into a tawdry t&a fest to boost ratings.
It's weird watching the show almost 30 years after its premiere. I don't/can't see myself existing in their world. There's something smothering about it. Of course I can totally see myself inhabiting most other modern later scifi shows (DS9, BSG, Farscape, B5, etc.).

@Steve - "Jamie Lee Curtis is a potential case. I say potential because she chose to behave/dress/act in a feminine manner. Biologically, however, she is XY." - please tell me this is a joke? She is female - the myths about her being born with both are completely false.

Totally agree with Jammer on this one. Weak episode with boring dialogue and monologue. The talk they had in the shuttle was just as obvious and long winded as the mediocre Shakespearian speech (do we not bleed?). And the ending is actually offensive. What is the point the writers want to make? In the future we are able to correct silly things like different sexual preferences?

While watching the show, at the point where Soren admits that she identifies as female, and J'naii like her have relationships with J'naii who identify as male, it ocurred to me ... don't any of them ever have relationships with J'naii who identify as the SAME gender? Even while presenting a blatantly obvious gay-acceptance message, the writers still managed to do it in a completely heterosexual way!

Riker goes down to an alien planet and attacks a few of them over one of their internal affairs with absolutely no consequences. Great ending. I can only guess that the Je'naii are forgiving people, maybe Soren pleaded on his behalf, but that's completely unacceptable behavior for the first officer of the flagship, let alone any officer. I thought Picard wasn't a fan of "cowboy justice" or whatever it is he calls it.

I don't mind the "talking about something while not actually talking about it" thing Trek does with this ep. They reach a wider audience that way. If it had been explicitly about homosexuality then the people it was targeting wouldn't have watched it. Instead it plants a "hmm, so the message is persecuting people for being different is wrong" into people's heads (although in today's world the allegory is completely transparent).

This episode kind of shoots itself in the foot, though. Soren seemed fine at the end, like the therapy worked rather than it just being brainwashing. That leads to the question "if we can cure people's abnormalities and make living in society easier for both them and us as a result, should we?" that I'm sure wasn't intended. People like Soren were abused in that society, and realigning them meant they'd no longer be abused, so while it was oppressive it was also a mercy. The treatment isn't presented as being hokey crap that doesn't work and just tortures the person like pretty much all forced anti gay treatments in existence then and now are, but a legitimate therapy that works. I'm not sure if they just didn't think of that or if it was poor execution, but I find the question very interesting.

Outsider65: Your point is interesting and worth debating. Yes, Soren is more content after her corrective treatment than she was before it. All her angst at being different and all her longings for things she is denied have been erased. If citizens' happiness is the goal, forced corrective therapy is the act of a loving government.

On the other hand, the message I (and I think most viewers) take from the ending is that Soren was robbed of her individuality by the heavy hand of a State that had no respect for her right to be different. This is also the message of the glorious Twilight Zone ep referenced by William B above: "Number Twelve Looks Just Like You". ("Number Twelve" made it a bit more clear that the government's interest was to erase dissent. It's never clear to me what Soren's government is trying to do: enforce a religious ideal? Erase dissent? Or make their Sorens happy?)

Lots of stories center on this theme.

For example: I haven't seen "Stepford Wives" but I imagine it's the same idea. Would you rather be you and be full of usual human angst, or be a happy slave? One can fairly argue whether the majority of (middle class) women weren't happier when female roles were defined and limited and the prescribed feminine goals were achievable to many: marry, cook, have babies, get the laundry superclean. (A subset of middle class women were of course miserable because they had squelched dreams or abusive husbands/fathers, but perhaps the sum total of female middle class happiness was greater pre feminism? It's certainly possible.)

The various memory-wipe episodes can be debated in the same way. When Kern is mind wiped in some episode "for his own good", is it right or wrong? The same plot device occurs on Babylon Five - personality-wipe is a punishment/rehabilitation technique used on convicted murderers. And on "Angel," a beloved, suffering teen boy has his whole life rewritten and is inserted into a loving family - ensuring a better shot at happiness but robbing him of all his memories of two father-figures and everything he'd built, accomplished, striven for in his natural existence. In all cases, the individuals are happier - but is it ethical to change a person against her will? Is it ethical promised that she wants it? Is it ethical if she wants it solely because society discriminates and shames her current self?

I think most of us feel horrified at the idea of being robbed of our true selves. It's like the fear of death or of dementia. But maybe we shouldn't?

If you could be guaranteed, say, a hapoy lifelong stint of dementia or insanity (all your worries gone, cared for forever while living in an upbeat fantasy world of delusion), would you choose it?

I might, but only if my life were miserable - because I am too attached to my current dreams and goals and happy moments. On the other hand, if I were forced over the line into that upbeat fantasy world, would I want to return to my checkered and fraught current one? Probably not.

by the way, regarding Jamie Lee Curtis:

I learned in some genetics class that she has androgen insensitivity syndrome. If true, that means she has XY chromosomes and is genetically male. However, people with AIS lack the testosterone receptor in their cells, so their bodies function as 'testosterone-free' and develop under the influence of estrogen instead. That makes them develop as females in utero and at puberty. They are female in almost every way: they have a vagina, not a penis; they have a 'female' brain, etc. As I vaguely remember, they lack a uterus (the vagina ends in a blind cul de sac) and they have vestigial undescended testes inside the pelvis, rather than true ovaries.

That would make JLC a female in every way, except that she's infertile and her chromosomes are not the typical XX.

I have no idea if she is or isn't. But that's what the prof said.

This comment is brought to you in the interests of scientific understanding and irrelevant celebrity gossip. Live long and prosper.

I find it rather curious that we Trek fans are still hotly debating what is nowadays to me both a very dull and a very dated episode. I will admit that, like some others here, I was greatly affected by this as a young gay man, but now I can't really see any reason to watch it when I have Sense8 in all its celebratory queer diversity, with Nomi & Amanita (awesome), Lito & Hernando, the pansexual group scenes, and of course, the hot ice-cream bears in the opening sequence...

@Paul - I think it's talked about because "I will admit that, like some others here, I was greatly affected by this as a young gay man"

To my knowledge Star Trek TNG, LA Law and Roseanne were the only prime time television series in the early 90s to make any sort of positive portrayal of non-gender conforming sexuality.

"I remember when I was very young, before I knew what I was, there was a rumour in my school that one of the students preferred a gender, in that case, male. The children started making fun of him, and every day they were more cruel They could tell he was afraid and somehow that seemed to encourage them. One morning in class, he appeared, bleeding and in ripped clothes. He said he had fallen down. And of course the school authorities found out and took him away, and gave him psychotectic treatments. When he came back, he stood in front of the whole school and told us how happy he was now that he had been cured. After that, I realised how dangerous it was to be different. And once I got older, and knew what I was, I was terrified. I have had to live with that fear ever since."

Star Trek was literally tackling how disturbing conversion therapy is SEVEN YEARS before "But I'm A Cheerleader". You can say that the episode is clunky, but it's history. And as a Star Trek fan it's a bit of history I'm proud to have. The truth is (and many people don't like to hear this) that most of TOS is clunky/dated too. But, like this episode, there are sparkles of what made it special and still worth watching. And with this episode in particular... it's a powerful piece of queer/Trek history.

What I don't understand is , why is it so offensive if a heterosexual 's ways and belief is so offensive to a homosexual . If the idea and concept of acceptance of another's practice or belief of being has been a struggle for the homosexual community , then it should go without saying that the heterosexual community have just as much right to their concept and belief and should be respected . It might seem to many as being closed minded but mutual respect for ones belief is a two way street in my eyes . I don't have to agree with you to respect your right and freedom to live your life , but neither do you have that right to judge and disrespect mine . Live and let live .

@Miguel - What do you think homosexuals find offensive about heterosexuals? I'm genuinely curious. As a member of the heterosexual community... what concept and belief of mine do gay people not accept?

@ Robert,

I interpreted the comment to mean that homosexuals have a problem with heterosexuals who are not ok with homosexuality. More broadly, I think the point being made is that 'tolerance' seems to often only extend to beliefs that are complimentary, and the moment someone has a belief that is not complimentary to a group they are *not* ok with it (i.e. are intolerant of the supposed intolerant belief).

It makes me so frustrated to read all the criticisms people have about this episode mostly due to the fact that everyone is trying to make it about gay rights. Whether or not it was intended to be and I do agree that gay rights was the intended issue it did end up being about transgender rights. I hate that people are trying to make it into something it's not and I hate that everyone is complaining that it isn't gay enough.

I'm trans and I can say from experience that it's hard to find representation, harder so to find representation that I like either because of personal preferences or because it was offensive. I found Soren relatable and genuine and the character meant a lot to me. I enjoyed seeing myself on screen.

Yes, the episode was dated. No, it didn't portray the issue you wanted it to. So what? Intended or not the character is a heterosexual trans woman and was portrayed more respectfully in 1992 than people like us often are now.

@Sebastian - FWIW, as "dated" as the episode is (I think the crew explaining gender to Soren is the most dated part, you could remove a lot of that and it would be a lot less dated), it's a really cool sci-fi concept. And I think she's both gender and sexuality non-conforming (it's hard to find English words to exactly describe her). In her culture they have no gender (or rather they have one neutral gender) and they are asexual. So her feeling like she both has a gender AND is attracted to other lifeforms makes her a trans AND gay allegory. The point being that anyone who is gender or sexuality non-conforming could actually see themselves "in there". And for a TV episode that aired in '92... that's very cool. And it's interesting sci-fi too. There's a lot to like about this.

@Peter G - You're probably right. I hate that argument. "Why can't you just be tolerant of my bigotry!" Those are typically the same people that scream about the war on Christmas and would have no idea WTF to do if they were ever really discriminated against.

@ Robert.

That's the straw man version of the argument, and the one typically put out to deflect the actual criticism being made.

The actual point is that not everyone is ok with what other people do. In fact, they shouldn't be ok with it if they perceive other people doing wrong things. In the age when spousal abuse was systemically normal I'm sure there were people who loathed the practice and looked down on those who did it, even though they also felt it wasn't their place to interfere in someone else's marriage. So you can both view a practice as wrong while also not feeling like you have the right to dictate they everyone conform to your values. This is a dated example since now such things would be readily handled by the police, but back in the day it was a 'behind closed doors' thing that probably involved social intervention more than legal intervention. The point is that I'm sure men who didn't treat their wives well would have angrily told others who disapproved to keep their noses out of someone else's business. Putting aside the legal aspect of abusing someone, purely on a moral basis I think we can agree that those who frowned on it were right even thought at the same time their opinion was certainly not welcomed by those they disapproved of.

You can furnish plenty of other examples of people who disapprove of what others do, while those others would be irate if the disapproval was made known to them. Who is right? Well, I can sympathize with someone who doesn't want others telling them how to live, and even in the case of doing something blatantly wrong I think many or most people have an instinct to not want to be interfered with as they do it. But it would seem awfully strange for the person doing the thing others disapprove of to turn around and suggest they are bigots or bad people for "judging them".

There can be any number of reasons for assessing whether another person's behavior is good or bad, some of them reasonable reasons, and others unreasonable such as prejudice. But the current "tolerance" as espoused by some people is really just a euphemism for "you'd better approve of what we do, and lash out at people who don't". Failing to approve makes you a bigot or a 'phobe', while approval makes you a social justice warrior.

So it's a false dilemma when you make the two options either "everything you do is great! carry on!" and between "I'm a bigot, I hate you!" Neither of those are actually reasonable ways to view other people. It's possible to care about someone and disapprove of what they do, and it's possible to not care at all about them and just leave them to their own devices; of these two I'd put the second one as the worse of them, even though it's the 'more tolerant' in terms of letting people do whatever they want. Without addressing whether anything portrayed in this episode is actually wrong in Soren, I'm just framing the real argument rather than the straw man one. The real argument is that people can realistically disapprove of what others do without also hating them or wanting ill for them. If there's a disagreement about what constitutes ill then you'll have to just agree to disagree and leave it at all. So it's not "why can't you be tolerant of my bigotry" but rather "why can't you be tolerant of the fact that I don't agree with you." It's just that not agreeing with someone is often just called bigotry nowadays, which is a dangerous place to be in the marketplace of ideas. Where it gets dicey is when, as in this ep, disagreeing comes along with using force against that person, and that's a whole different ball game. But when you passively disagree and yet take no action to harm or coerce the other person, well that's the way things should be. People don't agree, but live and let live.

@Peter G. - "So it's a false dilemma when you make the two options either "everything you do is great! carry on!" and between "I'm a bigot, I hate you!""

I definitely wasn't trying to make those the only 2 options. There are plenty of things people do that I disapprove of. I just think that there are levels here.

Think about these statements -

1. I don't agree that gay people should be able to get married.

2. I don't think that gay people should be allowed to adopt children.

3. I don't think that gay people should be allowed to force my church to marry them.

4. I don't think that gay people should be allowed to be on prime time television.

5. I don't think my child's teacher should be gay.

Are any of these bigotry to you? All? None?

When you see a Catholic person who is ok with divorced people getting remarried and not ok with gay people doing it (both against the bible) hiding behind religious belief it's more than just "I disagree with you". But a lot of anti-gay people think that a clerk should be able to not issue a marriage license because "religious freedom". There are a lot of people that want to use your "live and let live" idea as a shield while painting my argument "Why can't you just be tolerant of my bigotry!" as a straw man.

I always like the whole "if you are against gay marriage licenses, don't get one!" But I do understand what you are saying. Anyone who thinks being gay is a choice, and a wrong one, and does nothing to try to shape society with that viewpoint.... I can just disagree with them. They are not a bigot.

I hate guns. I do. If you told me in 5 minutes I could enact as many laws as I wanted and they'd be 100% binding and could never be repealed one of the first ones I'd write is "repeal the 2nd amendment" (again, this is a fantasy, you rule the country and are supreme king kind of deal). But I've never voted based on that (I've voted for mostly people the NRA hates, but also 1 or 2 that they don't, that just isn't "my issue"). I've never donated money to any groups that try to pass gun legislation. I've never written my senator or posted on FB about it. I've never judged anyone for owning one... and I've even fired one at someone's bachelor party. I just don't like guns and I don't like the 2nd amendment. If someone could do that with gay rights.... I would respectfully agree to disagree and not consider them a bigot.

@Robert

But without the Second Ammendment, John McClane can't save our buildings from sophisticated Euro-robbers. Perhaps you're not thinking this through.

@Chrome - I said RIGHT THERE in my hypothetical scenario that I only had 5 minutes to write as many laws as I could. You can't give any of this crap a lot of thought!! There's no time!

Still debating this in the current year is kind of depressing! Particularly when you consider how many on the internet would immediately dismiss this episode nowadays as "SJW".

Personally as a bisexual I do tolerate homophobes; I know people have religious or other reasons why they don't feel they can outwardly approve of those with different sexual feelings doing anything more than repressing themselves or at best keeping their private affairs private - but I expect tolerance in return. The problem is when someone has a belief of what's "right", they tend to want to bring it into law. And then those who have done others no harm lose their right to be themselves.

Everyone here is talking about the episode being an euphemism for homosexuality, but at the same time, it can be taken at face value and it is still a valid point of view.

There are many asexual people now, and the dangers of pregnancy are real.

It also reminds me of the Solaria planet in Asimov novels.

Pretty slow-paced, dull episode that could have been edgier and actually taken a stance on something. Of course, Riker falls for the "girl" which gives us a plot -- out of character behaviour is not one of my favourite bases for an episode.

But this is really one of the Trek episodes that tries to "do something" about societal phenomena (homosexuality) but I'm not sure what it achieves since in the end Soren is cured and no longer in love with Riker. That is the most convenient way to end it as well as Picard can get the Enterprise on to her next mission and turn a blind eye to a PD violation attempt. That's not exactly what we want to see...

Early in the episode, it felt for me like it went on far too long with Riker wondering about a species having no gender and the alien species wondering about having male/female. So here the romance builds up. Plenty of awkward conversations…

"The Outcast" goes through the differences between men and women - not particularly intelligent or amusing. Just awkward at times.

With the "girl" Riker falls for, it's an allegory for being gay and the stigma around it etc. There's the usual Trek heavy-handed way of showcasing a problem in today's world via an alien race and their "archaic" customs.

Thought it was a good guest performance for Soren - her plea of not being deviant was legit and heartfelt.

2 stars for "The Outcast" -- just kind of meh. Probably an episode Frakes would want to forget for Riker's character who comes across as totally unprofessional, and lucky that the way things worked out, still has a career in Star Fleet.

I just watched this in 2017. It feels a little slow in the beginning, but moves along nicely after that. It says what it needs to say and has no problem doing it. Geordi with a beard looks badazz. Overall it's a descent episode.

I like BDSM and role playing / switching with my wife.
Star trek does not have any character into that.
Its a good idea to start whining about it and blame the show...

Some will say: Being gay or straight is a fundamental division, while BDSM is superficial. Really?
I know straight men/women who enjoy better BDSM with the same sex, than boring sex with the opposite sex.

The truth is, some gay people have developed inferiority complex due to racism and superstition imposed on them by society.
The same apply to darker people, complaining when their color is not represented in the shows.

Truly liberated gays don't care about such nonsense. Nobody is "normal" and socially acceptable in all aspects of life. We have to develop antibodies to social pressure and refrain from judging so easily the others.
Hell, I actually think my parents would rather I was gay with adopted children, than straight and childless by choice.

Interesting episode, as a premise.

I have a hard time believing Riker would fall in love with the androgynous type based on all the women he's been with before this episode. Obviously a ham-handed 'morality' episode.

I forgive TNG for its failings in execution of an important message in this allegorical episode. In 2017, we can nitpick all the plotholes and seeming hypocrisy behind the scenes.

In 1992, when homosexuality was not accepted as it is today and having gone through the LA Riots, this episode had courage if nothing else. I was a teenager in Los Angeles when this aired and I remember how affected I was by this episode. In many ways, it is still affecting when I think how young people might find this episode.

Maybe not the most well-written episode but I accept their good intentions.

Aside from heavyhanded court sequences and unnecessary shuttle drama, I thought "Outcast" was excellent, interesting, pleasantly low-key and depicted an interesting alien society. Soren's long conversation with Riker in ten forward was also wonderfully muted, both characters carefully extending their feelers.

I also feel that a lot of the criticisms toward this episode read it through too much of a literal lens.

What you have here is a person, Soren, belonging to a culture in which the normative identity is androgyny (no sex or gender). Soren is born, however, sexless but female. Her gender identification is at odds with her natal sex (lessness). She's a transexual. This is not the episode copping out and defending "traditional gender roles" and "heterosexual relationships", it's an episode accidentally doing a good twin allegory: a person's gender need not sync with cultural norms and biological sex, and a person's sex need not sync with biology. You can be biologically male and like dudes (Soren is biologically androgenous but likes dudes) - an issue of sexual orientation - and you can be biologically a woman and feel like a dude (an issue of gender identity, Soren feels herself to be female in a culture which pegs her as androgynous).

@ Trent,

I know it seems like the episode fits into that paradigm, but I think you understate the issue by calling that narrative unintentional. To get at what's really in the episode (as opposed to what we want to be in it) I think you need to look at the circumstances without making any assumptions.

1) Soren is biologically androgynous.
2) Soren is attracted to Riker.
3) Soren claims she feels like a female.

That is all we know. We don't know that she *is* a female, or that there is even such a thing as gender among her race. That she thinks she's a female isn't evidence of anything because there's always the possibility that she actually is confused or using words incorrectly. And before anyone jumps in and calls me a bigot, remember that this isn't a transgender allegory on its face, so interpreting it in that way prior to being sure what the episode is about is an imposition rather than analysis.

For one thing, if there are no females on that planet then how could it come about that someone is born with female gender? On a planet such as ours with what we'd call a gender spectrum, it's easy to see how a given person will be somewhere on it and that there are going to be outliers. But if there's no spectrum in the first place it seems illogical to me to suppose that someone can be born with a spectrum that doesn't even exist in that species in the first place. It wouldn't just be a matter of degree, it would be a matter of type. Not that that's impossible, as one can have a mutation or other unusual brain structure, however I certainly wouldn't assume that if someone in a species with no sex or gender 'feels female' that they just are. That fact that the species is also oppressive to people who are different is what complicates matters, because the fact of Soren being 'in the closet' is what wants us to give her claims credence. But that isn't a good basis for making conclusions, since that culture has set itself up to make it difficult to inspect these matters objectively.

I also think that if Soren is attracted to men she must therefore have access to men in order to know this. As there are supposedly very few of them on her planet, and since even in our nomenclature it's hard to be attracted to a gender since we can't see it and we're told we shouldn't ever make assumptions about what it is, it stands to reason that her experience in knowing she's attracted to men must be among aliens. So more properly we should observe that Soren is attracted to humanoid men, rather than men strictly of her species, and right away we can see that there's a bit of a complication in even assessing quite what it is that she likes at all. Is it the physical build of a man? The voice? Or who knows what; it's hard to say at the outset. But once we're aware that this may be a tricky thing to inspect, we should then also be aware that Soren's claim to be female isn't explained either other than that she says it. Could her attraction to men be related to her identification of herself as female? If that's it, then this isn't a transsexual message at all, but rather a heteronormative statement that she is female *because* she likes men.

In short, there's too much here we don't know to make definite assumptions, but I am fairly skeptical that they intended the episode to be about transgenderism.

I just watched this one again and I'll add one point pertaining to the ending. When Soren meets Riker after her therapy she acing and direction very clearly *does not* portray her as someone brutalized into agreeing. So while much of the teleplay might seem to suggest a homosexual narrative (we're like you, who are you to say how to love, etc) it's difficult to suggest her therapy as being equivalent to the much-derided conversion therapy that's sometimes applied to gay people. In this case the brainwashing was either surgical - in which case we should wonder what they did to fix it - or else it was a brainwashing so successful that even the subject has no feeling of suffering or repression. Soren seemed to be totally fine, clear-minded, not suffering at all, and convinced that she was now ok and had previously been sick.

So whatever the situation is meant to connote in our present culture, I don't think there's a clear line of metaphor here. I think the homosexual allegory rings far more true than the transgender one, if we're going to insist on one or the other, but based on the ending it strikes me that the episode may be tricking us to apply our own biases to the situation rather than hearing what Soren's own people have to say. The person adjudicating on Soren's case seemed to bear no malice or disgust, and when she said she cared about Soren it was believable. That doesn't discount that (s)he's deluded or ignorant of what's really going on, but on the other hand we don't know their physiology; maybe these individuals literally are sick or have brain problems that a simple operation can cure. If that's actually the case then wishing for Soren to defeat them is in some sense cruel on our part since we'd be advocating for a sick person not to get help. It's our own cultural bias that creates the kneejerk response that "oh! they're oppressing her!" But the episode itself makes that sort of summary shady at best.

The more I think about The Outcast the more I like it, not only for the reasons Trent mentioned that it's low-key but solid, but also because I'm beginning to suspect that the writers were playing both sides of the fence and deliberately baiting the audience into jumping to conclusions, but being careful to show both sides of the argument - that Soren is being oppressed, or that she's unwell - as being plausible. In that light I see this as being an episode more about the Prime Directive than about homosexuality or some other topical issue. It's about how Riker isn't in a position to judge that culture because he truly doesn't understand it. As much as we, as the audience, want to agree with him that something needs to be done to protect Soren, I think the takeaway is supposed to be that we too must withhold judgement from another people based on conceptions from our own culture. That's what the Prime Directive is all about; avoiding foisting our values and culture on others, even if they seem obviously right or better to us. It's about avoiding Imperialism. It's often forgotten that the people in the British Empire often legitimately believed their values were superior and that they were helping raise up primitive peoples, and yet if we're to be honest about our current anti-Imperialist value then we have to hold ourselves to that and not insist that we know better just because we're in the more powerful position.

I would like to contribute some historical context to this discussion. "The Outcast" was not conceived and produced in a vacuum, and reactions of LGBT fans at the time and even now (at least those of the older ones of us) are colored by the out of universe events of the time. Sorry for the long post, but I think one needs to know this historic background to understand the significance of The Outcast, and why it impacted LGBT audiences the way it did.

From the very beginning of TNG, gay and lesbian fans (you didn't say "LGBT" back then) asked for representation. Franklin Hummel, director and co-founded of the Gaylaxians, a Boston fan club for LGBT scifi fans founded in 1986, asked Gene Roddenberry at a convention in 1987 whether there would be a gay character on TNG. Roddenberry answered in the affirmative, which lead to him bringing up the idea in staff meetings and the development of an episode titled "Blood and Fire", written by David Gerrold. The episode would have featured a gay male couple of TNG crewmembers and an alien parasite that would have been an allegory for AIDS.

The episode never made it to the screen due to heavy resistance from conservative study politics as represented by Rick Berman. At first, the script was revised and the gay characters dropped. Then it was abandoned altogether and Gerrold left the TNG writing staff on non-amicable terms.

An October 1992 Cinefantastique article gave the following summary of events:

(Start Quote) 'The reaction among the staff to Gerrold's idea was mixed, as memos began to circulate about the storyline. "The way the show worked at that time was that instead of staff meetings, everyone wrote memos," said Gerrold. "There was a paper trail trail yard wide and a mile long on everything and the memo on this was half that. People complained the script had blatant homosexual characters. Rick Berman said we can't do this in an afternoon market in some places. We'll have parents writing letters. The other half of the memos were, from people like Dorothy Fontana and Herb Wright and Bob Lewin, who said this is a very strong script. "I'm not making Rick Berman a villain because he also acknowledged the technical aspects of the script were right on the nose for what the show needed to be. But Rick Berman was the studio guy. He was watching out for the studio's interests."' (End Quote)

Gerrold told me in a personal communication in the late 90s (speaking as ReaperX again, not quoting) that Berman had been "adamantly opposed" to "Blood and Fire". He also told Jonathan Kay, author of the 2001 Salon article on (the lack of) gay characters in Star Trek that (Roddenberry lawyer) Leonard Maizlish had been outright hostile to the issue, and to gay men specifically:

(Start Quote) 'Maizlish was hardly sensitive to the gay issue. "The last time I saw [Maizlish] I was helping Herb Wright pack up his office," says Gerrold. "The lawyer came to make sure we weren't stealing anything. To my face, he called me 'an AIDS-infected c*****cker. A f*****g fa***t.'" (End Quote)

In 1987, at the peak of the AIDS crisis, reactions such as these were essentially mainstream.

After "Blood and Fire" died, additional opportunities for an inclusive gesture towards LGBT people were lost in seasons 3 and 4. Quoting from Kay's 2001 Salon article again, in the script of "The Offspring",

(Start Quote) '"Guinan was supposed to start telling Lal, 'When a man and a woman are in love ...' and in the background, there would be men and women sitting at tables, holding hands," Arnold says. "But Whoopi refused to say that. She said, 'This show is beyond that. It should be "When two people are in love."' And so it was decided on set that one of the tables in the background should have two men holding hands -- or two women, or whatever. But someone ran to a phone and made a call to the production office and that was nixed. [Producer] David Livingston came down and made sure that didn't happen." ' (End Quote)

And of course others have commented here on Crusher's disappointing reaction at the end of The Host when Odan had a female host.

We're now in the first half of 1991, and all indications were that Paramount would not budge and that some of the people involved in production did not understand the issue of LGBT visibility and why it mattered. In April of that same year, Richard Arnold had famously responded at a convention to LGBT fan complaints that visible LGBT characters were still absent from TNG by asking rhetorically,

"What would you have us do, put pink triangles on them? Have them sashay down corridors?" (quoted from an April 1991 GLAAD press release).

So it came as a wonderful surprise when Roddenberry released a prepared statement on July 1st, 1991 to The Advocate that

(Start Quote) "In the fifth season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, viewers will see more of shipboard life in some episodes, which will, among other things, include gay crew members in day-to-day circumstances."

This was everything LGBT fans had been hoping for. We were not asking for an LGBT main character, merely an acknowledgement that we existed and were treated like everyone else in this utopia that Roddenberry had created, and had not been "cured" of what mainstream society still thought of as a psychological defect or illness.

But then Roddenberry died, Rick Berman took over the helm of Star Trek, and Berman had no intent of ever making good on Roddenberry's promise. I am not saying, nor do I believe, that Berman was a homophobe, but he was a Studio Realpolitik kind of guy who understood that TNG was a for-profit product first, and a utopian vision of a better world and vehicle for social change (distant) second.

This is the central point of my post. You cannot divorce The Outcast from the promise that Roddenberry had made to LGBT fans less than a year earlier. The Outcast was the consolation prize episode for LGBT fans, the "but we did it" excuse that would serve as a fig leaf for years to come when LGBT fans would keep asking at conventions where those LGBT crew members were that had been promised.

Many heterosexual viewers back then (and some commenters in this forum now) don't even read The Outcast as an argument for sexual minority rights and don't understand this discussion. That's precisely why LGBT fans were so deeply hurt and let down by this episode - it's so ambiguous, so obviously written with plausible deniability, you can't even be certain (without outside context) that it was the "gay rights" episode, the scrap from the table to LGBT fans to finally get us to shut up.

The episode is so fundamentally ambiguous that it is basically a Rorschach Test. It lets LGBT fans imagine a warm message of inclusion while it lets social conservatives read an anti-LGBT rights argument into it - then and now. From that point of view, the J'naii are the homosexual fascists who succeeded in abolishing "normal" gender relationships and even gender itself and Soren is a brave heterosexual underdog resistance fighter who stands up for heteronormativity and the natural gender binary.

Just in case that sounds over the top, it's what many social conservatives actually believe - and warn - will happen unless we repeal marriage equality, re-criminalize homosexuality and start persecuting LGBT people again.

I'd like to close with one observation. It's been said here that the episode should be judged less harshly in light of its historic context - it aired in what was still the dark ages of LGBT rights, 1992. I agree with that to a certain extent, but I would remind the reader that Dynasty had a gay main character in 1981, and Melrose Place in 1992. After The Outcast, it would take another quarter of a century (literally, 25 years) until a television Star Trek show had an identifiable main character who is just gay without making an issue or a big deal out of it.

Wow Reaper, thanks for that. Fascinating.

@Reaper

I appreciate the history lesson and the context, and while I agree with much of what you said there is one thing I take minor issue with.

"From that point of view, the J'naii are the homosexual fascists who succeeded in abolishing "normal" gender relationships and even gender itself and Soren is a brave heterosexual underdog resistance fighter who stands up for heteronormativity and the natural gender binary."

I don't feel this was EVER an intentional reading of the episode. Having the heteronormative person be the persecuted one was an attempt to stick heteronormative persons in your shoes (I think you are LGBTQ if I read your post correctly). I think the idea of that is brilliant. The execution is less so for a valley of reasons. But I really can't feel in my heart that this was done to give bigots a reading where LGBTQ people are evil.

"The execution is less so for a VARIETY of reasons. "

I got autocowrecked

The problem that makes this episode well intentioned but lame in execution is that the writers have confused sex with gender. Sex/sex organs are biological. Presumably the Jnaii are hemaphrodites and have none? Or do they have both male and female sex organs? The writers don't explain that. Gender is the cultural roles, behaviors, social norms and expectations that are attached to biological, sexual differences that make us male or female. You can be biologically male but choose the female gender. You can then change your biology to match your chosen gender. Another problem is that the episode doesn;t acknowlege any of that in our history. Like this is the first time this type of species or problem has ever been encountered. Last problem: Riker would risk his carreer and fall madly in love with a person he only met three days ago? Yeah right.

24th century version:
Soren: Tell me about your sexual organs.
Riker: That's not usually a topic of casual conversation.

21st century version:
Soren: Tell me about your sexual organs.
Riker: I have a dick the size of an elephant's trunk. Want to see it?

Intergalactic super-stud Riker falls for a lobotomized Rachel Maddow. How precious.

@kyle Please give us all a break with the postmodernist psychobabble nonsense.

3 stars

I thought this was a pretty good episode

I thought the jnaii were an interesting species and the discussions interesting and worthwhile Soren’s speech at her trial was particularly good. I even thought the sad way things turned out was strong.

About the only thing I’d change is to have cast a man as Soren

I've always enjoyed this episode, not really for it's very "on the nose" references to transexuals and the whole genderfluid-wolfkin type personal pronouns but mainly because its an enjoyable story.

But Worf's quote about women over Poker was so out of place the writers must have been itching to try portray a bit of bigotry in there somewhere so they just threw it in without a plan. Worf mentions not only in the past but in future that Klingon women at least are fellow warriors who fight alongside men which is what we see on board Klingon starships so for him to brand all women as "weak" is illogical for his character and personality especially since he clearly had high regard for Tasha Yar and Ishara Yar. Now if Worf was referring purely scientifically that both Troi and Crusher were physically weaker than him then that's obvious fact as he's a Klingon warrior but his quote was clearly a very on the nose and unsubtle way to shove a bit of SJW style commentary on bigotry in there by making the non-human character say it so they can keep up the facade that Humans have left any and all bigotry behind.

I think there are two stories here.
The first is the well-intentioned one having a go at intolerance of alternative sexual lifestyles.
I didn't mind that message driven element although it may well seem clumsy in retrospect.

The second story is episode 9,000,000 of the further adventures of Riker's insatiable trouser snake.
Honestly guys-what were they thinking?-one can only imagine the variant anatomy of true androgynes but that sort of thing won't stop Will's willy of course.

Lock him up,or lock up your daughters and anything else with a pulse!

Such boring drivel. The message was so bloody obvious, they were beating us over the head with it. Yes, we get it, gays should be allowed to live their lives just like everyone else. This was civil rights boiled down to a kid's picture book level of language. Utterly bored through the whole thing.

This episode reminded of Timeless from Star Trek:Voyager.
Especially the ending. Am I the only one?

Correction. NOT Timeless.
I meant to say it reminded me of UNFORGETABLE.

The shuttlecraft spun the wrong direction when it clipped the space anomaly...though since there's no such thing as space friction, it probably wouldn't spin at all. Also, if they use every microjoule of energy for transport, what is left to make shuttlecraft explode?

I had a good laugh when Soren asks, "Isn't our planet beautiful?" to which Riker looks in her eyes and says, "Yes, it's beautiful." This is after a scene in which he proposes in frustration using "it" as her personal pronoun.

I like how the Prime Directive only applies to pre-warp societies. With warp societies you can do whatever you want, like barging into courtrooms, disrespecting the judge, and assaulting guards while kidnapping a citizen. "Is our business here concluded, Commander?" Actually, no sir, I'd like to go down and beat a few more of them up for the hell of it, just because I won't get in trouble for it.

A casting change could have helped this episode, for example casting Malcolm McDowell as Soren.

Wow, 160+ comments for a two-star episode buried in the middle of season five. That must say something. What's more, I'll be smug enough to say that my comment here should solve everything (yeah, I know: not likely).

The problem, of course, is that the majority of commenters here insist on "reading" this episode as a commentary on same-sex desire or same-sex-desire acceptance. This is absurd. It is absurd even if the episode's writers are on record as saying that this is what the "The Outcast" is about. Why? Because of that old saw: Trust the tale, not the teller. Another way to put it: the writer is just another reader (or in this case, just another viewer).

Once viewers take this episode at face value (a society without gender), they should begin to appreciate how chance-taking "The Outcast" is. In fact, I put this episode up there with "The Inner Light." I know. I know. Crazy, right? It's true; it's one of my faves. Stop insisting that the episode is an allegory (it isn't allegory; really, it isn't, as in it doesn't meet the literary definition of the term). Stop insisting that the episode has what we would now call an LGBTQ message. Stop insisting on a forced "reading" of the episode.

Instead, please watch "The Outcast" on its own terms. I mean it. Watch it as a straightforward story of the Enterprise crew's encounter with a people who have no gender. Then report back.

I really dislike monologue/speech endings...... its so corny these days. Almost as bad as season 1 finale...." that's starfleet, that's starfleet." UGH

woops, wrong page lol

lol "urges"

Ugh 5/10

The whole lead up to Riker and the Genai pilot in the shuttle felt like a porn film leadup. The glances, etc.


I cannot believe Crusher talked about the Genai pilot in the poker game. They were there for treatment. I don't think gossiping about behaviour observed in the exam room for a patient there for even a minor concussion is proper.


And what`s this? Riker kissing the Genai? They didnt show if it lead to sex. Same as with Troi and that Masterpiece administrator. We saw Troi the next morning so we knew (or guessed, she later admitted) So we don't know what Riker and Genai pilot did but would he throw himself on his sword and beg forgiveness of the captain? it's worse behaviour especially when he knows the penalties on the planet if the Genai pilot is caught. I know this is just a plot device to the bigger theme of rights . I'm just keeping it real. Why was Troi so upset she had sex and Riker isn't and his is worse.


Wow and then Picard doesn't lecture Riker on what he has already done. Isn't he interfering in their society by helping Soren to escape. And certainly shouting out that Soren is already normal to the court is interfering. And he gives him a pass. Did the planet not contact Picard to complain? If not, why not?

As a trans woman, who has had surgery, I absolutely hate this episode.

It's very dated in it's understanding of sex and it's relationship to gender. Is this race single sex or are they multi sexed with an enforced non gendered society? Gender is not an absolute on our own planet, why would we except other races to have the same white western idaelized version of gender? The episode doesn't really understand the terminology it uses so it sort of jumps around. There are single sexed races in Star trek and other multi sexed with all sorts of genders. The episode suffers from it's time period and it's own cultural bias. The crew should not have been confused by any of this.

It's trying to talk about homosexuality but it's played out with trans themes. It doesn't help that the J'naii all look female. There wasn't much androgynous about how they were portrayed. It's such an odd way to try and make a point about sexual orientation, as they don't really quite understand the issue they are talking about. Riker is a straight male and is attracted to a supposed female (or one that looks female) of this race. How is that homosexual? Especially when she identifies with being female. You could've really made this a powerful episode had it been an actual trans story instead of this mishmash that doesn't work.

The episode would've worked better if they had cast a male actor in Soren's feminine role. Or cast a female in the Soren role who thinks of himself as male. Then you get both a trans and a gay story and the complexity of that understanding.

This episode also struggles with the very concept of non binary just pushing it as something that is evil.

It was just the typical gutless TNG writing based on guest stars that this season was full of. The show worked so much better when it wasn't about the guest of the week and just the main crew. It's very dated, maybe even worse than the worst TOS episode in some ways,.

Wow. So many SJWs judging this episode with absolutely no context in the time it was made and all
snowflakes over Andy’s Friend comments and observations. The fact that this episode even made it to the screen is a testament of the risk it took. Then again I am not surprised. You Social Justice Warriors routinely rewrite and revise history so you can pretend that you are some sort of social pioneers when it all has been done and accomplished and by better people.

This episode isn't perfect, but it's literally the first time I saw transgender representation on television. I totally disagree that it demonizes non-binary people, just says a society shouldn't force all people to be non-binary. And the episode came out in 1992. That was 30 years ago.

My criticisms of the episode are a lot of Worf's comments at the Poker game; Worf has never seemed like a sexist character to me so him randomly calling a Poker game with a lot of wild cards a "woman's game" felt off.

I liked Soren. I liked her and Riker's relationship. I thought the ending was sad, but felt authentic.

And as a trans woman who has had surgery, I'll just say, appendectomies are too expensive.

I always hated Riker's question "Well, who leads when you dance?" Admittedly he does allow for the possibility that dancing isn't a thing for them, but isn't it very likely they don't have a tradition of couples dancing at all? Let alone in a way that calls for "leading"?

I once liked this episode for its basic tone and its Twilight Zone-ish way of handling the 'correction of deviance' issues.. "We're just going to cure you. This won't hurt at all...." I now feel differently about it.

In TOS the problem of social conformity was handled in the Landru episode (The Return of the Archons). Kirk and Spock could just short out the god-like computer (again) and make everything alright. Here the J'naii were real people so the Prime Directive was invoked to make sure that their indigenous tyranny could win out and crush the individual... the term lobotomy comes to mind not only for Soren, but for me the viewer.

Soren's impassioned speech before the tribunal was memorable and sensitively delivered. However, the scene in the shuttle with Riker before mission 2 to null space, was an interminable 4 minutes 20 seconds to tell a story that could have been done in just 4 lines. "A kid in my school was basically just like me. They beat him up and then reprogrammed the poor bastard. He barely remembered who he was. It was totally perverse!"

This 9% of the total episode revealed that, filler was more essential to the writer's mission than social message. Score 5/9.

I liked this one when I saw it years ago, when it was new, and I still like it. No it's not perfect, but nothing is perfect. But it's very much an example of what StarTrek has been about, when it's on track.

I like StarTrek best when it sets out to use alien societies as a way to encourage people to look at anomalies and inconsistencies and injustices in our own societies.
These episodes are a kind of fable. If aspects of the societies presented are a bit inconsistent, or implausible, that doesn't matter too much. After all Foxes and Rabbits don't talk, but that doesn't mean the fables of Aesop or Uncle Remus can't carry true messages.

So the idea of a totally monosexual societies throwing up these kind of problems doesn't make much sense - someone like Soren would just fancy some people and not other people, a perfectly normal procedure. Visitors from outside might see that as being Soren having more "female" characteristics and behaviour, and the people she was attracted to having more "male" characteristics and behaviour, but that's not how other people in a totally monosexual society would see it. It'd be no different for people like Soren than for anyone more drawn to outgoing people, or shy people, or to intellectual people or sporty people.

But the point was to use the imagined society as a way to challenge the viewers to look at intolerance and what it might mean to be discriminated against for being whatever way we are. It's the same message as in The Measure of a Man with Data, and in other episodes where other types of intolerance are picked out. And as elsewhere, there's an intentional reference back to Shylock's speech about intolerance.

And I think that message can always bear being repeated, and is never out of date. And I'm afraid I doubt if that won't still be true in the 24th century.

There were lots of posts complaining about the absence of out gay people in StarTrek. I think that it would have been better if there had been. Studio pressures undoubtedly ensured that there weren't, I assume. But I think it can fairly be pointed out that there is nothing in the least improbable in the fact that the very limited number of speaking regulars might not include anyone who is gay. I make it seven humans, together with Data and Worf. For all we know any number of the other crew members might be gay, it wouldn't involve them looking any different.

Someone in a post mentioned that only one of the cast regulars in DS9 is a white human, which I admit had never occurred to me, and I can't imagine anyone would suggest that this meant DS9 was unfair to white people. Actually of course it's rather unlikely that by the 24th century, if there are spaceships around like The Enterprise, that'd they'd be crewed predominantly by people with white faces.

Incidentally I'd criticize Leslie's comment about "the same white western idaelized version of gender", and point out that while there is only a minority of people in white western society who have tolerant and accepting beliefs about such matters, it's at present a lot more likely to be found in such societies than it is in many others. One can that may change over the years. But I'm rather afraid that Andy's Friend might be close to the mark in thinking that the balance against tolerance might well swing the other way in an increasingly globalised world. (Ironically however I would suspect that resistance to the very notion of genetically eliminating gay people might actually be strongest among the religious groups that might be most likely to hold antigay attitudes.)

But their sexuality is so central to the story that leaving the viewer to fruitlessly try to puzzle out just what was the nature of Soren's 'offense' (it reminds me of The Far Side's "Cow Tools" debacle) does rather blunt the message, and it's a wholly unforced blunder on the writers' part.

If they'd just left out the bizarre monosexual reproduction discussion (exactly where do couples get that 'inorganic husk' from, and if they're manufactured where would their pre-technological forebears have found them?) and instead made it clear that Soren's species were true hermaphrodites, then there would have been a simple and obvious explanation of what it meant to 'prefer a gender'. It would be hard to detect such a thing if both partners kept quiet about it, of course—though I could see there being subtle tells of some sort—but gender-biased individuals would still run the risk of getting caught while seeking each other out.

In The Orville they vary the issue by having hypermale monogamous species, with problems round the fact that some of them get see as beingfemale - which involves the same illogicality of having people identify those kind of variants as having something to do with sexual gender, rather than just being a matter of who you get attracted by.

Ursula Leguin avoided such illogicalities by having her society in The Left Hand of Darkness not being monosexual, but having people change sex at different stages of their lives, as happens with some earthly species. James White in the Sector General series has a species where partners change sex after childbirth. Mum becomes Dad and Dad becomes Mum until the next child comes around.



Of course involves th

Sad one, eh? When I first saw this one it was clear to me that it was an allegory on homosexuality and acceptance. And I think that that is what was intended, especially with the dialogue about the planet's gender deviants seeking each other out in secrecy; reminiscent of stories of pre-'60s Britain, when homosexuality was illegal.

If this episode had been made in the present day it would probably be interpreted by some as being about attitudes to trans or non-binary people. But it isn't, so let's not go there.

I really loved this one. I found it really quite touching. It's nice to see Riker falling for someone who isn't obviously feminine or "hot". I must admit though that his behaviour, beaming down to the planet with Worf then engaging in physical combat with the locals, is outrageous.

It hadn't occurred to me before I watched this one again but it's clearly the inspiration for the Orville episode in which a female child ends up being dis-gendered to honour her species' tradition.

It's odd that Soren is so curious and ignorant about gender when she asks Riker about it. Firstly because she identifies as female, and secondly because her people seem to have had plenty of contact with other species. She's extremely adept at handling the shuttlecraft controls. Is every other species on her planet androgynous? The insects we hear chirping in the trees, for example?

The woman who plays Soren gives a wonderful performance. Beautifully understated and other-worldly.

Superb episode.

@James G

"If this episode had been made in the present day it would probably be interpreted by some as being about attitudes to trans or non-binary people. But it isn't, so let's not go there."

Interesting perspective. What's interesting about this episode is that the intended allegory fails pretty miserably. There's a quote floating somewhere around the internet where this episode is described something like "one woman's struggle for cock against lesbian tyranny."

But, if viewed as an allegory for non-binary or transgender identity, it actually works much better. True, the writers fell into it by accident, but...we are watching these episodes in 2020. We can certainly make some allowances for idiosyncrasies of the time the shows were produced, but I don't see a problem in redeeming a pretty lame episode by applying a more contemporary social framework.

Some nice quotes by ReaperX up above, detailing the behind-the-scenes shenanigans surrounding this episode.

I haven't seen this episode since my review in 2018, but its always stuck in my head. Its tone is so subdued and quiet, the episode at its best when Riker and Soren are simply alone and chatting in the shadows. I've always felt that it has the same hushed, slightly melancholic vibe of "Eye of the Needle" and "Dear Doctor".

Really liked this episode! With our present notions of gender, this episode comes across as quite radical for 1992. It's a quiet one-- I loved the first half, Soren's discussions with Riker and Crusher were enlightening. Her coming-out speech and courtroom diatribe made me get a little teary-eyed, what with the bias still facing so many trans and nb people today. This episode aged so well... except for when it didn't. The gender roles makeup comments were a bit cringe (although Candace Owens would disagree), but I think overall the episode reflected both common and radical views of its time regarding gender. Imagine the trans/nb kids who heard that speech as kids... powerful to think about. The actress was also really good.

Also, the sexist poker scene with Worf was a biiit unnecessary, I guess the in-universe explanation being that Klingon women have less rights, like not being able to serve on the High Council (but come on, no Starfleet bias training?). But I love Troi's pointed lines towards him during that scene. Also, the scene between Will and Deanna in her quarters felt very realistic and comforting. They're role models of how amicable exes could be. When he teased her with the teddy bear, it reminded me a lot of how boyfriends often childishly rib their girlfriends. Don't exactly know why they decided to make her look through a chest, but it was a nice break in storytelling. Little moments like that help flesh out the characters, show that they live lives outside of The Plot.

Would been interesting to see this episode remade with better production value, thereby making the species actually androgynous and cutting the filler parts. One could say we got that with the Orville's Mocklin episodes, but the Orville just isn't as thoughtful a program, ya know?

@ReaperX- thank you for the historical context! People scrolling in the comments, I highly suggest you read their remarks :)

The Outcast

TNG season 5 episode 17

"You are male. Tell me about males. What is it that makes you different from females?"

"Physically, men are bigger, stronger in the upper body. We have different sexual organs. Men can't bear young.”

"And what about feelings, or emotional attitudes? Are they different?"

"Most people think so.”

- Riker & Soren, sitting in a tree, discussing the birds & the bees


3 stars (out of 4)


We often hear that Star Trek is ahead of its time. But to think that “The Outcast” aired almost 30 years ago (30!) is damn near incomprehensible.

The aliens of the week, the J’naii, are an androgynous species. No he’s, no she’s. They are the third such species in TNG - the first was all the way back in “11001001” in which the binars were described this way: "They're not gentlemen, or ladies, Commander. They are a unified pair.” The second was the Borg, described by Q this way: "Interesting, isn't it? Not a he, not a she. Not like anything you've ever seen."

"The Outcast" takes on the same pattern we’ve seen in other episodes this season such as “New Ground” and “Hero Worship,” where the scifi B story doesn’t matter at all. All the action is in the character study. That said, its not that null space is bad. It just doesn’t matter (pun intended!).

The action revolves around what it means to be a man and to be a woman.

Just as the non-human Data is often used to explore what it means to be human, so here, the non-gendered is used to explore what it means to be male and female. Star Trek is usually pretty straightforward with its didacticism.

In an exchange that will no doubt trigger trekkies born after this episode first aired, Riker and the alien Soren discuss the use of personal pronouns,

RIKER: Okay. For two days I've been trying to construct sentences without personal pronouns. Now I give up. What should I use? It? To us, that's rude.

SOREN: We use a pronoun which is neutral. I do not think there is really a translation.

Next we get Riker and Soren in ten-forward discussing the difference between males and females. Of course this is the Enterprise, a ship of science and exploration. And we are centuries in the future. So the answer is blissfully straightforward and grounded in science. Riker says plainly of men,

RIKER: Physically, men are bigger, stronger in the upper body. We have different sexual organs. Men can't bear young.

For women, Soren conveniently finds herself in sick-bay, where she gets to ask Beverly what it means to be female,

SOREN: I've noticed you tend to have longer hair, and you arrange it more elaborately. And you apply color to your bodies. You put color on your mouths, and your eyes, your cheeks, your fingernails. The men don’t.

CRUSHER: That's true.

Of course this is where we get the inevitable conflict. You see, Soren is not like other J’naii. She feels like a woman. And she likes to kiss boys.

It turns out, the J’naii are some weird subculture in which, any identification of gender is immediately suppressed through something called "psychotectic treatments”. (N.B., I highly recommend @ReaperX’s post above for background on this episode).

It is taboo to say that there are real biological differences between men and woman. Everyone must be exactly the same (WORF: "They bother me. They're all alike. No males, no females.”).

Riker of course wants to help poor Soren before her people are able to “cure” her. Picard warns him that to do so risks violating the Prime Directive. I love Riker’s solution. He testifies that it was all his fault,

RIKER: I want you to know what really happened. It's all my fault. I was attracted to Soren. I pursued. I insisted. I didn't understand your ways until she explained them to me and rejected me. Nothing happened between us. I ask your forgiveness. I behaved inappropriately.

What a perfect gentleman.

And it would have worked too. Except that Soren is Sick. And. Fucking. Tired. of this shit. Faced with her confession, sentence is carried out, and all traces of Soren’s womanhood are removed. The next time she meets Riker,

"She gazed up at his face. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of her nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. She had won the victory over herself. She did not love him any more.”

The word totalitarian is used to refer to a form of government that permits no individual freedom - it exerts total control. The quote above borrows from the ending of 1984, the ur text for totalitarianism in our time. “The Outcast” posits a planet where a person is not free to live and love as a man or as a woman. The totalitarian state wants everyone to be exactly the same. That thought disgusts Worf. What is the point of being exactly the same as everyone else?

When a government bans people from referring to themselves and he or she, and instead adopts a neutral pronoun; when failure to use that neutral pronoun is a crime; when the government can force you to undergo psychotectic treatments that remove all traces of your sex, and leave you sexlessly androgynous - well 30 years ago on Star Trek, such a world was a ghastly abomination.

WHO-BOY!!!! If Mal’s comments on “The Masterpiece Society” managed to trigger the current landslide in that thread, this is probably going to cause a tsunami.

Agreed. I read it and thought, can we get through one day without this crap. And Mal may not know this but there was "conversion therapy" in the 1980s and well known and applied hundreds of thousands of times. The story is specifically intended as pro LGBT and how society back then forced people into certain roles.

If we're going to argue about this, please start with the idea of "enforced language" and how that imtersects with free speech rights.

And please, let's not use that "Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from consequences" BS argument.

You could use that argument to deny a person ANY of their rights: a business could fire a Muslim for taking a prayer break because, after all, "Freedom of religion isn't freedom from consequences".

Or if you don't want to talk to the police, they could kick you out of college because "freedom from self-incrimination isn't freedom from consequences". You could even use that argument to oppose forcing a baker to make a gay wedding cake.

I do agree with Mal that this episode did have something to say about free speech and how that freedom is essential to one's right of self-determination .... and this episode IS kind of a bizarro world version of the current paradigm (even though Mal did paint his picture of today's climate a bit too vividly).

Thoughts?

@Dave in MN

It sounds as if you conflating different legal concepts.

The reason an employer can't fire someone because of their religion (other than a religious organization from a position in which religious behavior is intrinsic to the function) is not because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but because of anti-discrimination laws, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. That law spells out what "consequences" may not be meted out on the basis of religion.

"Freedom of speech," on the other hand, is not protected against the actions of private employers, non-governmental websites, your social contacts, etc. because there is no law that lays out any such protections. The Constitution protects freedom of speech, as well as the freedoms of religion, the press, assembly, and petition of the government, against the actions of the government. No one else, just the government. This does not make these freedoms non-existent, but it does narrow the parameters of what it means. Those narrow parameters are not "BS," just the legal reality.

So yes, there can be consequences for your speech. As long as it's not the government meting out those consequences, the legal phrase "freedom of speech" does not apply.

A pretty basic distinction, but one that many Americans get confused about, especially in the heat of passionate debate.

You are free to speak. Others are free to speak, too, including by expressing disapproval of your speech. They are also free to take whatever actions they wish in response to that speech as long as there is not some law that forbids the action they have chosen.

I have always thought that this episode could very easily, with no distortion to either the script or the performance, be interpreted to carry a "message" that I am guessing is not at ALL what the writers were trying to say. (And of course, Trek writers are trying to say something about our here-and-now world with pretty much every episode. Nothing wrong with that as a part of the general format of the series and of the entire Trek franchise; it is what it is.)

The inadvertent possible "message"?

"If there were a way for people with non-majority sexual orientations, gender identities, etc. to be made truly like everyone else, they would be happier."

As I said, I know that's not what they are trying to say. But Soren sure seems a lot happier with that whole conflict out of her system.

@ Trish
""If there were a way for people with non-majority sexual orientations, gender identities, etc. to be made truly like everyone else, they would be happier."
I get your point. To me this episode always seemed like an early DS9-ish episode. No easy way out, no speech saves the day. Sometimes situations end badly. Sometimes people give up. Maybe that was what they were aiming for.

"So yes, there can be consequences for your speech. As long as it's not the government meting out those consequences, the legal phrase "freedom of speech" does not apply."

What if it's government putting the screws to giant social media companies to do it for them. You know, stop the "hate speech" on your platforms or else we might have to anti trust your ass.

@Trish - yeah I hadn't considered that before and as a gay guy myself that is disturbing. The sooner conversion therapy is outlawed here in Scotland the better. In the episode it would've been better if the conversion therapy hadn't worked (just like it doesn't in reality) but I'm guessing they needed a way to let Riker off the hook - i.e. make it ok to drop it all and leave her there as she's happy now.

"What if it's government putting the screws to giant social media companies to do it for them. You know, stop the "hate speech" on your platforms or else we might have to anti trust your ass."

The line between government and private actors has been gone for a long time, if it was ever really there. The notion that something is ok for non-government entities but not ok for government is essentially nonsense. There are many ways for these entities to affect government and for government to affect them. They are all informal partnerships. It could be anti-trust, it could be a threat to withdraw access (and along with it, any chance of good stories since investigative journalism is dead). It could be threats to withdraw funding from universities, or other such manipulations.

Now I still don't think that entirely addresses Dave's point, which is that even if government was theoretically not involved at all, the populace could just as soon rally together and effect something just as tyrannical. Where the source of the tyranny is seems somewhat immaterial. I guess my personal answer to that is that if a population becomes...for lack of a better term...bad, there is nothing to be done. The society will just be bad. You can't legislate your way to making people be better, that has to come from lateral moves and education.

I realize that Trish was being precise in her claim so I can't fault her statement in that regard. It is technically correct that private enterprises can be cajoled or incentivized by governments to crush speech that would otherwise enjoy first amendment protection if it was the government acting directly. We saw this in the 50s with McCarthyeism where it was private enterprise that blackballed suspected communists, not governments directly.

I also agree with Peter that if a populace wants to do something, it is going to happen regardless of constitutional protections. Jim Crow made a mockery of the gains made after the civil war and the spirit of the 13th amendment.

Free speech is a dying value in most western nations in my opinion. If I look at the past decade and especially since 2016 the prevailing narrative has been how dangerous speech is and how do we crush bad speech.

The only real wildcard in the USA is its Supreme Court, which through certain vagueries of fortune has tilted counter-culture toward protection of liberal values like speech. But absent a significant social change, that anomaly will correct itself eventually and any judicial resistance will be swept away, as has occurred here in Canada.

I find this newfound love of Conservatives for free speech a little suspicious, you don't have to go back to the Senator from Wisconsin. Until the 80s it was effectively forbidden to show homosexual couples, among other things. But hey if it makes the Con front more willing to break up big companies, then why not.

And I find not so "liberal" obsessions with crushing speech hilarious - the wheel turns doesn't it?

I have no illusions that if Right was ascendant rather than Left we'd probably see the reverse.

My generation's reverence for free speech was, in hindsight, perhaps, anomalous - born of a particular time when Left and Right were in some kind of uneasy balance.

I never really believed that free speech existed. I grew up in a rural region, very conservative. Not much free speech there, I tell ya. :)

Free speech is always hard to define. Where does "incitement" start; when does speech become so hurtful that it is unacceptable/harassment. It is probably always about these two points, I think.

"And I find not so "liberal" obsessions with crushing speech hilarious - the wheel turns doesn't it?"
Oh well, I'm a radical socialist and even I am pretty annoyed by now. When they took out this episode because of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFFqCIeuGE8&ab_channel=CanonEos
In Germany we don't have a racist blackface trope. Still that episode cannot be watched here anymore. And it is a great episode. :(
I thought my illegal streaming days were over...

Point being. If people like me are annoyed then this will probably soon lose steam. ;)

PS: Here is the intro of the episode which is just great.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK88O6pAHH4

Why should any non-living entity (like a business) have any right to regulate the speech of their employees (who are living)? A human being is alive, a business is not.

How can one be concerned about human rights and make the argument that a non-living corporation has the right to check those rights based on a arbitrary shifting standard?

Also, I must point out that sometimes pointless laws are passed to show that politicians care, but the reality is the laws were technically unnecessary. The reason anti-discrimination laws are Constititional is because they restate in another way what the Constitition already says just so there's no confusion.

You can't discriminate based on our enumerated rights, period.

And yeah, the wheel HAS turned and ithat started over a decade ago. Why are some acting like this paradigm shift just began yesterday?

There's only one wing in politics gnashing their teeth to empty out the libraries, fire people for stating their opinions (off the clock) and handwaving away regulation of speech by private corporations.

If the right was doing it, I'd be JUST as indignant and vociferous ... so why aren't some of you?

Sometimes people mutually enforce a certain code of conduct or rule of decorum, and even if every single person involved suffers as a result, they will still enforce it on pain of death. This is fairly common. In The Outcast we may be prone to assume that it's an evil government forcing this on the people, and that the individuals we see are an arm of the thought police. But what if they are just civil representatives enacting the will of the majority? What if that really is the will of the majority? This is partially why in a free society one of the chief principles must be the defense of minority opinions, no matter how unpalatable. Once unlikeable opinions are suppressed the bar will move in directions that no one can control.

Now as regards *acting out* these minority opinions - in the case of our episode, using gendered pronouns and behaviors - I think we will find that when people feel threatened they will do something about it, whether they're right or wrong. So in practice I think we will find little distinction between free thought, free speech, and freedom to act out ideas. You must suppress them all, or none of them. And suppressing none of them does mean the majority may feel threatened...or in some sense actually be threatened. Maybe not with physical force, but with a tearing asunder of their established culture. So from that standpoint I think a choice has to be made between a certain amount of chaos and uncertainty, and between a stable system kept in place through force.

And to tie that back to this episode:

The argument tha some are positing here can be applied to say that Soren's free speech rights weren't paramount and that a non-living entity had the right to check them.

"Oh well, I'm a radical socialist and even I am pretty annoyed by now. When they took out this episode because of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFFqCIeuGE8&ab_channel=CanonEos
In Germany we don't have a racist blackface trope. Still that episode cannot be watched here anymore. And it is a great episode. :(
I thought my illegal streaming days were over..."

Haha! I actually watched that episode randomly a few years ago - literally the only episode of Community I have ever seen. Chevy Chase is hilarious in that. I totally didn't notice the blackface at the time. I guess that guy is supposed to be a Drow?

Am I the only one who has never liked Chevy Chase? He just oozes an insufferable attitude.

"Am I the only one who has never liked Chevy Chase? He just oozes an insufferable attitude."

In this case an asset.

Jason, don't worry. When society looks like this we are done. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nNtjLwX5NE&ab_channel=FlippedandMarked

Oh and Chang plays a dark elf.

@Trish said, "Soren sure seems a lot happier with that whole conflict out of her system.”

It is so interesting that the TNG writers decided to show Soren as pretty much well adjusted after she is “cured". That is certainly a very different take than earlier versions of conforming therapy in Star Trek. Back in TOS’ “Dagger of the Mind,” Kirk is absolutely sold on the technology used to make people “normal” again,

KIRK: Bones, are you aware that in the last twenty years Doctor Adams has done more to revolutionise, to humanise prisons and the treatment of prisoners than all the rest of humanity had done in forty centuries? I've been to those penal colonies since they've begun following his methods, and they're not cages anymore. They're clean, decent hospitals for sick minds.

But Kirk is dealing with a very skeptical Bones. So instead of Bones, Kirk brings down to the planet the far less skeptical - and far prettier - Dr. Noel,

NOEL: Beam neutralising has been experimented with on Earth, Captain. I'm not acquainted with this particular style of equipment, but I can assure you that Doctor Adams has not created a chamber of horrors here.

And more importantly, the audience sees the highly questionable results of the therapy. Patients seem ok after they are “cured", but are are bland, almost automatons,

NOEL: I thought they were happy, well-adjusted.

KIRK: But a bit blank.

Eventually Kirk and crew uncover the chambers of horrors that is the therapy in “Dagger of the Mind,” and end the whole thing.

The writers in “The Outcast”, as @Trish points out, decided to go in a very different direction.

After Soren has undergone her therapy, they choose to show her as “a lot happier.” And unlike the beam neutralizer in “Dagger of the Mind,” they don’t show the actual process of “curing” Soren in “The Outcast.” I get why they did it that way - they wanted the audience to experience the shock along with Riker of finding out Soren had already undergone the “cure". But as a result, they removed another powerful way to argue against these types of invasive interventions.

Star Trek, like all art, is a product of its time. In the 1960’s, when TOS was on air, the horror of the day was using electro-shock therapy to make people “normal” again.

If you were a young writer in 1960's Hollywood fighting to end electro-shock therapy, one way to do that, is to show the audience what it looks like when it is being used. That’s why the scene in “Dagger” of the machine being used on Kirk was key.

By the time TNG aired, the practice of electro-shock therapy had fallen out of fashion. But people will always be looking for new and improved ways to make people “normal” again. As another famous ship’s captain, from another incredibly amazing show once said,

"Somebody has to speak for these people…. Sure as I know anything, I know this: they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people ... better. And I do not hold to that.”

https://youtu.be/1VR3Av9qfZc

In Serenity, it was "The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression.” But the result was disaster on a global scale, "The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There's 30 million people here, and they all just let themselves die.”

In “Dagger” it was electro-shock therapy. Tomorrow it will be god only knows what. Maybe some form of speech code or Social Credit system?

“The Orville” had a great episode called “Majority Rule” on using a Social Credit system to keep people acting “normal."

“The Outcast” is TNG, not bold TOS. It is ambiguous enough, that as society changes, our interpretation of this type of art-with-a-message changes also. As @Trish says, "I have always thought that this episode could very easily, with no distortion to either the script or the performance, be interpreted to carry a "message" that I am guessing is not at ALL what the writers were trying to say.”

Yes @Trish, I agree completely. Please invite me to your next TED talk :)

https://youtu.be/HoXyw909Qu0

1. Electro shock therapy is still widely used and fairly effective.
2. Every society already has informal and formal social credit systems. The legal system is the most obvious. If you are a smoker or overweight you pay more for insurance. If you spend time and money on education you will get a title that enables you to get a better jobs. Very recent example that has somewhat of a connection to the episode was the Trans ban in the military. Under the Trump government many transsexuals were fired or banned from entering the military. So hiding your transsexual identity was rewarded, while showing it was punished. and so on and so on.

@Booming none of those examples amount to a social credit *system* which implies a unified centrally managed database. Even the major credit agencies (which I am surprised you didn't mention as they are far better an example than what you cited) are highly specific to a particular silo of financial credit and it is noteworthy that their silo is accessible by outside agencies only on consent.

You might as well just call 14th century feudalism a social credit system by your logic. The trans ban is a silly example.

China is the only country to my knowledge that has a system based on a truly unified database that covers every aspect of social intercourse.

A difference of definition then. In social science these word often have different meanings. If social credit system is the specific name for a centralized point system, then my examples are a little off. Yes, the Chinese system is certainly an interesting step towards 1984 but I just wanted to mention that there are numerous system which encourage or discourage behavior and I wasn't sure that Mal was specifically referring to the Chinese example. China is certainly taking it to the next horrifying level. Even though there are arguments that this is all a little hysterical. No matter how it will finally will turn out. Such a system certainly screams abuse.

"The trans ban is a silly example."
Could you elaborate?

"A difference of definition then."

Well yes, but if you google it the Chinese system is what comes up immediately. There is no other commonly understood definition.

I mean if it's not centralized, then what's the point of the term? Every society in human history right down to prehistoric bands of hunter gatherers had ways of managing people through reputation.

"The trans ban is a silly example."
Could you elaborate?"

Because it is in no conceivable way a credible example of a "social credit system".

As I said the only thing that even comes close in the west are the big credit agencies like Transunion, Equifax, etc...

Thanks for clarifying. I had read about the chinese system a little but only after this I actually googled it and saw that, as you mentioned, it comes up first.

"Because it is in no conceivable way a credible example of a "social credit system"."
Yeah, I see your point. I perceive these societal systems in a more general way because of my social science perspective and excluding one minority because of gender identity seemed to be a nice connection to the episode. In the sense that a society punished people for non-conformance. As I said, I didn't immediately understand that Mal's comment was specifically aimed at China.

"It is so interesting that the TNG writers decided to show Soren as pretty much well adjusted after she is 'cured'."

I never read it that way. To me it looks like Soren was lobotomized. Granted there's no drooling, and their whole species talks in an unwavering monotone to begin with, so it's hard to tell. Still, it looks like deprogramming or brainwashing, like she's a robot (more so). It's kind of hard to explain but I've always been creeped out by how Soren acts at the end, she's not the same person anymore, well-adjusted or otherwise. I think that's the point too. Soren's calm may just be a facade covering up her innate tendencies.

@Mal

I've never given a TED talk (my sister was actually invited once, but she found out they expected her to pay her own way, and she told them some variation on, "Uh, no thank-you; this is what I do for a living.")

But you can find a few videos of me on YouTube as "Retreat Preacher." I keep meaning to get back to making new videos as my health improves after a several-year bad spell, but other things keep elbowing YouTube aside.

@ Trish

I hope you're feeling better!

@Dave in MN

Thanks, I am definitely on a good trajectory. I had a years-long battle with Hodgkins Lymphoma the culminated in an autologous stem cell transplant (the kind where they harvest your own stem cells and give them back to you, instead of using donor cells). Although my cancer is in complete remission and I am coming up on the three-year anniversary of the transplant, I still have disabling levels of fatigue. There are good days and bad days, and I have learned to make the most of the former and allow myself to rest on the latter.

@Trish
In Germany we don't cross finger, we press thumbs for luck. *thumbs pressed* Good luck and many more good days!

@ Trish

Man, it's crazy the hurdles people are dealt in life. I'm still getting over a bad accident that happened at my job last October so I truly understand the struggle. Your inner strength is admirable.

Oh yeah, thanks for joining the conversation! It's great to have more female perspectives represented here.

I’m sure when this episode was written it was intended as a commentary on gay rights and conversion therapy, but in 2021 it surely has parallels to non-binary and transgender people. I don’t quite buy that Riker falls in love with this person, but it’s a good episode in that it resonates with different gender/sexuality issues decades later.

Pretty much everything I was going to say about this episode has already been said in comments. I'll only add that, reading through comments, and seeing that so many of the reasons why this episode was so watered-down still exist, I thought, "Yeah. That's about what I expected to see." I give this comments section 2.5 stars.

SOREN: “Tell me about your sexual organs, Commander.”

LMAO

(RIKER: Um… er… well, if you were a senior officer, I would now be standing to attention. Does that answer your question?”)

On a serious note, this episode is clearly Star Trek ‘coming out’ on the subject of homosexuality. It was made amidst the social storm that arose from the supposed ‘treatment’ that - endorsed by right wing Christian churches - would ‘cure’ gays of their ‘perversion’. For that reason the episode is a welcome one, though it suffers from an inevitable preachiness as a result.

Since then, of course, gays have been accepted into ‘straight’ culture - and vice versa - much more than was the case in the early 90s (fundamentalist Christians and Muslims excepted). If the episode was made in 2021, its message would apply equally to transsexuals and gender identity, which is currently the equivalent storm , and to which the episode as it stands would need little or no change. Indeed, I first thought that was the theme of it, and wondered if that was much of an issue in the early 90s? Then it became clear that androgyny versus gender was being used to mask a message about homosexuality; it’s slightly ironic that it’s a clearer message about gender identity as it stands.

Message aside, it’s not a great TNG episode so 2.5 stars.

(Side note: was Geordi’s new beard part of the “message”? Lol.)

I didn’t have any problems with Soren — not with "her" attractiveness, not with "her" voice. But blowing up the Veridian system in order to get to the Nexus, that wasn’t nice.

Not to mention (spoilers!) killing Jim Kirk.

Apparently the beard was because LeVar was growing it for his wedding. He wanted Geordi to have a beard in general but Rick Berman (of course) nixed that.

This episode is so bad it's good. I can't remember the exact quote but it's when they are in the shuttle craft alone and she's like "tell me about your genitals commander" or maybe it was "sex organs" I can't remember but it's so ridiculous and tbh quite hilarious if viewed as an out of context clip

In a way, history seems to have smiled on this episode. It's one of the most talked about TNG episodes for certain, and it's certainly noble in its intentions. But does it have to be SO DULL? I don't know who to blame. The director, Robert Scheerer, is not one of TNG's most talked about directors, but he did plenty of classics like "Measure of a Man," "The Defector" and the first half of "Chain of Command" (as well as some slot fillers like "Legacy," "New Ground" and "Inheritance"). This episode is like beige on beige -- the blandest love interest from the dullest species with the dullest costumes and the dullest makeup design, plus a completely by the numbers science plotline. This packaging doesn't really allow the moral debate to flourish.

Boy, oh boy...

This was a wild one, huh!

Star Trek in the 90s thought that an androgyny was edgy and novel. Little did they know that, nary but a quarter-century later, weirdos with poison-dart-frog-colored hair would be insisting that "trans-men" are men and "trans-women" are women even though "gender" is a social construct and there's no such thing as male and female, and that they would successfully destroy regular people's lives and livelihoods if they so much as dared raise an eyebrow in response.

Give it another quarter-century, or more like a year or two, and we're going to have to accept on pain of criminal prosecution that some people are trans-species, trans-abled, trans-aged, and who knows what other kind of nonsense. In fact, all these things HAVE already been broached. It's just that the trans-sexual agenda have not been fully implemented yet, so this other outre has not as yet gained traction. It is ONLY a matter of time though.

Now, I'm a libertarian. I don't care who you are or who you want to be. You're a dude who wants to be a woman or a potato. Have at it. It's your life; live it as you like and let me do the same.

My only question, and it is in earnest, is this: On what scientific or even logical basis do we exalt a man who proclaims to be a woman and penalize those who demur but a man who with equal conviction claims to be, say, the reincarnation of Abe Lincoln we deem to be a nutjob and we section him off at the county psych ward?


On another note, it's official: S.T.D. Riker schtupped every female in the galaxy. It's not time to branch out into non-female life forms... 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Michael making another post where he writes a little about the episode and then pushes his agenda of hate.
Last time it was hate on women.
Now hate on Transsexuals.
Who will be next?
There is so much more to hate.

@Michael

You definitely raise some very valid questions (albeit quite colorfully) -- what is next for trans and gender bending? At least TNG made us think of these things. Trek had a sort of heavy-handed, hackneyed way of trying to deal with certain social issues.

I find it tragic that not willing to use gender neutral speech is considered by some to be an affront (to say the least). It's quite something that such a small minority has garnered considerable influence. And it seems to me they can't wait to be offended. A real problem is the whole political correctness and what its endgame is...

I really like the null space concept in this episode. I AM HERE for it l, as they say..cool and original..didnt anyone else think so..? And the Jinai were an original and unique species..

This episode was a good attempt at an allegory for marginalized peoples, such as LGBT folk, but the ending was highly unfortunate.

Soren's gender identity and sexual attraction were cured, which perhaps for the Genai means that it really is an illness and not something natural like it is for humans (homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 1970's).

If the episode was supposed champion LGBT humans, the end message was one of erasure.

My other critique is that they made the object of controversy an alien. It would've been much more meaningful if Riker had met a male that challenged his self-concept, even if it was just a one-time thing -- which sometimes happens in real life, as much as people like to think that sexual orientation is a fixed thing. Because it all revolved around a throw-away character, it made the issue seem less important.

The closest we ever came to addressing this was when Crusher fell in love with a Trill symbiont that switched into a female body. Although Crusher could work past continuing the relationship while the symbiont was in Riker's body, despite seeing him as a "kind of brother," she couldn't do the same when the symbiont was in a female body. Which is fine because that's realistic too... but if the show really wanted to push its edges, it could've made Crusher explore that a bit further.

Star Trek has always been sadly homophobic, except for in Discovery... but that show is so woke that the message hardly matters anymore. It would have had a much bigger impact in the 90's.

@Robert
"If the episode was supposed champion LGBT humans, the end message was one of erasure."
Yeah, the episode is a tragedy. It was pretty bold to not give the episode an easy feel good ending. It has far more impact the way it is.

If a society gets advanced enough there is probably not much that it could not "cure". I hope they never find out what makes somebody prefer their own sex because then many people will start to find methods to pray/cure/horror the gay away.

" It would've been much more meaningful if Riker had met a male that challenged his self-concept"
Jonathan Frakes actually wanted a man in that role but the studio heads wouldn't allow it.

Let's not forget that the 90s were pretty intolerant. Even for the one same sex kiss between Jadzia and Dr. Khan they got a ton of hate mail. Even modern family waited until season 2 until the gay couple kissed the first time.

"If a society gets advanced enough there is probably not much that it could not "cure". I hope they never find out what makes somebody prefer their own sex because then many people will start to find methods to pray/cure/horror the gay away."

Conversely if truly convincing sex change becomes possible, the entire trans thing becomes effectively moot on most levels. Add in surrogacy through artificial gestation and trans will be "erased" in the sense that no one will care enough to even find it noteworthy.

@Jason
"Conversely if truly convincing sex change becomes possible, the entire trans thing becomes effectively moot on most levels."
Apart from the costs I would say on all levels. If you look at it from a certain perspective trans* is less controversial than homosexuality. While homosexuality is about being different from the majority, transsexuals, after a complete sex change, would just behave like the rest of the population. Some would be special, most would be normal. That will also erase the main transphobic talking points (wrongful transitions; bathrooms). So I would not call that erasure but solution desired by the affected group. That is really the difference. Who wants the procedure. Does the affected group want it or does the majority want to force it on the minority.

I've removed a number of comments, because there was a comment that crossed a line, followed by numerous comments responding to that comment. Let's just not go down that particular road, please.

Thanks.

People never really grow up. Most of them anyways.

@Booming - you are describing the phenomenon of "gender passing". That is, a trans person passes as a member of the opposite sex so that society doesn't notice and they therefore are not subject to discrimination. Not all trans people can pass. Surgery has already become pretty good but if a trans person gets surgery after puberty, there will always be traces of their original sex. And frankly, trans people should not have to "pass" to be accepted by society. Society should accept that gender minorities are real and that gender nonconformity is a reality for a minority of people.

That's why I found "Outcast" didn't really address this issue in an equivalent way. Perhaps for the Genai, genderism was truly a medical condition, as evidenced by the fact that they could "cure" it, and the result is a happier person. However, their society treats these so-called "disabled" people like garbage. If it is truly a justifiable medication condition, then why would the kid in Soren's story be beaten bloody? Why wouldn't it just be accepted that he has a medical condition that needs help? The reason is that clearly there is controversy in their society over whether or not it's a medical condition. There is systemic prejudice at work. So despite how advanced their society seems about how they justify psychotectic treatments as "compassionate", there is clearly a schism on their world and a widespread stigma for being different.

There's no equivalent in our society. They have searched for the cause for homosexuality for decades and haven't come up with anything. I've read all the top research on this. The conclusion they're being forced to draw, for now, is that human sexuality is on a spectrum and it's actually the binary labeling scheme (homo/hetero and bi if you're somewhere in between) that is probably wrong. Most humans are not 100% straight or 100% gay, they are somewhere on a spectrum, even if minorly. And although gender dysphoria is a psychiatric condition, they can't find any differences in brain structures that would explain it.

Whenever I watch a Trek episode where the crew is interacting with a non-Federation species, I always ask myself why that species is not part of the Federation or even considering it. With the Genai, it would be impossible for them to overcome their taboo (bigotry?) and meaningfully integrate with a galaxy that is mostly bi-gendered. The Federation would also probably frown upon how they discriminate against their own gender minorities, regardless if it's a medical condition or not. Imagine a gendered Genai leaving their planet and going to mingle in other Federation worlds. It would be an obscenity to their people and would cause intense diplomatic problems.

Furthermore, you can't FORCE someone to get "treatment" who doesn't want it, even if after the treatment they seem to have appreciated it. That's against medical ethics. They have to be declared incompetent first, and Soren was not incompetent. She knew exactly who she was and what she wanted, she was just terrified of the rest of her society finding out. It's no different than how they used to lobotomize homosexuals, castrate them, or give them hormone blockers to "cure" them if they were "found guilty" of being homosexual.

The Genai are a screwed up people who are obsessed with conformity and their medical industry has clearly aligned itself with that bias. My opinion after rewatching this episode a bunch of times is that the Genai are a backward people who don't respect individual rights and freedoms. Whatever consensus they claim their people have about this issue is clearly a facade.

@Robert

Ok, so first of all, finding out what makes homosexuals homosexual is actually very hard because we don't know what makes people heterosexual. We do know that there are different arousal patterns in the brain. With transsexualism that is a little easier to find because women and men have some differences in their brain structure. I'll come back to that point.

"Surgery has already become pretty good but if a trans person gets surgery after puberty, there will always be traces of their original sex."
Always is one of those words which I rarely agree with. No, actually I never agree with that. Any there will be always this or always that is wrong. Always.

"and frankly, trans people should not have to "pass" to be accepted by society."
Well, sure but until society has reached a point where it doesn't discriminate, I would argue that passing is still the way to go for those who can.

"And although gender dysphoria is a psychiatric condition, they can't find any differences in brain structures that would explain it."
I have seen quite a few studies about it. Full disclosure, I'm a social scientist.

For example this study from 2022 published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine
called:" Brain Sex in Transgender Women Is Shifted towards Gender Identity." by Kurth et al.

and I quote "The observed shift away from a male-typical brain anatomy towards a female-typical one in people who identify as transgender women suggests a possible underlying neuroanatomical correlate for a female gender identity. That is, all transgender women included in this study were confirmed to be genetic males who had not undergone any gender-affirming hormone therapy. Thus, these transgender women have been subject to the influence of androgens and grown up (at least up until a certain age) in an environment that presumably treated them as males. The combination of male genes, androgens, and (to some degree) male upbringing should ordinarily be expected to result in a male-typical brain [39,40,41,42,43,44,45], making a female-typical brain anatomy extremely unlikely. Yet, the brain anatomy in the current sample of transgender women is shifted towards their gender identity"

As mentioned, I have seen other studies who came to similar results. It's the same with Transmen. What now specifically leads to transsexuality is of of course still in question. I have heard that it could be because of hormone levels during pregnancy. Finding that mechanism is of course very difficult.

Oh and let's just hope that we never (or not for a very long time) actually find the exact mechanism for homo and transsexuality. While the ending is portrayed as tragic, it is only from the Federation perspective. Soren is "cured" which is where the analogy falls apart because so called "conversion therapy" is not being banned in more and more countries because homosexuals are happy heterosexuals at the end but because the "therapies" make the participants less happy and cause significant long term damage to their mental health. They are also still gay.

Wow this is one of those defining episodes for the series. Incredibly powerful stuff. Some interesting sci-fi early on with the invisible energy-draining fields, but that's really secondary. The real story here is a metaphor for the treatment of homosexuals in the real world. The way the narrative is told is really evocative of the Twilight Zone's masterful episode "Eye of the Beholder." The tragic irony of the tale is, Riker lies claiming he pursued her to the forest, but she rejected him. Soren denies this lie and proudly accepts her reality. The price for her honesty is that he pursues her, takes her out into the forest, and she rejects him, for real.

The ending of the episode is poignantly tragic, which serves better to hit home the message of what real tragedy exists in our world (or did at the time this was made). I imagine this episode would have left quite an impression on viewers in the early 90s the way Measure of a Man left an impact on how I look at advanced a.i. today.

Definitely one of the most powerful and memorable episodes TNG has produced.

Tertiary to these primary themes is once again the morally dubious (putting it lightly) principle of non-intervention Starfleet touts. I've always seen the "prime directive" more as an exculpatory measure than an ethically grounded one. It's designed to avoid international conflicts or incidents, so that in case something happens, Starfleet command can just wipe their hands clean of the whole affair, saying, hey it's literally our prime directive, don't blame us! If Kirk or Picard disregard the directive and everything turn out alright, then all the better. Anything goes wrong? The captain takes the fall and the institution remains preserved.

@Robert Re: "You can't force someone to get treatment who doesn't want it."

Perhaps that is true. But sci-fi, and Star Trek especially, play upon the difference in cultures to create alien races. After all, every alien is just a man or a woman in makeup and/or prosthetics. Otherwise the species couldn't be acted out or interacted with by the human crew. The only thing that makes them foreign or alien is how their culture is.

In the culture of Soren's people, their anti-gender sentiment is so strong that they probably view it medically as an illness. It is comparable to an intervention.

If someone in our culture had an illicit drug addiction that was destroying his life and that of those around him, would we not intervene and send that person to rehab?

I am not saying that morally these two scenarios are comparable, but from the perspective of the alien's culture, I imagine that is how they would view it.

It is easier to correct the flaws, disregard the outliers, than it is to acknowledge their truth as legitimate.

It's laughable how you dance around the realization that this isn't about sexuality at all but keep missing it. Gender is related, but not the same topic as sexuality. When I looked up this episode and saw that it had been decried by not only social conservatives but also the gay community I couldn't believe it. It's about a smaller and even more marginalized community, but that's just unacceptable apparently. Give trans and gender non-conforming people a second in the spotlight and you're outraged it's not about someone else? In 2023 it's pretty clear that this isn't "so obviously an allegory about the discriminatory issues facing gays" but I guess other LGBTQ+ minorities were much more overshadowed just a few decades ago so it MUST have seemed to you that it could only possibly be about gay people. Time makes fools of us all.

Thanks Captain Obvious. I always thought it could be about either.

Elliott:
"There's a quote floating somewhere around the internet where this episode is described something like 'one woman's struggle for cock against lesbian tyranny.'"

That would be from SFDebris' review of the episode.

Capt. Obvious:
"When I looked up this episode and saw that it had been decried by not only social conservatives but also the gay community I couldn't believe it."

So I've re-skimmed the comments here, and also recently listened to Matt Mira and Andrew Secunda's discussion on the Star Trek The Next Conversation Podcast. They were also struggling with the gay vs trans interpretation, and it's really not that hard. I'm not the first person to say this, Trent and Elliott beat me to it, but the important point is that the writers intended a gay allegory that accidentally does double-duty as a trans allegory. Trans wasn't even on their radar, but looking at it through modern eyes the trans aspect is very clear. We are free to analyze and interpret it by today's standards, but we must keep the original intent in mind as well.

The reason it fails as a gay allegory is because it doesn't acknowledge that gay people even exist. This androgynous species is played entirely by female actors, and the one who starts expressing gender does so in a completely heteronormative fashion. Female attracted to male. In none of the conversations does Riker or Crusher or anyone else tell Soren that even in Humans there's same-sex attractions or bisexuals, let alone non-conforming gender roles. So that's why the gay community wasn't particularly impressed by this. Not to mention that Soren's "conversion therapy" actually worked, even if it did make her seem like a bit of a zombie (IMO as mentioned upthread).

@Jeffrey
That's what Jonathan Frakes had to say:
"Jonathan Frakes criticized the decision to cast women in the roles of the J'naii. "I didn't think they were gutsy enough to take it where they should have. Soren should have been more obviously male. We've gotten a lot of mail on this episode, but I'm not sure it was as good as it could have been – if they were trying to do what they call a gay episode."

I think those criticisms are a bit unfair, though, because what the episode is doing is actually more nuanced than just being a 'gay episode'. What they set up is a multi-tiered situation where different POV's generate different interpretations of what's happening. From Riker's POV we are seeing a heterosexual romance, where Riker likes women and Soren counts as one to him. To the others on the Enterprise the romance is daring, not because he has ceased being heterosexual, but because of the political connotations in the differences between cultures. To the Genai (and to Soren) the situation is more akin to a homosexual attraction, or more broadly, to a non-conforming sexual orientation, with all the taboo and legal issues that go along with that.

If Soren had been cast with a male actor, but the script and everything else remaining the same, in theory none of this would change: Riker would still be courting a technically genderless person who identifies as female. But if Soren looked like a guy (essentially), not only would it become overtly a trans issue, but from Riker's POV it would be pretty clear that he's attracted to a male-looking being, no matter what they identify as. Like it or not this would open up the question of whether Riker likes guys too. And if he does, why would the only guy he's ever been attracted to be a member of a genderless race? And if he doesn't, then why *would* he be attracted to a genderless person who nevertheless resembles a human male? Doing this would raise more logical issues than it would be able to successfully address, to say nothing of permanently affecting Riker's canonical sexual preferences.

I think the multi-faceted way they did it is actually quite sensible, where Riker's preferences remain more or less stable, and yet because of the Genai's POV we still get the sexual non-conforming situation put in the spotlight. Riker sees Soren as female, Soren sees Soren as female, and the Genai see Soren as breaking their cultural norms in a way that acts as meta-narrative about our world. You still get the message without adding in confusing elements. The only issue that makes the episode very hard to track is the successful conversion therapy, which why I've always been tempted to see this as being sci-fi rather than a gay allegory. I don't really think the writers intended to say that conversion therapy works and brings people nicely back into line. I do think it's possible they were leaving it up in the air whether Soren really was sick in some way unique to the Genai, or whether the end is about 1984-esque brainwashing.

@Capt. Obvious

Okay, you can choose to interpret it literally today, but that is historical revisionism. Purely on the matter of what the original creators would have meant, I think you are objectively wrong there. In the early 90s even coming out in favor of gay rights was a bold statement. You didn't start to see more tv shows and more individuals comfortable with "coming out" or being supportive of gay characters or real life individuals till the late 90s/00s, and even then among the general population, it wasn't until the 2010s I think that the majority of people actually started supporting gay marriage. President Obama, who was a Democrat and the President under whom gay marriage became the law of the land, did not even officially support gay marriage in his first term. That was as recent as 2008.

So get some perspective. The gay rights movement was a long, hard fought battle, whereas the transgender movement is something that has really only emerged in the last 5-10 years and sort of attached itself to LGB as if it is the same thing. I would say it is not, but that is neither here nor there. Regardless of your personal beliefs, it is objectively untrue to claim anybody would have seriously considered legitimizing transgender individuals the way people do now back then. That isn't even something that was on anybody's radar before 2014/2015.

This episode was a disaster also because of the execution of the romance between Riker and Soren. I'm sick of these mediocre romances, like this one or Troi and the guy in "The Masterpiece Society." Troi and Riker especially have FAR too many episodes where they have some one-shot mediocre romance. Can't attach to Soren's plight at all because the acting is so stiff and the romance so contrived.

That being said, this episode was weird and interesting to watch in 2023 because it almost seems like it could be newly interpreted to support AND critique modern transgender ideology.

(Abbreviating "Transgender Ideology" as "Tr")
Pro-Tr: Supportive of being who you see yourself to "truly be."

Anti-Tr: Being against surgical or medical processes to change the body into something other than what it was originally (e.g. removing or replacing a reproductive organ from a biologically male or female body).

It's still pretty different though, because Soren doesn't just *feel* like she's female, she just is and was born that way. Whereas in Tr, you can be born one way and *feel* like you are not actually the thing you were born as.

I can't stand this episode. It's plodding, clumsy, cringy, and not the least bit believable with Rikers role.

Ok, I have a new theory about this episode, and it's (for now) what I think the writers were intending.

First, we have to remember the cultural context when this episode was made. Yes, there was the 80's that had just passed, with big cultural changes regarding views towards gay people, which might lead us to believe that this must be an allegory to that. But another movement had been happening as well, which was the feminist approach suggesting that there were no serious differences between men and women. Part of the movement in the 70's, but much more present in the 80's, was to suggest that gender stereotypes need to be broken down, that career paths shouldn't be seen as gendered, that clothing should be less regimented along sexual lines, that ideas of who is better at what need to be put behind us, and that generally we should aim towards seeing the sexes as equal. And I think to many this also implied to an extent seeing the sexes as being essentially *the same*. My new theory is that this is the cultural context the episode is addressing.

We have already seen ample instances of the success of that movement: both men and women wearing jeans and t-shirts, having long and short hair, having similar careers, and other areas. In some quarters it has been (and sometimes still is) taboo to suggest that there are significant differences in capability between the sexes. I think if you look at this one axis and fast-forward it a few hundred years, you might imagine a society where not only do they strive to see the sexes as equal, but where it's taboo to even bring up differences of any kind. Take this piece of interesting dialogue as well:

SOREN: Commander, tell me about your sexual organs.
RIKER: Er.
SOREN: Is that an uncomfortable subject for humans?

And then this:

SOREN: The idea of gender. It is offensive to my people. You see, long ago we had two sexes, as you do. But we evolved into a higher form. I don't mean to sound insulting, but on my planet we have been taught that gender is primitive.

Let's put aside the literal "evolved", since that wouldn't happen over mere centuries. So either this is a folk tale not based in fact, or else (what I assume) that they were so fixated on eliminating gender and sexual difference that they genetically engineered themselves to all be gender neutral physically. From her question Soren doesn't know what differentiated sexual organs are like, so I surmise her people do not have physical sexes, but developed a way for two neuter individuals to jointly procreate. She says it's with a 'husk', but who knows whether that's a medical device or a biological thingy.

Based on all of this, it sounds like the core of the issue is that the J'naii found the idea of gender offensive and did everything they could to get rid of it. To me that has nothing at all to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with the feminist movement and gender norms coming out of the 80's. Assuming this is correct, I think an appropriate reading of Soren's defiance is that she insists that it's ok to be female, feel female, and act female. Translating that into our present world, it would be something like saying "I don't have to pretend to be the same as a man; I'm different, have different feelings, and a different nature." The fact that's confusing about it is the sexual non-femaleness of Soren's body, but I think that element is a sci-fi conceit that might lend itself to feeling to today's ears like a transgender issue or non-traditional sexual relationship. But really I think the issue is supposed to be Soren's own sense of herself and not wanting to be the same as everyone else. Take this dialogue as evidence that this is the relevant issue:

RIKER: Did it occur to you that she might like to stay the way she is?
NOOR: You don't understand. We have a very high success rate in treating deviants like this. And without exception, they become happier people after their treatment, and grateful that we care enough to cure them. You see, Commander, on this world, everyone wants to be normal.

It's about making sure everyone is normal, as in, the same. However I also think that Soren's speech preceding this was intentionally written to have gay overtones so that it could work on multiple fronts at once. But if you take that one speech out of the episode, there's nothing at all in it that points to it being about a gay relationship. So I think they were using this scene to hit a few birds with one stone, even though the primary focus of the episode is to comment on how a society would look where everyone was literally flattened into being the same as many people seemed to believe we should be be striving for. Or at least that's what I think the story wants to be portraying. And I guess the message is something like be careful what you ask for, it looks like this.

Random side idea, but could J'naii be a little riff on the French "je n'ai" which means "I don't have", as the name of a race that doesn't have gender or male and female sexual organs?

@Peter
While you provide an interesting interpretation, the writers and Frakes have made it clear that this is about homosexuality. Soren was supposed to be played by a men which was not allowed. That it doesn't address the issue too openly, considering the times (don't ask, don't tell; Conversion therapy was getting very popular at the time; Aids), is not surprising.
It has been seen as an allegory for transsexualism as well because the story works for LGBTQ people in general. A small minority being "normalized" by society. A society that at the time saw these kinds of minorities as something that was harmful and we are seeing a repeat of that in the USA and some other Western countries at the moment. If the society in this episode wasn't portrayed as suppressing gender expression, then the episode wouldn't work.

Here a few quotes.
Taylor:"I identify with the disenfranchised and the powerless of our world. So I really wanted to make a statement for tolerance, broad-mindedness, and acceptance of those who are disenfranchised." "I am not a gay person, but as a woman I do consider myself in a particular minority; I know what it feels like to be disenfranchised – not in that precise way – and I felt like I had a touchstone to some of the feelings that must be involved."

Berman commented, "We'd been spending a lot of time wrestling with all the elements of the requests of the gay community for us to involve a gay character on the show. It got a lot of publicity both good and bad. We wrestled with a lot of different stories, and came up with a very obvious metaphor to the gay community and the intolerance they receive on this planet."

This line was cut. Riker:"Then how is it that Soren has no choice about her sexual orientation?"

@ Booming,

I was aware of some of that, but I try to look at both the episode on its own terms, as well as what the intentions might have been. In this case it may be divided, where they intended it to be one way but ended up adding in elements that made it into something else, perhaps unintentionally. The issue of homosexuality is surely not given much help by starting with the premise that the race has no sexual differentiation, is it? You can't be gay if the whole race is homosexual by definition. But Soren isn't 'straight' either because she is not physically a woman. So then you are stuck with it being transgender, which I really don't think they intended, nor does it show well on screen. Throw in the history that they used to have sexes and now don't, and that Soren wants to be a female, and I really feel that the gay analogy has trouble making sense. Even if you want to invert everything - what is a society was all gay and someone wanted to be straight - they would need to have written it differently, because at no time is any focus put on the J'naii being gay in any sense we think of it. They are just neuter, something strange to us, not part of our current lexicon. Pair that up with the fact that gender is offensive to the planet, and I don't see what that has to do with homosexuality. Gender isn't offensive to homosexuality, so that seems like a non sequitor, and yet it's the core to understanding the J'naii. That just doesn't make sense to me, so I don't buy it, regardless of what they claim they were writing.

@Peter
Do you really want reinterpret the very first representation of the struggles of homosexuals in Star Trek history as something else? Can you not leave them at least this one and only TNG gaypisode??

I think you are looking at this with 2023 eyes and not 1992.

This is what Ronald D. Moore said about the DS9 Rejoined episode which featured the very first homosexual kiss in Trek history in 1995:"Some felt betrayed, didn't want to see this in their homes. An affiliate down south cut the kiss from their broadcast."
René Echevarria said, "My mother was absolutely scandalized by the episode. Shocked and dismayed. She told me 'I can't believe you did that. There should have been a parental guidance warning.'" Jay Chattaway commented: "that had people up in arms"
Ira Steven Behr commented, "I know they [Paramount Pictures] got a lot of negative feedback, which only goes to prove a point I always believed in, which is that science fiction fans and Star Trek fans are much more conservative than people want to believe, and this whole Gene Roddenberry liberal Humanistic vision is truly not shared by a significant portion of them. My idea that sci-fi fans are socially far-thinking, that they are in many ways liberal, leftist, humanist, whatever, was totally blown apart by some of the incredible comments we received. "

I quoted all that to highlight that you couldn't show any kind of homosexual relationship without massive backlash, that's why Soren is not played by man, as Frakes had demanded. So they went with this allegory which, by the way, is clear to anybody from a minority.

There is a majority of society forcing it's view of right and wrong on a minority.

Also, Soren's culture/species is not without gender. It has one, a somewhat male coded (clothing, hairstyle, make up) gender.

@ Booming,

That's all fine, but you're talking behind the scenes stuff and I'm talking about what's on screen. Even if they did outright intend to make it an episode about being gay, I think they ended up with something else. That being said, I am highly skeptical of all these claims, because there are too many details unnecessarily added to the episode, such as that they used to have gender but now find it offensive, that undermine a gay reading.

"Also, Soren's culture/species is not without gender. It has one, a somewhat male coded (clothing, hairstyle, make up) gender."

You're just rejecting a given circumstance here. The episode states definitively that they do not dress in a gendered way. If you have different aesthetic tastes you could have designed it differently, but they designed the genderless society like this.

@Peter
"That being said, I am highly skeptical of all these claims, because there are too many details unnecessarily added to the episode, such as that they used to have gender but now find it offensive, that undermine a gay reading."
How would you portray homosexual struggles in 90s America when it is not allowed to show any kind of homosexual behavior/relationships?

Also why are you skeptical? Are you saying that the people who made the episode are lying?

"The episode states definitively that they do not dress in a gendered way. If you have different aesthetic tastes you could have designed it differently, but they designed the genderless society like this."
It is impossible to have a genderless society. Only because society doesn't have a gender binary system doesn't mean that there is no gender. Let's say all men become UFC fighters and kill each other through extensive brain damage. Does that mean that the remaining women only society would have no gender?
What I mean is, there is no behavior that is not gendered in some form. So if a society would decide to get rid of a gender binary system, then they would have to decide what behavior is appropriate and what isn't, effectively creating a single gender society or non-binary society.

I also find it a little confusing that you are saying that the intent (allegory for homosexual struggles) of the authors and directors doesn't matter but what they wrote (genderless society) does?

Does anyone else find it curious that the pic shown on the screen at 3:59 min looks like a vulva?

I'm back, for what it's worth.

I mainly want to address the critique by others above who said that I am judging the Genai by human/Federation standards and not respecting their culture. That's not true. I'm judging them according to their own society.

Soren tells us that that mainstream Genai society thinks gender is a primitive leftover from an earlier stage of evolution, yet seems to additionally find the concept of gender disgusting. So there is a culture bias against gender that isn't merely rooted in the sciences.

At the same time, they have a subpopulation in their society of gendered individuals who *want* to express gender. These people are being artificially oppressed by a non-gender majority. Free will is also ignored when the gendered are given medical treatments that make them non-gendered again, and "happy." Consider that a sufficiently advanced society would be able to manipulate physiology/genetics to change people and that those people could be made "happy" with the result. Also consider that, if non-gendered Genai are still having gendered children despite these "treatments," then the gendered people are actually natural, and not "disabled." This is very similar to the fact that, in the human world, no matter how many homosexuals the dictators of the world have tried to kill, more continue to be born from heterosexual couples.

I originally thought that if the Genai are able to "cure" the gender condition, then maybe it's not exactly equivalent, since humans haven't been able to "cure" homosexuality. Human homosexuality may be healthy and the Genai gender condition not. However, I neglected to factor in societal advancement (above). Consider that if this is a genetic problem, then the Genai should be able to screen for it pre-natally. So clearly it's not a genetics issue, it's something related to environment/development, which means gendered Genai are supposed to developmentally occur. Their own society is making the gendered people that they hate.

My main judgment of the Genai is how they don't respect free will. If a gendered Genai person is happy to be who they are, is otherwise healthy, they can still reproduce, and their only obstacle in life is that the mainstream culture hates them, then it's questionable that they really have a "medical condition" that requires treatment. The medical establishment is often part and parcel with systems of oppression created by the dominant culture/ideology. It's hard to distinguish what is best for the individual from what is best for the society, given Soren's story about the boy who was beaten bloody at school and then carted away for "treatment."

My judgment of the episode design is that, from best I can tell, they chose all female actresses to portray this androgynous race. So I am forced to agree with Jonathan Frakes who said they didn't go far enough and should've cast a male actor to play Soren. It's easy for the audience to accept an "androgynous" character played by a female, but it would've actually challenged viewers if this "androgynous" character was played by a male, or hell, even an actual androgynous actor who is so ambiguous that we couldn't tell either way. The whole point of the episode was to challenge the *human* biases of the viewer, but they failed to do that because the configuration of the human cast still met with mainstream human expectations of male-female romance.

So ironically, the episode lacked impact because of homophobia in the casting department. Heteronormative production standards (from human biases) led to an LGBT issue being portrayed heterocentrically, which then fell flat.

The Genai themselves are a backward society. They would never be able to even consider joining the Federation because of their lack of respect for free will and freedom of conscience. Even if gendered Genai are "disabled," since when is it ethical to force medical treatments on disabled people if they say no? That is some Nurgemberg stuff right there. Rather than "respect Genai culture," I see them as being at a lower stage of civilization development because they are not at the stage where they have properly reconciled free will and liberty with their cultural taboos/biases/hatreds. They may be warp capable but they are still internally divided. Their majority-non-gendered population tries to make their society seem harmonious but they are in fact in conflict.

@Robert
"So ironically, the episode lacked impact because of homophobia in the casting department."
As far as I understand it, this was a studio mandate and not the fault of the casting department. The studio thought that the audience was too intolerant to accept a coupling that deviates too much from the heteronormative.

@ Robert,

"The whole point of the episode was to challenge the *human* biases of the viewer, but they failed to do that because the configuration of the human cast still met with mainstream human expectations of male-female romance."

I have to say, I actually do not think we are supposed to be challenged by Riker liking Soren. Nothing in the text suggests that. I think we are supposed to see Riker challenged by getting someone in trouble for doing something he thinks is fine. And I think Soren is meant to be challenged by deciding whether or not to open up to Riker. From the audience's POV I think we are supposed to think find Soren and Riker's liaison perfectly natural, but to find the Genai as backward. Then I think we're supposed to be challenged again when we are made to understand that we may be making assumptions about the Genai that are unwarranted, so that at the end we are left uncertain which way to think. I believe that's deliberate. But none of the teleplay suggests that we are supposed to find Soren and Riker's relationship scandalous.

"They would never be able to even consider joining the Federation because of their lack of respect for free will and freedom of conscience."

I really don't think this is true. The Federation is all about allowing societies to follow their own beliefs, so long as they agree to work peacefully with the other Federation worlds. Requirements seem to be restricted to having a unified world government, and being willing to give sovereignty to Starfleet over their spaceways. A race govern itself as it pleases. IDIC. Maybe a world can learn from other member world by example. That can't happen if you banish worlds whose culture you don't like.

I agree with other commenters along the lines that this turned out - completely accidentally - a mediocre trans episode, rather than the gay episode that the writers intended (and is pretty hopeless on those terms).

I didn't find Riker's actions at the end all that surprising - I think he would see his career as a fair swap for someone's freedom, especially someone he cared for. That said, not too believable that he did fall in love with Soren.

Picard turning the blind eye, however, was not believable. At the very least Riker should've been read the Riot Act!

This episode really felt like a step back in terms of character development for Riker.

Break the Prime Directive by making romantic (and possibly sexual) advances on an alien, assault two members of an alien species and risk his entire Starfleet career, all for the love of somebody he just met? Argue passionately with the Captain for the love of said romantic interest? How the heck did Worf find out about this, anyway? Janeway would have had his head in a noose.

Riker has always been drawn as the "lady's man," but he seemed to be nothing other than a walking penis and a lovestruck but apologetic, baby-faced hothead here. The writers really did not do him justice, and Riker showed no character growth. His "cute" little dialogue with Troi ("Friends" with a kiss) was likewise just absurd—why would Riker be stupid enough to believe that nothing would change between Troi and himself? I don't think the writers had any idea what to do with Riker at this point in time, and his character likewise didn't seem to develop much at all.

As @Andy B also wrote, Picard's actions were also out of character here. It seems like they just wanted him to be the nice guy off of which Riker could bounce ideas, with no reminder about the consequences of his actions and how that would affect the Genai.