I'm staring to think half of this is because the OP just REALLY REALLY wants Mr. Takei in the game. Last thing we need is another Sulu. One's caused enough trouble...
Let me help you clear that up. No, you're wrong.
We would love for Takei to become a part of STO in his role as Captain Sulu, but that is not the only goal of our group.
Chapel had a thing for Spock - but that doesn't necessarily indicate she was sexually monopolar. Any alternatives were never discussed, true, but then why should they have been?
What was Reed's orientation in Enterprise? How about Mayweather's? Or Sato's? What's your data?
Or are you still buying into a default straight orientation unless otherwise specified?
This is beginning to remind me of discussing the ever-present Patriarchy with a college-level feminist, or the Illuminati Threat with, well, about half of the Internet. Unless your particular hobbyhorse is ridden by everyone, it's all just an attempt to shut you down.
Do I get to complain about the lack of neurodiversity, because the only vaguely autistic character in TNG was played for laughs?
Actually the only place I remember in-game cat humor by the writers is in surface tension, where a caitian and a ferasan are arguing and hurling cat insults at each other. Aside from that, I've only ever seen cat comparisons made by the players.
Personally I find the whole concept of feline/canine aliens absurd. Then again, I'm an environmental scientist so I'm more sensitive to silliness like that.
Er... I mean... my views are just as important as anyone else's, so I demand a large programming endeavor to make caitians alien instead of felinoid! Equality!!!
(No, I haven't forgotten the folks who love having cat-people in this game. It's not a serious suggestion. Even though it is kind of my pet peeve.)
I pay attention to many small details in the game.
The most recent FE has that quaint caitian officer on ESD you're supposed to rescue. When Tuvok mentions, "Someone sounds hurt." you hear the caitian (under the ESD rubble) "Me... ow."
Subtle.
And the constant cat humor in the duty officers that were hand-made by Geoff Tuffli. He even made it a matter of record by saying most/all caitian doffs in the game have the aggressive trait because cats are aggressive by nature.
If that was the case, all humans would similarly be aggressive since apes are aggressive by nature.
Caitians are not well-represented in STO, because they are relatively new to the game, in terms of introduction of new races/species. But when I do see them represented, it is usually just for humor. I appreciate the other small details (such as borrowing from soft canon and portraying the caitians in a less stereotypical light), but the bigger details seem to outshine them.
This isn't a slam against people who like Caitians. But in terms of 'equality', STO has many more examples of inequality than what OP states.
It really just goes back to the basic question, "Does it matter?"
And I say it doesn't. Portray people in Starfleet as people, not charicatures. KDF are not James Bond villains, Caitians are not simply cat-people, Gorn aren't big dumb monsters, and Hortas aren't simply living rocks.
Forcing these issues in gameplay and dialogue seems cheap and gimmicky. And if you're going to address a real world issue like social justice, doing it the cheap and gimmicky route is in bad taste, and brings more attention to something that really shouldn't matter to begin with.
I like what George Takei has to say on many issues, but in this instance (and in relation to STO), gimmicks do more harm than good and show the desire to pander, rather than introduce a very natural lifestyle in a very natural way.
If that was the case, all humans would similarly be aggressive since apes are aggressive by nature.
Two points here: Humans ARE historically an aggressive, vicious, and selfish species. And not all apes are aggressive; bonobos never physically attack anything. Mostly because literally every bonobo social interaction involves sex at some point or another, but still...
Two points here: Humans ARE historically an aggressive, vicious, and selfish species. And not all apes are aggressive; bonobos never physically attack anything. Mostly because literally every bonobo social interaction involves sex at some point or another, but still...
Yeah, bonobos are awesome. They live the philosophy "make love, not war".
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Well that is actually the point. There is no reason for excluding female Gorn. For the reason you just mentioned. They could simply limit the size of the male Gorn and allow female ones to be larger.
Although having access to the female stances and clothing wouldn't be necessary if everyone had access to them, all the time.
Yes, the Kzinti are canon. Ferasans aren't. The two do not even look the same. The only thing the two have in common are that they are feline and not part of the Federation. And that too is a limitation that should be removed.
Any species available to the players should be possible to play in either faction. You can play a Klingon Federation Captain. But not a Human Klingon Captain. This is not treating players equal.
You give the impression from your comments that you're not part of those being excluded and not treated as equals.
Let's see who have been hetrosexual in Star Trek. Kirk, Uhura, Spock, Scotty, Bones, Sulu, Checkov, Chapel, Rand, Picard, Riker, Data, Troi, Yar, Worf, LaForge... you know it's just easier to write EVERYONE of the main cast have when it comes to showing any form of romance been straight in Star Trek (excluding Mirror Universe, Odan's advances on Crusher and d also the Dax kiss as that was something else but shows that Trills are the best ). And there have been a LOT of romance or talk about it in Star Trek over the decades. But being part of that previously mentioned group I'm sure you never noticed that. But there has been flirting, make out sessions, talk about dating, open romances and marriages (all straight).
Exactly, it does not take a lot of effort to write someone so they are not heterosexual. Yet they don't. I'm not sure if you talk a lot to the NPCs in the game. Many of them have loads of character information available in dialogues. To once in a while make one of them flirt with you depending on your gender or mention their husband (if male) or wife (if female) wouldn't take them 5 years to write.
Well it might not be time travel it could be a holodeck program malfunctioning or mirror universe. Either way they could other then Sulu and Tuvoc also throw in Guinan in that episode. That would be epic. It is possible that they could have met considering her age and them serving together on Excalibur.
Two points here: Humans ARE historically an aggressive, vicious, and selfish species. And not all apes are aggressive; bonobos never physically attack anything. Mostly because literally every bonobo social interaction involves sex at some point or another, but still...
Yeah, bonobos are awesome. They live the philosophy "make love, not war".
Basically the Deltans of Earth then I suppose.
On Takei, it is great he is speaking up on this and it would be nice if Cryptic did a bit more. Not getting it into the movies is one thing, given limited time and one plot line etc, but given the breadth of the stories, missions, NPCs... they could try to get one or two more visible than the guy in the Nimbus club. It annoys me when people say it is "unnecessary". Well why have any racial or gender diversity at all hey? A world of middle aged white straight men? You make your cast diverse because then you're representing reality and representing your audience.
Everywhere I look, people are screaming about how bad Cryptic is.
What's my position?
That people should know what they're screaming about!
(paraphrased from "The Newsroom)
Two points here: Humans ARE historically an aggressive, vicious, and selfish species. And not all apes are aggressive; bonobos never physically attack anything. Mostly because literally every bonobo social interaction involves sex at some point or another, but still...
Most animals are historically selfish, with the other traits being dependent on the species. This is particularly true with inter-species interactions. With specific exceptions where two species mutually benefit, this is the norm.
Humans, despite our flaws, are the only ones to even develop the idea that we should care about the welfare of the tribe on the other side of the hill, or other species beyond our own close symbionts. Bonobos will never come up with the idea of inalienable rights. There will never be a United Federation of Chimpanzee Tribes. Dolphins will never create a Child Protection Service. No whale will ever do anything about other whales that happen to be starving on the other side of the globe. And none of them will ever do anything to protect monarch butterflies simply because the butterflies could go extinct.
...unless we eventually uplift them to the point where they can conceive that they should. Or we wait a few billion years until one of them follows our path.
The problems humans have--pollution, overexploitation, abuse of other humans--is because our power has increased faster than we've been able to shed our animal natures. Not surprising, considering we've gone from eating lions' leftovers to landing on the moon in the time it's taken the lions to go from predators to... well... predators. We're like toddlers who came up with rocket science and the United Nations. Mistakes and shortfalls are expected, especially since the things we're doing have never been done before.
We are not where we are because we're degenerate or stupid. It's because we're better at altruism and rapidly improving than anything else in the planet. We're just not finished yet.
It annoys me when people say it is "unnecessary". Well why have any racial or gender diversity at all hey? A world of middle aged white straight men? You make your cast diverse because then you're representing reality and representing your audience.
There's also the matter of the chance of the gender in that Dominion FE being completely random (male or female), who asks if you want to buy them a drink (or they'll buy you a drink or whatever). Which I think is the right way to go about it. It's a seamless mechanic where it doesn't matter what gender is represented.
It's important that if you're going to represent diversity, in particular that part of human diversity, it should be done in a tasteful manner that doesn't seem like pandering, or blatant charicature.
And more importantly, it isn't a matter that should seem forced -- otherwise you draw more attention to the fact you're forcing the issue, rather than making it seem like there really shouldn't be any issue to begin with.
Metal Gear Solid 2 had a character called Vamp, who was portrayed as bisexual. In dialogue with the character, it's revealed he was the lover of Scott Dolph. There was never any big deal about it, it was simply part of the character, which was part of the overall story.
If I say it's "unnecessary", it's because the focus on that alone is unnecessary. What isn't unnecessary is more character-driven dialogue, and a deeper exploration of characters we know in Star Trek Online.
Should that part of diversity be represented? Absolutely.
Should it be more important that it's represented than other elements of character, such as motive, rationality, and emotional investment in the plot? Absolutely not.
We don't go around asking how Admiral T'Nae's family is. We don't pry into the personal and private affairs of Admiral Quinn. We don't ask Slamek if he prefers vegetarian pizza or meat lover's pizza, because it isn't necessary to the story. If a character wants to reveal that part of their personal life to the player because they like to share about their personal lives? Sure, if it's within their character to do so.
But focusing on diversity alone rather than the context that diversity is in (I.E. the over-all story of STO), is more offensive than helpful.
tl;dr: It's necessary as part of introducing more characters or fleshing out existing characters we've already met in STO. It's not necessary to make that diversity represented at the cost of story and plot.
Really? Seems it is Cryptic and you with them that do not understand the point of factions.
If factions mean limiting some species from being part of that faction we shouldn't have Klingon Federation characters. Nor should we have Trill Klingon characters. Nor would we have Romulans in either Federation or Klingon factions. Ferengis should not be in Starfleet either.
Any argument speaking for that they should be allowed like they are now does in fact speak for that any and all species should be allowed in any and all factions.
All we're asking is that if a Ferengi hates the Federation he could join the Klingon Defense Force is he wanted to. Just as Klingons are able to be Starfleet Officers. Or Humans who live with Romulans. ANYTHING is possible. These limitations imposed by Cryptic makes no sense as they are totally arbitrary.
Chapel had a thing for Spock - but that doesn't necessarily indicate she was sexually monopolar. Any alternatives were never discussed, true, but then why should they have been?
So you propose that everyone we have ever seen are bisexual even though we have seen nothing to support that? The only thing se have seen supported by fact are that they are all straight.
What was Reed's orientation in Enterprise? How about Mayweather's? Or Sato's? What's your data?
Reed did, however, have a relationship with Ruby, a waitress at the 602 Club on Earth along with a number of other women, whom he wrote to while stranded in a shuttlepod with Trip Tucker.
Or are you still buying into a default straight orientation unless otherwise specified?
Yes. Pushing heteronormativity on everyone is wrong and alienates lots of people that are a bit more evolved and can see how oppressive it is. Equality is the only solution. treating everyone as equals is the way of the future and should be present in the future of Star Trek as well.
This is beginning to remind me of discussing the ever-present Patriarchy with a college-level feminist, or the Illuminati Threat with, well, about half of the Internet. Unless your particular hobbyhorse is ridden by everyone, it's all just an attempt to shut you down.
Huge difference between conspiracy theories like the illuminati and feminism which is part of equality. But if you think that people do not deserve being treated equal and that white heterosexual middle aged males are the supreme beings to rule the world eternally then that is your opinion. It violates everything equality is all about. Nothing against white heterosexual middle aged men, I am one myself, just way more evolved then those who want to keep the Patriarchy in place.
On Takei, it is great he is speaking up on this and it would be nice if Cryptic did a bit more. Not getting it into the movies is one thing, given limited time and one plot line etc, but given the breadth of the stories, missions, NPCs... they could try to get one or two more visible than the guy in the Nimbus club. It annoys me when people say it is "unnecessary". Well why have any racial or gender diversity at all hey? A world of middle aged white straight men? You make your cast diverse because then you're representing reality and representing your audience.
Agreed. It is important Cryptic doesn't get caught in stereotypes though when writing the cast bios and interactions in the game. IDIC
There's also the matter of the chance of the gender in that Dominion FE being completely random (male or female), who asks if you want to buy them a drink (or they'll buy you a drink or whatever). Which I think is the right way to go about it. It's a seamless mechanic where it doesn't matter what gender is represented.
Yes, that was a good way to make a bisexual NPC. Nothing huge but something. We don't ask for a rewrite of the entire game. Not even overt things like that.
It's important that if you're going to represent diversity, in particular that part of human diversity, it should be done in a tasteful manner that doesn't seem like pandering, or blatant caricature.
Agreed putting in NPCs or stories that have stereotypically casted characters is not the way to do it. Just because you're LGBT doesn't mean you have to act in a specific way, it just denotes who is in your family or who you would find attractive. And we know there is a whole lot of flirting or talking about families or talking with family members that has been shown over the decades in Star Trek.
And more importantly, it isn't a matter that should seem forced -- otherwise you draw more attention to the fact you're forcing the issue, rather than making it seem like there really shouldn't be any issue to begin with.
Well in a perfect world, yes. But we have seen how Cryptic works. Making females in to pinups and butching up the men. 11 female swimsuits and 3 male ones. Unzipped shirtless tops for females but none for men. To name a few things that should have been done differently.
Metal Gear Solid 2 had a character called Vamp, who was portrayed as bisexual. In dialogue with the character, it's revealed he was the lover of Scott Dolph. There was never any big deal about it, it was simply part of the character, which was part of the overall story.
Fine, where are those NPCs in Star Trek Online? Anyone that wouldn't read through all the dialogue with said NPC wouldn't know, and that is one way to do it. But there are other subtle ways to do it as well. We're not asking for bedroom cinematics like from The Sims. We're just asking that if we at some point need to help someone find their missing children or save their kidnapped husband that the family constellation isn't heteronormative. The focus would be on finding the children or the spouse not that they are two married females or two married men.
If I say it's "unnecessary", it's because the focus on that alone is unnecessary. What isn't unnecessary is more character-driven dialogue, and a deeper exploration of characters we know in Star Trek Online.
No one has requested that the focus would be that. We want more character driven dialogue too. Just that it now and then portraits a non-heterotypical character. It could be as simple as just being able to have players being able to give their male captain a feminine stance if they want or have butcher stances for females and options for smaller TRIBBLE as well if someone want that.
Should it be more important that it's represented than other elements of character, such as motive, rationality, and emotional investment in the plot? Absolutely not.
Well, ones motive can be influenced from this. For instance scorned lovers. Rationality can also be influenced by feelings. Emotional investment may vary as well in a plot. But I guess that is not what you're trying to make a point about.
We don't go around asking how Admiral T'Nae's family is. We don't pry into the personal and private affairs of Admiral Quinn. We don't ask Slamek if he prefers vegetarian pizza or meat lover's pizza, because it isn't necessary to the story. If a character wants to reveal that part of their personal life to the player because they like to share about their personal lives? Sure, if it's within their character to do so.
Well, if someone was talking to T'Nae for a while it might get in to that topic. Especially after a few pints at the bar. Same goes for Quinn. Those two really can't handle their Romulan Ale. Slamek doesn't like pizza. He prefer chicken wings. He's a very sloppy eater so bring protection and wet wipes.
It's not necessary to make that diversity represented at the cost of story and plot.
No one is saying that it should replace the story and plot. Only that it is apart of the equation. That they should think if they are about to make a reference to a characters family situation or sexual orientation or gender identity that they will sometimes include the option of an alternative then the heteronormative one.
First off, if you're worried about the sexuality of fictional characters in a setting where sexuality isn't the focus of the story, you're missing the point of the story.
To give a real world example...Nobody gives a **** that Lawrence of Arabia (T.E. Lawrence) was TRIBBLE (he was) aside from a few historians and some people who care more about that than about his accomplishments in the first world war.
It did not define him either as a historical figure, or as a fictional character in that very-long-movie they made about him (the one that won all those Oscars).
Using specialist terms like "Heteronormative" doesn't make you look smart-it makes you look like a jackass who doesn't want to communicate with other people outside your internet/collegiate echo chamber. Ditto with artificial pronouns like 'Xir" and "Xe"- when I meet a pretty girl, regardless of what plumbing she may have under her clothes, she's a "She", understand? because "She" sees herself as "She", not some inbetween state caused by an unwanted growth that she will eventually seek the removal of (or lack of the same).
When I meet a guy who likes other guys, guess what? He's not competition, unless he also likes women, in which case, he's "Wingman material" unless he falls into the realm of "creep"-based on personality, you dig it?
in any case, the LAST thing I'm interested in, is the sex-life of a bunch of pixels defined by computer code. I don't CARE who Admiral Quinn sleeps with, having that knowledge does not and would not improve my opinion of him, or Kurland, or Rugan Skyl, or Hakeev.
can you understand this perspective? I don't care. I suspect I'm among the majority in that sense. I don't play STO to find sex-partners, life-partners, or the possible future mister or mrs. ngo, I play it to shoot things, blow **** up, and explore strange new worlds.
I only care about it, if it contributes to the story in some way that is actually meaningful, has a distinct and important plot function, or provides a meaningful look into a major character's motivations.
a lot of why you don't see more of sexual orientation, is that the genre of Star Trek really isn't sexualized to that level. Sure, Kirk's a man-*****, but that's fodder for jokes, and in ST2:WoK, he gets bit in the proverbial TRIBBLE by it with a son who doesn't know him.
especially makes you sound like a tool, because you're not talking about equality, you're mentally holding yourself as (a bit) superior to others... Just like vegetarians/vegans who refer to non-vegetarians and vegans as 'meat-mouths'.
I'm all for equality, I really am, but what you're doing with your posts, is like a PETA activist chucking blood on someone outside a fast-food restaurant and then trying to engage them in discussion on animal rights.
As patrickngo said: I simply don't care, and if the 'lack of diversity' in the game bothers you, rather than trying to make the game change, vote with your dollar and go elsewhere. I don't walk into McDonalds and complain that they don't serve fried chicken or pizza, I go with what's there, and if I really have a hankering for deep pan, I don't hit up the mac shack...
I have friends who are every part of the LBGTQ spectrum, and you know the only people are who make a big deal and a point about it are? That's right, them... Ooh, look how spiritually evolved I am, I march in a parade and have sex with someone the same gender as me... :mad: Oh, it's not a choice, I was born this way...
Guess what, EVERYONE was born as they are, but you don't see straight people marching down 5th Avenue holding a Straight Pride rally to show how proud they are of a biologically determined behaviour which they actually have no choice about. Pride is about the most damaging thing there is, because it promotes seperatism, not unity. Yes, LBGTQ people have been mis-treated by WASP society for a few hundred years, and that's not right, but insisting things like a game reflect that, in a way which was never shown in the canon of that franchise, I'm sorry, but to quote Shatner, Get A Life!
If you seek a difference in something or somebody, you will always find something.
If you empathize with something or somebody, there will be empathy.
Yawn.
When will we get over this?
We can empathize borg cyber drones.
We can detest D'Tan.
We can empathize with intelligent crystalline entities.
We can live with tholians.
We can empathize with blue skins or green skins.
Trek has gone from ... well ... mini skirts to tight jump suits.
Trek has placed anything that doesn't follow an idealistic military role model on the enemy side ("You can have your opinion, but this is my ship, you follow orders.").
So although diversity always was part of Trek, it usually occurs on the enemy or "others" side, promoting an eye candy half hero half chain of command ideal (with a little bit of renegadism) on the "good" side.
So if you empathize with that, there's not too much to expect to begin with.
The first alien races we got?
Klingons: Mediaeval Warrior Ideal. Not much to expect in terms of equality.
Vulcans: Logic. Very strong. Almost asexual in their attitude. Presented as the first anti-something to "human".
Romulans: We follow orders.
Ferengi: "I hear they keep their females as nude slaves ..."
Cardassian: Dukat-has-a-wide-neck-and-company-boss-attitude-Cult.
Jem Hadar: Oppressed on drugs.
The Borg were a good start (try asking "who's your captain"). But the involved human story writing minds apparently couldn't get over that (well functioning) collective idea and at some place ruined the borg with "a queen". Queen? In a collective? Gimme a break. A functioning collective would eliminate such an horrendous threat to itself as a queen. Pleasantly sexualized, of course, we need to please a movie audience. And with it came slavery.
So alas, Trek isn't really a bastion of equality. I'd search among those people who empathize with the aliens and say "Oh no, please, don't rewrite us into an alliance with that feddie streamline ideal, or you'll lose us to begin with."
We would love for Takei to become a part of STO in his role as Captain Sulu, but that is not the only goal of our group.
Great... there's more than one of you...
No, I'm not wrong. Don't kid yourself.
In function you are no different than the hundrids who have come before you, demanding like little children the game wrok the way THEY want it to. If Crytpic when along with your idea, you'd have a hundred or more morons ******** about losin their "Immersion"
Everywhere I look, people are screaming about how bad Cryptic is.
What's my position?
That people should know what they're screaming about!
(paraphrased from "The Newsroom)
You know, if the OP really wants some of this stuff, they would get it done a lot faster by making foundry missions with it, instead of begging Cryptic.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
The novels are not canon. We never saw Chekov's academy days on film, which is the only thing that counts. (After all, if we take the novels as canon, we have to throw out everything TNG, DS9, and VOY said about Klingons, because it all contradicts John M. Ford's excellent novel, The Final Reflection, as well as his not-quite-so-excellent-but-still-good novel, How Much For Just the Planet?)
And even if we take that little mention in "The Way To Eden" as evidence, it's not uncommon to experiment in college - you'll notice he didn't stay with her, or leave the ship with her when she asked...
Any relationship seen only in a novel? Doesn't count. Then again, if it did, you'd have to count the LGBTQ "quota" (from what you say, there must be a quota) as having been met - the novels are rife with those, from the TRIBBLE couple getting married in one of Duane's novels to the implied relationship between Kirk and Spock in Marshak and Culbreath's Phoenix duology. (Remember that it was fanfic about those two that created the term "slashfic" - before K/S fics, that wasn't even a thing.)
Now, let's examine the relationships on film, shall we?
Kirk - widely depicted as a "he-TRIBBLE", even though on the show he never seemed to get farther than kissing a woman, and if we leave out mind control (or body control) incidents, he only kissed a small handful of them during the series. It was the Sixties, after all - I Love Lucy was regarded as "pushing the boundaries" by letting Lucy and Ricky sleep in a single bed, even though they were married in real life! We know he had a relationship in his earlier years that was serious enough to father a child, although Carol required that he stay away and not get involved in raising his son (he did know about David, but wasn't allowed into the boy's life). We also know that between his retirement and reactivation, he got into another relationship that was so serious he very nearly proposed, and (in the Nexus) regretted not doing so.
Spock - betrothed to T'Pring when they were children (before he would have had sexual inclinations at all!), and had at least two Human women pining after him, although the show never really depicted how utterly weird it is to desire so strongly to mate with an alien. In the case of one, apparently from his Academy days or earlier, he seemed to reciprocate her feelings somewhat, but not enough to overcome Vulcan reserve, save with the added influence of alien spores whose mind-affecting properties were so strong they caused the entire crew of the Enterprise to abandon ship.
McCoy - an ex-wife on Earth; the divorce was supposedly so messy he felt no recourse but to leave the planet entirely. If TOS had been renewed, Gene planned on introducing his daughter Joanna, who was going to enter a long-term relationship with Kirk, leaving McCoy torn between his friend and his child, but that sadly never happened.
Scotty - dated a nice young lady on one planet, but may have wound up killing her while possessed by Redjac. No other data.
Uhura - Implied fling with Spock before TOS began (spelled out in the alternate-timeline movies, FWIW), and didn't seem to mind kissing Kirk in "Plato's Stepchildren". No other data.
Sulu - no data. Great line in "The Naked Time", though - when he was playing D'Artagnan, and tried to rescue the "fair maiden", to which Uhura replied, "Sorry, neither!" Mirror Sulu seemed to be attracted to Mirror Uhura, although that might have just been as a way of establishing dominance - Mirror Sulu was not a nice guy.
Chapel - apparently hetero; attracted to Spock, had once had a relationship with the guy with the android-making machine in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"
Chekov - as mentioned above, aside from an implied Academy fling, no data.
TNG:
Picard: apparently straight; only mentioned relationships are with women.
Riker: now that was a he-TRIBBLE.
Data: Open to interpretation; only one sexual experience in his life of which we are aware.
La Forge: apparently straight, although also apparently incapable of talking to non-holographic women about anything personal.
Troi: Betazed society as a whole seems to be more about sensuality than about who exactly you're sensual with. This is tripped up by the overall giggly adolescent tone TNG takes toward sexuality.
And so on, and so forth - I have other responsibilities, and can't spend the entire day on this. Let's just leave it as sounding a tad hypocritical when you decry heteronormativity, yet buy into it to the extent that you assume everyone defaults to straight, even three hundred years from now.
It must be great to belong to a group of people that are the typical receiver of advertising, movies, music, books and so on. You're so used to it that you don't even notice it. Yet the heteronormative lifestyle is shoved down everyone's throat everywhere. Be it in the mall, your work place, on the train or in church. Yes there are exceptions. Made by those that have evolved enough to see through this and realize that there is a huge group of people who are not treated equal to the others in society.
Yes this is a game, granted, not real life. But behind every single playable character there's a real person. Many make their character as a representation of themselves or an improved version of themselves. Others make the total opposite of themselves. Guys playing girls for instance. It is in this this game fails to realize that there are a lot of customization limits in this game that are in the way for these people to be able to play the game as their self or opposite (yes there are those making up fantasy creations for characters too that have nothing to do with their real life persona, but that's not the topic here).
Now belonging to the heteronormative group of course you feel like there is no need to change anything as it is all designed with you in mind. You don't even see the sexualization of the game as it is what you're used to see in a heteronormative society. One of those things are the gigantic TRIBBLE on females. Just so the guys have something to look at. What do females get to look at in the same amount? Again, count the number of swimwear they released for Risa. Only 3 for men and none of them were even close to sexy, which the plethora of female swimsuits were. Showing off their assets as much as possible. So just because you think there's no focus on sex in the game, it's because your eyes are closed.
There are plenty of reasons why a human would join the Klingons. They could have thought that Starfleet's response to the Undine threat (that started the war with the Klingons) were enough for them to switch sides. This reason would work on any species. Klingon species could be refugees from the war that rather would work with the Federation then join the Klingon Empire. So factions schmactions. They already allow Klingons in Starfleet and Trills in the Defense Force. Faction is based on which side you fight for, not what species you are.
As for who dated who, that info I posted came from Memory Alpha.
It must be great to belong to a group of people that are the typical receiver of advertising, movies, music, books and so on. You're so used to it that you don't even notice it. Yet the heteronormative lifestyle is shoved down everyone's throat everywhere. Be it in the mall, your work place, on the train or in church. Yes there are exceptions. Made by those that have evolved enough to see through this and realize that there is a huge group of people who are not treated equal to the others in society.
Yes this is a game, granted, not real life. But behind every single playable character there's a real person. Many make their character as a representation of themselves or an improved version of themselves. Others make the total opposite of themselves. Guys playing girls for instance. It is in this this game fails to realize that there are a lot of customization limits in this game that are in the way for these people to be able to play the game as their self or opposite (yes there are those making up fantasy creations for characters too that have nothing to do with their real life persona, but that's not the topic here).
Now belonging to the heteronormative group of course you feel like there is no need to change anything as it is all designed with you in mind. You don't even see the sexualization of the game as it is what you're used to see in a heteronormative society. One of those things are the gigantic TRIBBLE on females. Just so the guys have something to look at. What do females get to look at in the same amount? Again, count the number of swimwear they released for Risa. Only 3 for men and none of them were even close to sexy, which the plethora of female swimsuits were. Showing off their assets as much as possible. So just because you think there's no focus on sex in the game, it's because your eyes are closed.
There are plenty of reasons why a human would join the Klingons. They could have thought that Starfleet's response to the Undine threat (that started the war with the Klingons) were enough for them to switch sides. This reason would work on any species. Klingon species could be refugees from the war that rather would work with the Federation then join the Klingon Empire. So factions schmactions. They already allow Klingons in Starfleet and Trills in the Defense Force. Faction is based on which side you fight for, not what species you are.
As for who dated who, that info I posted came from Memory Alpha.
You are beginning to sound like a conspiracy theorist:
you're right,
everyone else is wrong,
anyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or in on it.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
Comments
Let me help you clear that up. No, you're wrong.
We would love for Takei to become a part of STO in his role as Captain Sulu, but that is not the only goal of our group.
Chapel had a thing for Spock - but that doesn't necessarily indicate she was sexually monopolar. Any alternatives were never discussed, true, but then why should they have been?
What was Reed's orientation in Enterprise? How about Mayweather's? Or Sato's? What's your data?
Or are you still buying into a default straight orientation unless otherwise specified?
This is beginning to remind me of discussing the ever-present Patriarchy with a college-level feminist, or the Illuminati Threat with, well, about half of the Internet. Unless your particular hobbyhorse is ridden by everyone, it's all just an attempt to shut you down.
Do I get to complain about the lack of neurodiversity, because the only vaguely autistic character in TNG was played for laughs?
I pay attention to many small details in the game.
The most recent FE has that quaint caitian officer on ESD you're supposed to rescue. When Tuvok mentions, "Someone sounds hurt." you hear the caitian (under the ESD rubble) "Me... ow."
Subtle.
And the constant cat humor in the duty officers that were hand-made by Geoff Tuffli. He even made it a matter of record by saying most/all caitian doffs in the game have the aggressive trait because cats are aggressive by nature.
If that was the case, all humans would similarly be aggressive since apes are aggressive by nature.
Caitians are not well-represented in STO, because they are relatively new to the game, in terms of introduction of new races/species. But when I do see them represented, it is usually just for humor. I appreciate the other small details (such as borrowing from soft canon and portraying the caitians in a less stereotypical light), but the bigger details seem to outshine them.
This isn't a slam against people who like Caitians. But in terms of 'equality', STO has many more examples of inequality than what OP states.
It really just goes back to the basic question, "Does it matter?"
And I say it doesn't. Portray people in Starfleet as people, not charicatures. KDF are not James Bond villains, Caitians are not simply cat-people, Gorn aren't big dumb monsters, and Hortas aren't simply living rocks.
Forcing these issues in gameplay and dialogue seems cheap and gimmicky. And if you're going to address a real world issue like social justice, doing it the cheap and gimmicky route is in bad taste, and brings more attention to something that really shouldn't matter to begin with.
I like what George Takei has to say on many issues, but in this instance (and in relation to STO), gimmicks do more harm than good and show the desire to pander, rather than introduce a very natural lifestyle in a very natural way.
Two points here: Humans ARE historically an aggressive, vicious, and selfish species. And not all apes are aggressive; bonobos never physically attack anything. Mostly because literally every bonobo social interaction involves sex at some point or another, but still...
Yeah, bonobos are awesome. They live the philosophy "make love, not war".
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Basically the Deltans of Earth then I suppose.
On Takei, it is great he is speaking up on this and it would be nice if Cryptic did a bit more. Not getting it into the movies is one thing, given limited time and one plot line etc, but given the breadth of the stories, missions, NPCs... they could try to get one or two more visible than the guy in the Nimbus club. It annoys me when people say it is "unnecessary". Well why have any racial or gender diversity at all hey? A world of middle aged white straight men? You make your cast diverse because then you're representing reality and representing your audience.
Exactly...
What's my position?
That people should know what they're screaming about!
(paraphrased from "The Newsroom)
Humans, despite our flaws, are the only ones to even develop the idea that we should care about the welfare of the tribe on the other side of the hill, or other species beyond our own close symbionts. Bonobos will never come up with the idea of inalienable rights. There will never be a United Federation of Chimpanzee Tribes. Dolphins will never create a Child Protection Service. No whale will ever do anything about other whales that happen to be starving on the other side of the globe. And none of them will ever do anything to protect monarch butterflies simply because the butterflies could go extinct.
...unless we eventually uplift them to the point where they can conceive that they should. Or we wait a few billion years until one of them follows our path.
The problems humans have--pollution, overexploitation, abuse of other humans--is because our power has increased faster than we've been able to shed our animal natures. Not surprising, considering we've gone from eating lions' leftovers to landing on the moon in the time it's taken the lions to go from predators to... well... predators. We're like toddlers who came up with rocket science and the United Nations. Mistakes and shortfalls are expected, especially since the things we're doing have never been done before.
We are not where we are because we're degenerate or stupid. It's because we're better at altruism and rapidly improving than anything else in the planet. We're just not finished yet.
There's also the matter of the chance of the gender in that Dominion FE being completely random (male or female), who asks if you want to buy them a drink (or they'll buy you a drink or whatever). Which I think is the right way to go about it. It's a seamless mechanic where it doesn't matter what gender is represented.
It's important that if you're going to represent diversity, in particular that part of human diversity, it should be done in a tasteful manner that doesn't seem like pandering, or blatant charicature.
And more importantly, it isn't a matter that should seem forced -- otherwise you draw more attention to the fact you're forcing the issue, rather than making it seem like there really shouldn't be any issue to begin with.
Metal Gear Solid 2 had a character called Vamp, who was portrayed as bisexual. In dialogue with the character, it's revealed he was the lover of Scott Dolph. There was never any big deal about it, it was simply part of the character, which was part of the overall story.
If I say it's "unnecessary", it's because the focus on that alone is unnecessary. What isn't unnecessary is more character-driven dialogue, and a deeper exploration of characters we know in Star Trek Online.
Should that part of diversity be represented? Absolutely.
Should it be more important that it's represented than other elements of character, such as motive, rationality, and emotional investment in the plot? Absolutely not.
We don't go around asking how Admiral T'Nae's family is. We don't pry into the personal and private affairs of Admiral Quinn. We don't ask Slamek if he prefers vegetarian pizza or meat lover's pizza, because it isn't necessary to the story. If a character wants to reveal that part of their personal life to the player because they like to share about their personal lives? Sure, if it's within their character to do so.
But focusing on diversity alone rather than the context that diversity is in (I.E. the over-all story of STO), is more offensive than helpful.
tl;dr: It's necessary as part of introducing more characters or fleshing out existing characters we've already met in STO. It's not necessary to make that diversity represented at the cost of story and plot.
Really? Seems it is Cryptic and you with them that do not understand the point of factions.
If factions mean limiting some species from being part of that faction we shouldn't have Klingon Federation characters. Nor should we have Trill Klingon characters. Nor would we have Romulans in either Federation or Klingon factions. Ferengis should not be in Starfleet either.
Any argument speaking for that they should be allowed like they are now does in fact speak for that any and all species should be allowed in any and all factions.
All we're asking is that if a Ferengi hates the Federation he could join the Klingon Defense Force is he wanted to. Just as Klingons are able to be Starfleet Officers. Or Humans who live with Romulans. ANYTHING is possible. These limitations imposed by Cryptic makes no sense as they are totally arbitrary.
Pavel was romantically involved with Irina Galliulin, while they both attended the Academy together.
So you propose that everyone we have ever seen are bisexual even though we have seen nothing to support that? The only thing se have seen supported by fact are that they are all straight.
Reed did, however, have a relationship with Ruby, a waitress at the 602 Club on Earth along with a number of other women, whom he wrote to while stranded in a shuttlepod with Trip Tucker.
Mayweather were romantic with Gannet Brooks.
Yes. Pushing heteronormativity on everyone is wrong and alienates lots of people that are a bit more evolved and can see how oppressive it is. Equality is the only solution. treating everyone as equals is the way of the future and should be present in the future of Star Trek as well.
Huge difference between conspiracy theories like the illuminati and feminism which is part of equality. But if you think that people do not deserve being treated equal and that white heterosexual middle aged males are the supreme beings to rule the world eternally then that is your opinion. It violates everything equality is all about. Nothing against white heterosexual middle aged men, I am one myself, just way more evolved then those who want to keep the Patriarchy in place.
You know what? Yes, you do.
Agreed. It is important Cryptic doesn't get caught in stereotypes though when writing the cast bios and interactions in the game. IDIC
Yes, that was a good way to make a bisexual NPC. Nothing huge but something. We don't ask for a rewrite of the entire game. Not even overt things like that.
Agreed putting in NPCs or stories that have stereotypically casted characters is not the way to do it. Just because you're LGBT doesn't mean you have to act in a specific way, it just denotes who is in your family or who you would find attractive. And we know there is a whole lot of flirting or talking about families or talking with family members that has been shown over the decades in Star Trek.
Well in a perfect world, yes. But we have seen how Cryptic works. Making females in to pinups and butching up the men. 11 female swimsuits and 3 male ones. Unzipped shirtless tops for females but none for men. To name a few things that should have been done differently.
Fine, where are those NPCs in Star Trek Online? Anyone that wouldn't read through all the dialogue with said NPC wouldn't know, and that is one way to do it. But there are other subtle ways to do it as well. We're not asking for bedroom cinematics like from The Sims. We're just asking that if we at some point need to help someone find their missing children or save their kidnapped husband that the family constellation isn't heteronormative. The focus would be on finding the children or the spouse not that they are two married females or two married men.
No one has requested that the focus would be that. We want more character driven dialogue too. Just that it now and then portraits a non-heterotypical character. It could be as simple as just being able to have players being able to give their male captain a feminine stance if they want or have butcher stances for females and options for smaller TRIBBLE as well if someone want that.
Great, we agree!
Well, ones motive can be influenced from this. For instance scorned lovers. Rationality can also be influenced by feelings. Emotional investment may vary as well in a plot. But I guess that is not what you're trying to make a point about.
Well, if someone was talking to T'Nae for a while it might get in to that topic. Especially after a few pints at the bar.
Focusing on diversity is not necessary. Not as long it is part of the equation.
Agreed.
No one is saying that it should replace the story and plot. Only that it is apart of the equation. That they should think if they are about to make a reference to a characters family situation or sexual orientation or gender identity that they will sometimes include the option of an alternative then the heteronormative one.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
PLUS ONE!!!
Also, posting stuff like this:
especially makes you sound like a tool, because you're not talking about equality, you're mentally holding yourself as (a bit) superior to others... Just like vegetarians/vegans who refer to non-vegetarians and vegans as 'meat-mouths'.
I'm all for equality, I really am, but what you're doing with your posts, is like a PETA activist chucking blood on someone outside a fast-food restaurant and then trying to engage them in discussion on animal rights.
As patrickngo said: I simply don't care, and if the 'lack of diversity' in the game bothers you, rather than trying to make the game change, vote with your dollar and go elsewhere. I don't walk into McDonalds and complain that they don't serve fried chicken or pizza, I go with what's there, and if I really have a hankering for deep pan, I don't hit up the mac shack...
I have friends who are every part of the LBGTQ spectrum, and you know the only people are who make a big deal and a point about it are? That's right, them... Ooh, look how spiritually evolved I am, I march in a parade and have sex with someone the same gender as me... :mad: Oh, it's not a choice, I was born this way...
Guess what, EVERYONE was born as they are, but you don't see straight people marching down 5th Avenue holding a Straight Pride rally to show how proud they are of a biologically determined behaviour which they actually have no choice about. Pride is about the most damaging thing there is, because it promotes seperatism, not unity. Yes, LBGTQ people have been mis-treated by WASP society for a few hundred years, and that's not right, but insisting things like a game reflect that, in a way which was never shown in the canon of that franchise, I'm sorry, but to quote Shatner, Get A Life!
Pretending there is a difference, and then talking about it.
Exactly!
At the end of the day, we're all the same color on the inside, we all s**t and we all put our pants on one hoof at a time... :cool:
If you empathize with something or somebody, there will be empathy.
Yawn.
When will we get over this?
We can empathize borg cyber drones.
We can detest D'Tan.
We can empathize with intelligent crystalline entities.
We can live with tholians.
We can empathize with blue skins or green skins.
Trek has gone from ... well ... mini skirts to tight jump suits.
Trek has placed anything that doesn't follow an idealistic military role model on the enemy side ("You can have your opinion, but this is my ship, you follow orders.").
So although diversity always was part of Trek, it usually occurs on the enemy or "others" side, promoting an eye candy half hero half chain of command ideal (with a little bit of renegadism) on the "good" side.
So if you empathize with that, there's not too much to expect to begin with.
The first alien races we got?
Klingons: Mediaeval Warrior Ideal. Not much to expect in terms of equality.
Vulcans: Logic. Very strong. Almost asexual in their attitude. Presented as the first anti-something to "human".
Romulans: We follow orders.
Ferengi: "I hear they keep their females as nude slaves ..."
Cardassian: Dukat-has-a-wide-neck-and-company-boss-attitude-Cult.
Jem Hadar: Oppressed on drugs.
The Borg were a good start (try asking "who's your captain"). But the involved human story writing minds apparently couldn't get over that (well functioning) collective idea and at some place ruined the borg with "a queen". Queen? In a collective? Gimme a break. A functioning collective would eliminate such an horrendous threat to itself as a queen. Pleasantly sexualized, of course, we need to please a movie audience. And with it came slavery.
So alas, Trek isn't really a bastion of equality. I'd search among those people who empathize with the aliens and say "Oh no, please, don't rewrite us into an alliance with that feddie streamline ideal, or you'll lose us to begin with."
Great... there's more than one of you...
No, I'm not wrong. Don't kid yourself.
In function you are no different than the hundrids who have come before you, demanding like little children the game wrok the way THEY want it to. If Crytpic when along with your idea, you'd have a hundred or more morons ******** about losin their "Immersion"
What's my position?
That people should know what they're screaming about!
(paraphrased from "The Newsroom)
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The novels are not canon. We never saw Chekov's academy days on film, which is the only thing that counts. (After all, if we take the novels as canon, we have to throw out everything TNG, DS9, and VOY said about Klingons, because it all contradicts John M. Ford's excellent novel, The Final Reflection, as well as his not-quite-so-excellent-but-still-good novel, How Much For Just the Planet?)
And even if we take that little mention in "The Way To Eden" as evidence, it's not uncommon to experiment in college - you'll notice he didn't stay with her, or leave the ship with her when she asked...
Any relationship seen only in a novel? Doesn't count. Then again, if it did, you'd have to count the LGBTQ "quota" (from what you say, there must be a quota) as having been met - the novels are rife with those, from the TRIBBLE couple getting married in one of Duane's novels to the implied relationship between Kirk and Spock in Marshak and Culbreath's Phoenix duology. (Remember that it was fanfic about those two that created the term "slashfic" - before K/S fics, that wasn't even a thing.)
Now, let's examine the relationships on film, shall we?
Kirk - widely depicted as a "he-TRIBBLE", even though on the show he never seemed to get farther than kissing a woman, and if we leave out mind control (or body control) incidents, he only kissed a small handful of them during the series. It was the Sixties, after all - I Love Lucy was regarded as "pushing the boundaries" by letting Lucy and Ricky sleep in a single bed, even though they were married in real life! We know he had a relationship in his earlier years that was serious enough to father a child, although Carol required that he stay away and not get involved in raising his son (he did know about David, but wasn't allowed into the boy's life). We also know that between his retirement and reactivation, he got into another relationship that was so serious he very nearly proposed, and (in the Nexus) regretted not doing so.
Spock - betrothed to T'Pring when they were children (before he would have had sexual inclinations at all!), and had at least two Human women pining after him, although the show never really depicted how utterly weird it is to desire so strongly to mate with an alien. In the case of one, apparently from his Academy days or earlier, he seemed to reciprocate her feelings somewhat, but not enough to overcome Vulcan reserve, save with the added influence of alien spores whose mind-affecting properties were so strong they caused the entire crew of the Enterprise to abandon ship.
McCoy - an ex-wife on Earth; the divorce was supposedly so messy he felt no recourse but to leave the planet entirely. If TOS had been renewed, Gene planned on introducing his daughter Joanna, who was going to enter a long-term relationship with Kirk, leaving McCoy torn between his friend and his child, but that sadly never happened.
Scotty - dated a nice young lady on one planet, but may have wound up killing her while possessed by Redjac. No other data.
Uhura - Implied fling with Spock before TOS began (spelled out in the alternate-timeline movies, FWIW), and didn't seem to mind kissing Kirk in "Plato's Stepchildren". No other data.
Sulu - no data. Great line in "The Naked Time", though - when he was playing D'Artagnan, and tried to rescue the "fair maiden", to which Uhura replied, "Sorry, neither!" Mirror Sulu seemed to be attracted to Mirror Uhura, although that might have just been as a way of establishing dominance - Mirror Sulu was not a nice guy.
Chapel - apparently hetero; attracted to Spock, had once had a relationship with the guy with the android-making machine in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?"
Chekov - as mentioned above, aside from an implied Academy fling, no data.
TNG:
Picard: apparently straight; only mentioned relationships are with women.
Riker: now that was a he-TRIBBLE.
Data: Open to interpretation; only one sexual experience in his life of which we are aware.
La Forge: apparently straight, although also apparently incapable of talking to non-holographic women about anything personal.
Troi: Betazed society as a whole seems to be more about sensuality than about who exactly you're sensual with. This is tripped up by the overall giggly adolescent tone TNG takes toward sexuality.
And so on, and so forth - I have other responsibilities, and can't spend the entire day on this. Let's just leave it as sounding a tad hypocritical when you decry heteronormativity, yet buy into it to the extent that you assume everyone defaults to straight, even three hundred years from now.
It must be great to belong to a group of people that are the typical receiver of advertising, movies, music, books and so on. You're so used to it that you don't even notice it. Yet the heteronormative lifestyle is shoved down everyone's throat everywhere. Be it in the mall, your work place, on the train or in church. Yes there are exceptions. Made by those that have evolved enough to see through this and realize that there is a huge group of people who are not treated equal to the others in society.
Yes this is a game, granted, not real life. But behind every single playable character there's a real person. Many make their character as a representation of themselves or an improved version of themselves. Others make the total opposite of themselves. Guys playing girls for instance. It is in this this game fails to realize that there are a lot of customization limits in this game that are in the way for these people to be able to play the game as their self or opposite (yes there are those making up fantasy creations for characters too that have nothing to do with their real life persona, but that's not the topic here).
Now belonging to the heteronormative group of course you feel like there is no need to change anything as it is all designed with you in mind. You don't even see the sexualization of the game as it is what you're used to see in a heteronormative society. One of those things are the gigantic TRIBBLE on females. Just so the guys have something to look at. What do females get to look at in the same amount? Again, count the number of swimwear they released for Risa. Only 3 for men and none of them were even close to sexy, which the plethora of female swimsuits were. Showing off their assets as much as possible. So just because you think there's no focus on sex in the game, it's because your eyes are closed.
There are plenty of reasons why a human would join the Klingons. They could have thought that Starfleet's response to the Undine threat (that started the war with the Klingons) were enough for them to switch sides. This reason would work on any species. Klingon species could be refugees from the war that rather would work with the Federation then join the Klingon Empire. So factions schmactions. They already allow Klingons in Starfleet and Trills in the Defense Force. Faction is based on which side you fight for, not what species you are.
As for who dated who, that info I posted came from Memory Alpha.
"Why, some people think there ARE no Tellerite females. They think that Tellerites just spring out of rocks in the ground!"
Also, STOEquality, you REALLY like to hear yourself talk it feels like. As the guys on Rifftrax said about The Architect:
"Words, words. Words words words, words words."