Letter to Paramount Re: Rejoined
Gates McFadden on "The Host"
August VVP Letter to Voyager Producers
VVP Responds To Taylor "Puzzlement" About Gay Character
Patrick Stewart Comes Out For Gay Characters
Avery Brooks Endorses The Addition of Lesbian/Gay Characters
James Doohan Unclear on the Concept
Robert Duncan McNeill Says "No Sex on Voyager"
Garrett Wang Comments in Oakland Tribune
Majel Barrett's Disappointing Letter to VVP
Letter To Paramount Re: Rejoined
October 8, 1995
Lucy Salhany, President UPN
Kerry McCouggage, President Paramount Television
Rick Berman, Executive Producer, Star Trek
Jeri Taylor, Executive Producer, Star Trek
Michael Piller, Executive Producer, Star Trek
5555 Melrose Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90038
Dear Executives:
The Voyager Visibility Project has read recent published stories and press releases confirming that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine plans a storyline in which the female Trill character Jadzia Dax meets a woman who was Dax's wife and lover when the non-humanoid entity in the Trill joined species occupied a male humanoid body in a "past" lifetime. According to published remarks in "TV Guide", Jadzia Dax and the Trill Lenara Kahn, now joined to another female body, fall in love all over again in "Rejoined".
Supposedly, there will be an obvious attraction, flirting and a kiss between lovers. As a representative of VVP, I'm writing to express our cautious optimism about the storyline and to express our general support of the manner in which questions about gender and gender roles are raised through the character of Jadzia Dax.
Several transgendered persons have written the project to express their feeling that Dax is a metaphor that may help others better understand their situation --and state that they feel a strong connection to the character.
Depending on the manner in which the story is executed, this may prove to be a small, but positive additional step toward inclusion of characters with alternative sexualities. The fact that the press releases about "Rejoined" also mention that it is against Trill custom --if not Trill law-- to associate with lovers from past lives and that the list of guest characters indicates that Jadzia's love interest may be married to a humanoid male does not bode well for the future of any relationship.
While the Voyager Visibility Project supports any positive effort to broaden the spectrum of sexuality represented on Star Trek: Voyager and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the character of Jadzia Dax is not representative of the gay or lesbian experience and can by no means be considered a gay or lesbian character.
We want to reaffirm our position that it is long past time for Star Trek to add a positive, on-going and human gay or lesbian character to the featured cast of Voyager or Deep Space Nine. We hope that the response to this story will help you realize that the addition of a gay or lesbian character would add a new excitement and increase interest in either series.
We believe that such a character would make an extremely important statement about tolerance and inclusion at a time when gay and lesbian people are the objects of increasingly vicious attacks and demonization by the religious right. It would be an affirmation to gay and lesbian youth that there will be a place for them in the future, just as Whoopi Goldberg as stated that the original character of Uhura inspired her to believe there could be a future for her despite her problems at the time.
This is also the reason we believe that it is important that this character be "human" as opposed to "alien", even though all of the aliens on Trek are humanoid, and, in the case of Jadzia Dax, extremely attractive. As people who are too often seen as "unnatural", "outsiders" and "aliens" because of our sexual orientation, it will be all too easy to dismiss a gay or lesbian alien character as "unreal" or "not relevant to real life" ... as literally "inhuman". In the case of Jadzia Dax, we feel there will be many people who attribute any fraternization with a same-sex partner to the "male" alien entity inside the "female" body taking control of both. (It will be interesting to see if "Rejoined" offers any clear insight on this subject.)
We note that Jadzia Dax has always been identified as heterosexual in previous episodes, one in which she falls in love with a male from a planet shifting into another dimension. We also note that this announcement and episode comes well after Babylon Five announced that a "gay or bisexual character" would be revealed to the audience during the course of the first four episodes of this season, that the character is rumored to be a female who has a relationship with another female and that this episode will air at about the same time as "Rejoined".
It may be worth repeating our admonition to the executive producer of Babylon Five that a one-episode flirtation with a same-sex partner, which is immediately and permanentedly replaced by successive and repeated relationships with partners of the opposite sex does not reflect our understanding of bisexuality.
We encourage you to continue to produce storylines that explore sexual identity and applaud positive portrayals of gay, lesbian, bisexual or multiple gendered characters. We also encourage you to introduce alien species with multiple sexes, species that change genders or have no gender or multiple genders and species that pursue non-sexual methods of reproduction. After all, it is a tradition that science fiction explore the differences that humanity might encounter should we actually venture outside this solar system ... just as it is a tradition that the way humanity deals with those differences is often a metaphor for how we deal with those who are different from ourselves here on earth.
There is certainly a large body of science fiction literature that has done an excellent job of speculating on this subject ... and, even with the recent boom in science fiction programming, television has barely scratched the surface of this body of work.
Again, we look forward to seeing this episode ... and hope that it brings us closer to the day we will see an positive, openly gay or lesbian character --who would be engaging and intriguing even if his or her sexual orientation were never revealed ... and who's orientation would be treated as no more or less important and integral to the character than any of the heterosexual characters-- integrated into the cast of Voyager or Deep Space Nine.
Sincerely,
Timothy D. Perkins
Director, Voyager Visibility Project
Gates McFadden on "The Host"
This just in. A woman from San Francisco who saw Gates McFadden at a Trek convention there in 1991 reports that during the convention McFadden was asked whether or not she thought Beverly Crusher would have kissed Odan goodbye after "he" was transplanted into a beautiful female humanoid in "The Host", a controversial episode of TNG which aired in the spring of 91. McFadden said "Yes. She was sure Beverly would have kissed and embraced Odan, at least to say goodbye" --and that in fact she fought to have that happen and argued with the producers over the final speech. According to my source, McFadden said that she actually stepped over to the actress and demonstrated, but her interpretation was not taped.
August VVP Letter to Voyager Producers
August 16, 1995
Michael Piller, Jeri Taylor, Richard Berman
Executive Producers, Star Trek Voyager
Paramount Pictures Corporation
5555 Melrose Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90038
Dear Producers:
I'm sending you 251 additional signatures to our petition asking that a positive, on-going gay or lesbian character be added to the featured cast of Star Trek Voyager. The signatures were gathered at the Creation Convention in San Francisco on August 5th and 6th and I'm happy to report that most of the signatures come from heterosexual fans, including 18-45 year old males who were there with girlfriends, wives and children.
We had petitions at the Convention in Sacramento last weekend and will have them at the upcoming convention in San Jose. We hope to have them at every Star Trek and science fiction convention that takes place this year --and next if necessary.
I'm happy to note that Avery Brooks and Patrick Stewart have both endorsed the concept of gay and/or lesbian characters on Star Trek. Mr. Brooks responded to a question asked at Creation Con and Patrick Stewart discussed the subject in an article in this month's Advocate.
Membership in our organization continues to grow and I believe you can expect at sudden upswing in discussion of this subject on or about August 24th.
We would appreciate a formal response to our petition and the concerns raised in our Open Letter before the new series premieres. Will you add a positive, on-going gay or lesbian character to the cast of Voyager during the upcoming season?
Sincerely,
Director, Voyager Visibility Project
Voyager Visibility Project Responds To
Jeri Taylor Comments About Adding Gay
Character
The following letter was mailed to Jeri Taylor on July 29, 1995 in response to comments she reportedly made about adding a gay or lesbian character to Voyager at a convention in Bellevue, Washington.
Although I might rephrase my opening remarks to congratulate Ms. Taylor on her tacit support for the concept of adding a lesbian or gay character to Voyager if I had the chance to write this letter over again, I found her remarks about not knowing how to portray a gay character without resorting to stereotypes so dissembling as to call into question her entire response. Given that she is only one of three executive producers and a woman in a studio environment dominated by males, I can empathize with the possible difficulties she faces. If she is truly working on it, more power to her. But let's hope she drops the lame talk.
Jeri Taylor
Executive Producer, Star Trek Voyager
Paramount Pictures Corporation
5555 Melrose Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90038
Dear Ms. Taylor:
I'm writing to you regarding comments that you reportedly made at a convention in Bellevue, Washington, on Sunday, July 23, 1995, on the subject of adding a gay or lesbian character to Star Trek Voyager or Deep Space Nine.
Apparently, you said that you were "working on it" and went on to say that since being homosexual would not be "an issue" among Star Fleet personnel in the future, you were having problems figuring out how to make a "gay" person visible without resorting to stereotypes.
Up until I heard about this statement, I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt in terms of having "good intentions" about introducing the subject of lesbians and gays into Star Trek. Although I now consider "The Outcast" deeply flawed, I always thought that the flaws were due to the manner in which it was produced rather than the writing.
But this statement seriously jeopardizes any such assumptions about you. You are obviously an intelligent and talented person or you wouldn't have risen to the position you now hold, yet are you seriously telling us you can't figure this out? That this is is a mystery to you? Do you really expect us to believe this kind of nonsense?
Let me ask you how you portray a heterosexual on Star Trek, since heterosexuality is not "an issue" in the 24th Century? Does it require that two people have sex with each other on the bridge to make the point? You didn't seem to have had any trouble figuring that out, if the number of heterosexual romantic liaisons among the crew of ST:TNG is any indication.
Please! You portray a gay or lesbian character exactly the same way you portray a straight character. You have them talk about their current love interest or partner and the things they do together, you have them mention their first anniversary or recall their first date, you have them express concern when the person they care about is in danger, you show them making a date or expressing interest in a potential partner by asking another crew member whether that person is attached and what that person's orientation is, you show them holding hands in the mess, discussing their day over dinner in their shared quarters, embracing, and --gasp-- perhaps kissing each other on the shoulder, the head, the cheek or even the lips ... just like heterosexuals!! If Picard and his various amours can be shown in bed together, so can two men or two women.
As for your claim to be "working on it", forgive me if I wait until you announce the date of the episode that the character will be introduced before I consider believing it --and only celebrate after I see the episode broadcast. You've been "working on it" about five years now, haven't you?
Since I've already mentioned "The Outcast", let me pass along my perception that almost no one in the gay and lesbian community was happy with "The Outcast". Although I myself initially considered it well-intentioned, I saw it as deeply flawed in execution. As "The Advocate" commented in an editorial cartoon, "Big deal! The alien was oppressed for being hetero! Now that's science fiction!"
I've said this before, but it bears repetition. It would have been about a thousand times more effective to show lesbian or gay characters as integrated and accepted members of the crew rather than devote a single episode to the "issue". In TOS, "Let That Be The Last Battlefield" was a statement against racial discrimination. It was a statement that it was unnecessary to make in light of fact of the interracial nature of the cast and bridge crew. If "Battlefield" had been produced exactly as it was, but every featured actor had been white, it would have been insulting and hypocritical. The situation is the same in regard to "The Outcast". The fact that there were no visible gay or lesbian crewmembers in TNG reduces the episode to a condescending exercise in hypocrisy.
The introduction of a positive, ongoing gay or lesbian character on Star Trek Voyager or Deep Space Nine (where you have certainly made some interesting and positive statements regarding gender) will still be a milestone ... as long as it happens soon. Unfortunately, when and if it does happen, I will be reminded of the number of friends who would have loved to see it happen, but have died during the four years since Roddenberry made his announcement, four years during which two new series have been introduced and we have yet to see a single gay or lesbian crewmember. Could you please work a little faster?
Patrick Stewart Comes Out For Gay Characters
In an cover story and interview for the August 22, 1995 issue of The Advocate, Patrick Stewart says, "It would be very appropriate if the upcoming Next Generation movies made it their business to have gay characters." I think we can infer that he believes the same to be true for Voyager and Deep Space Nine.
Now, if he would just have a talk with Piller, Berman and Taylor --or better yet replace one of the men as a producer, we might get somewhere.
Stewart also said he thought that gay people should be dismayed by the fact that they are not portrayed as part of the 24th Century, that he thought that Q was gay, that he found the theory that Q was simply the another aspect of Picard "attractive", that he has seen slash fiction and homoerotic illustrations of Riker, Picard and Data sharing a shower.
He also talks about his fascination for roles that explore the abuse of power and the fact that the threat of violence played a large role in his childhood.
Here's are some more tidbits:
Q: You may or may not be aware of this, but there are some people who, for whatever reason, are absolutely convinced you're gay.
A: So I'm told! This has come to my ears only recently ... I wondered if it could be in any way connected with ... Jeffrey ... I can only say that I feel very good about it. From an evolutionary point of view, the acceptance and embracing of aspects of one's personality is wonderful: To feel areas of vulnerability that I have not in the past associated with being a man. To also be able to admit, as I have been able to in recent years, to deep love and affection--sometimes verging on passion--for some of my male friends and colleagues. It is wonderful to feel at ease and comfortable with their arms around me and mine around them. To have a kind of delight in that. All of this is a very recent experience.
Q: You've told an interviewer you felt "much discomfort" about The Next Generation's treatment of women.
A: I felt that the writers and producers could not escape from their own essential rigidity in their attitudes to women. They were continually featured as sexual objects, as softer, weaker, and therefore --it always seemed to me-- second-class individuals. And because I believed and still do that the show represents what our underlying philosophies are, it doubly irritated me that in that area I thought we were failing. ... there is kind of a boys club atmosphere about Star Trek, you understand. Our actresses were not finding sympathetic ears.
Avery Brooks Endorses The Addition of Lesbian/Gay Characters
At Creation Con in San Francisco August 5 and 6, Avery Brooks endorsed the idea and declared that there was "room in this world for everyone" when asked if he would favor the addition of a positive gay or lesbian character to the world of Voyager or DS9. Sporting a newly shaved head and minimalist beard reminiscent of his character "Hawk" in the television detective series (his new look for the season), he was extremely spiffy in a jacket, white collarless shirt and an unusual tailored pair of "overalls" in wool suit fabric. This man has a deep, rich, vibrant voice and a presence that dominates a room. He sang a little for the crowd and made very positive comments about Trek's ability to help us envision a better world than we have, a world where everyone can live up to their full potential.
James Doohan Unclear on the Concept
James Doohan. who preceded Brooks onstage at the June 5th Creation Con, did not seem to grasp the "future without prejudice" philosophy of the program which has made him a prosperous man, judging from his expanding girth. After telling the usual round of amusing stories and making William Shatner the butt of several jokes, he proceeded to offer hugs and kisses to every female questioner who came to the mike --most of whom didn't seem to mind his "affectionate nature". When asked if he would favor the addition of a positive gay or lesbian character to the Voyager or DS9, James Doohan, who created the character of Scottie in The Original Star Trek flatly stated "no" and did not elaborate.
I think Mr. Doohan ought to receive a letter or two regarding his judgement and suggesting that perhaps he ought to fix his head before working on any more warp engines. You can write him at Dofame Incorporated, P. O. Box 2800, Redmond Washington.
Robert Duncan McNeill Takes The Party Line
When asked whether or not the writers at Voyager were going to live up to Gene Roddenberry's promise to introduce gay and lesbian characters on Voyager, Robert Duncan McNeill began his reponse honestly enough. He started to say that the writing staff was "afraid" or "opposed", but stopped as the first syllable was forming and substituted "reluctant". Then he started in on the very very tired party line first reported in 1991. After commenting on the reluctant writers, he went on to say that he "didn't think that the show dealt with *any* character's sexuality. " This was the height of irony, since McNeill had just spend fifteen minutes joking about Tom and Harry and the Delaney sisters. His questioner had the presence of mind to point this out, as well as remarking that Chakotay's affair with Seska, Harry's fiancee, the captain's boyfriend, etc., had all been very obvious statements about the sexuality of these characters. Unfortunately, our "ladies man" who doesn't realize that his character has a sexual identity, managed to escape making a statement about his personal position on the issue.
Is Garrett Wang's Blind Spot
The Oakland Tribune interviewed Garrett Wang during the August 5 Creation Convention in San Francisco and had this to say about the possibility of a romance between Harry Kim and Tom Paris:
Despite persistent rumors on "Voyager" newsgroups on the Internet, Wang says there are no plans for a gay on-board romance between Kim and Lt. Tom Paris, another character on the show.
(That's okay, they've been defined as hetersexual and it would be too hard to explain away. But how about the addition of a brand new gay character, Garrett?)
"Any dialogue can be taken as sexual," he says, "People read whatever they want into it. There's certainly nothing wrong with it, but I don't think TV is ready for a male-male relationship, even though 'Star Trek' is futuristic. If anything, I think there's an open door between Kim and (Chief Engineer B'Elanna) Torres but I don't think there'll be any hanky-panky."
So we get more of the Paramount party line. (I guess that's understandable from a brand new employee dependent on the studio.) Even though Gene Roddenberry was ready to introduce gay characters four years ago, Garrett doesn't think TV is ready ... even a show set in a future where it is stipulated that prejudice has disappeared!!! If gay characters can be introduced into present day sitcoms and dramas, I can only conclude that it is entrenched homophobia --and heterosexism-- at Paramount that keeps a positive lesbian gay character off the screen.
The article continues in a very ironic vein as follows:
Wang is also openly critical of Hollywood's treatment of Asians and what he says is its reluctance to cast Asians in interesting roles. He hopes to use his new-found exposure to show viewers that Asians can be anything. Even the nice, normal boy next door.
"Asian actors have a hard time getting good roles because they're typecast. Men are always the evil bad guys or the brainiac wimps. Asian women are dragon ladies or geisha girls and they're always well-versed in love, in Oriental mystique. And people believe what they see on TV. One of the few exceptions to the rule that I've seen has been George Takei," who played navigator Sulu on the original 'Star Trek' series."
Wouldn't you think that Wang would empathize with the fact that gay and lesbian people are TOTALLY invisible in the future and very infrequently seen in the present, except as stereotypes and never as a featured player (except for Matt the Floormat on Melrose)? Doesn't this seem slightly hypocritical? It certainly seems to indicate a blind spot. At least Asians have been included in every iteration of Star Trek from the beginning. I can understand that as one of the few Asians on television, he might be reluctant to play a gay character ... but he should certainly support the addition of one. I'm sure that gay organizations would support his efforts to expand his character and break down stereotypes ... so why can't Garrett Wang offer us his support?
Majel Barrett's Disappointing Response
The Voyager Visibility Project recently wrote Majel Barrett a long letter explaining our position, asking about events leading up to Gene's 1991 announcement to the press and any help or information she might be able to provide to us in our effort to persuade Paramount to live up to her late husband's commitment.
Her response was completely disappointing ... so much so that I actually wondered if she had read the letter. Her response reads like a form letter prepared by a Paramount PR person on the general subject "letters requesting a gay or lesbian character".
Here's what she said:
"Star Trek has always tried to communicate important social themes and ideas. The evils of prejudice and the importance of accepting those who are "different", whether the difference be due to sexuality or having one half of your face be the "wrong" color, is no exception.
But Star Trek is, at its core, a science fiction series taking place in the Twenty Fourth Century. Gene felt strongly that, in two or three hundred years, homosexuality will be so widely accepted as to have become a non-issue.
After all, the outrage of interspecies sexual relations is apt to cause a much bigger outcry than homosexuality ever did!
But Star Trek is aired in the Twentieth Century, and we are not so tolerant as we may grow to be. Thus, the TNG episodes "The Outcast" (about which I suspect the article you sent was written) and "The Host" both contain positive messages about tolerance and sexuality.
You may want to read Larry Nemecek's commentary on "The Outcast" in his Star Trek The Next Generation Companion (Pocket Books) for a fuller explanation. I hope this has answered some of your questions."
Hold your horses, Majel. You "suspect" our detailed, four page typewritten single-spaced letter quoting several newspapers articles was written about "The Outcast"? The article we sent focused on Gene's announcement that gay characters would begin to appear on TNG in the fall of 1991, not "The Outcast". I saw no lesbian or gay characters in "The Outcast", which, although it may have been well-intentioned, was deeply flawed and failed to address the subject of a positive gay or lesbian character. {See "History of Interaction with Paramount" for a more detailed analysis of what was wrong with "The Outcast".}
"The Host" was absolutely homophobic in the manner in which it ended. Despite what the Doctor was saying about acceptance, we saw her freeze up and totally reject her lover because his personality was now in a female body. She could not even get up from her desk and give "it" a goodbye kiss, yet she freely boffed Riker, a fellow officer and her best friend's lover, while the thing was in his body.
Again, if homosexuality is a non-issue, then we would see homosexuals going about their day to day business just like we see heterosexuals: making dates, making jokes, expressing sexual interest, living with lovers, celebrating anniversaries, giving advice, discussing problems. But we remain invisible while heterosexuals continue to be "in our face".)
What a disappointing response. This is a virtual parroting of Paramount's line. It's sad to think that Roddenberry's wife, who is so careful about preserving his memory in term's of what's written about him, doesn't seem to care enough to ensure that the program lives up to his standards and ideals in regard to the inclusion of gays and lesbians.
For reaction to this post about Ms. Barrett, beam over to Questions & Letters.