We encourage all USS Harvey Milk, Planet Stonewall and Voyager Visibility Project members to attend a Trek event in your geographical area in order to raise the question of adding a positive lesbian/gay character to the featured cast of Voyager or DS9.
During the 1991 effort organized by the Gaylaxians, Paramount simply ignored the large numbers of letters they were getting on this subject and mailed out form letter responses, hoping that the issue would go away. It didn't and the Gaylaxians were successful in getting press coverage and raising their concerns at face-to-face meetings with Roddenberry and representatives at various events.
It is important that Paramount know that we are out here and at these events. It is important that all the actors who are required to participate in these events as part of their contractual obligations realize that lesbian/gay fans have these concerns and expect them to be addressed. It is important that the sponsors of these events and the community of fans at large realize the same thing.
So don't be afraid to speak up and raise this issue at the microphone, when it comes time to ask actors and actresses questions in the convention hall. Or demonstrate outside the event. Or take the Voyager Visibility Project petition to everyone standing in line outside the event waiting to get in. Or to secure a table within the exhibit hall to display the petition and make people aware of our group. (See report on Creation Convention in San Francisco below, for more information. Contact outspeaker for suggestions and help.)
As for questioning the star, who are, after all, paid representatives of Paramount and the Trek production, remember that you have a right to not only ask them their position, but to state your own and respond to any dismissals, excuses, non-responses you get. Remember, there are many straight fans who probably support our position because they embrace the philosophy of Trek.
Remember to speak clearly into the microphone and take your time stating your question. Don't allow yourself to be rushed. Be polite and try to state it in a friendly fashion. Be firm, but not angry or shrill. Don't take any crap from the room ... if there should be boos, have a response ready. Like: "Those of you who are booing must not understand the basic philosophy of Star Trek, which doesn't endorse bigotry. Please allow me to finish asking my question (or "Please allow Mr. Wang to answer my question".)
As the FOURTH SEASON of the FOURTH SERIES of Star Trek begins,
you might ask if the new Voyager character will be a lesbian, and, if not, why not, and, if any there are any plans to show any other minor crew members who are involved in same sex relationships, and why Paramount continues to fail to respond when so many LESS WELL-POSITIONED programs have added gay/lesbian characters.
After all, Star Trek is set in a future when prejudice has disappeared. thus allowing gay/lesbian characters to interact freely and without risk with other characters in the Star Trek universe,
yet the producers still refuse to demonstrate that fact when other producers whose programs are set in a world where that prejudice
still exists are adding characters.
Here are a couple of possible ways to phrase your question to Garrett Wang, Robert Beltran, Robert Picardo, Kate Mulgrew or any other actor from Voyager:
In 1991, Gene Roddenberry announced that gay and lesbian characters would begin to appear as crewmembers in The Next Generation, but he died two months later and Paramount has never lived up to his promise. In case you don't already know, gay and lesbian fans have organized an internet petition drive that asks the producers to add a positive, ongoing gay or lesbian character to the featured cast of Voyager or DS9 this fall. Do you support the addition of such a character in a future in which racism, sexism, poverty and even war among humankind have been eliminated?
or as an alternative final question:
When will Paramount live up to Roddenberry's promise and do you support the inclusion of an on-going gay or lesbian character?
If Voyager Stars are not at an event or you aren't called on by them, then don't hesitate to ask a TOS, TNG or DS9 star the same question. If you don't get a chance to ask your question in a question and answer session, ask it in the autograph line. If you get the chance, hand the actors a printed copy of the Open Letter and History of Interaction with Paramount and ask them to read them and respond to the Voyager Visibility Project.
Although you don't want to come across as confrontational or shrill, don't be afraid to quickly respond to bad answers or excuses. You might start by saying "May I briefly respond to that?" after the actor finishes talking.
Here's a couple of excuses we've heard before and potential responses:
1. It's not necessary to add such a character. Paramount has dealt with the issue in an episode called "The Outcast" and "Rejoined".
Response:
At best, this episode was an extremely flawed attempt to deal with the issue that didn't do the job. And this is an issue of inclusion, not something you can address in a single episode. In The Original Series, "Let That Be The Last Battlefield" was a single episode statement against racial discrimination that there was really no need to make. Star Trek had been making a statement against prejudice from the very first episode. The fact that they showed a multi-racial and multi-ethnic crew living and working together was more effective than any single episode would ever be. If they had done "Battlefield" exactly as it was done, but every featured character in the cast had been white, it would have been insulting --rank hypocrisy. But that's exactly what 'The Outcast' did.
See the History of Interaction with Paramount article elsewhere on this site for more ammunition.
As for the "Rejoined" episode of DS9, check out our response
to "Rejoined" page, which discusses the reasons a one-episode response, especially one featuring Dax, can never replace an on-going human character.
2. We haven't received a script that's good enough.
Response:
It's extremely hard to believe that good scripts have not been submitted. Our organization is aware of very talented writers who have submitted scripts with gay characters. Besides, this is not relevant. The producers and in-house writers create featured characters. They don't have to wait for a script. There's enough talent and imagination to do the job. It's simply a matter of having the will to do it. And if they need any advice, we would be happen to provide it.
The following excuse is so old and tired, we didn't think we'd hear it again. But we were
wrong. This letter, which is self-explanatory, 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 July 23 convention in Bellevue, Washington:
Jeri Taylor
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 ten 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?
VVP Makes Presence Felt At San Francisco Creation Event:
The Voyager Visibility Project, USS Harvey Milk and Planet Stonewall made its presence felt for the first time at the June 5 and 6 (1995) Creation Convention in San Francisco. (I would hope we can begin to mount a presence and make an impression at all Trek conventions.)
Thanks to the strong support of Captain J. Unicorn Escobedo of the USS Atriedes, who were sharing convention volunteer staffing and security duties with the USS Golden Gate club, copies of our Open Letter to Paramount, as well as business cards advertising our website, were available at the same tables where the convention schedule was distributed. The petition resided at the San Francisco clubs table just outside the main auditorium and Outspeaker was able to solicit signatures in the lines of people waiting for admission to the hall, as well as in the autograph lines and in the halls inside the convention.
As a result, we now have 253 additional signatures on our petition! Believe me, those 253 signatures represent a lot of work for one person, walking down the line and explaining our purpose to strangers and "encouraging" postive response. Of course, this *is* San Francisco and most people were ready, willing and able to sign. Now, imagine if we had five people working together --in lavender or pink and grey custom uniforms (or our official t-shirts) wearing Harvey Milk combadges. Imagine that we had our own table at the convention with the petition, membership forms, various articles, and artwork, fully staffed by hunky shirtless fellows in Klingon light fighting mail and Tasha Yar lookalikes. Imagine putting on "gay/lesbian Trek skits" or having the local gay chorus come in a sing. If we used our queer creativity, we would be the hit of these events. And, if I had only had three more people, we could have quadrupled the number of signatures gained from this one convention.
I stongly urge all members to not only make an effort to get to conventions, but to make our presence known in a variety of ways, especially by circulating the petition, distributing materials, and asking questions of the stars. Be bold. Be tough. Expect cooperation. (But if you get thrown out for circulating the petition, it may be even better in terms of publicity!) I wore a large plastic badge that read: "It's time for a lesbian/gay character on Star Trek Voyager. Sign the Voyager Visibility petition today." Let's try to ensure that "our question" comes up at every single Trek convention in this nation.
Again, fandom needs to know we are out here, as well as Paramount, the stars and the various convention organizers. As members, you will have to make an effort if you want to see Paramount take any action.
I had a chance to ask "our question" of three Star Trek stars out of the six who appeared. Two of the three responses were affirmative, if qualified.
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.
However, James Doohan. who preceded Brooks onstage, did not seem to grasp the "future without prejudice" philosophy of the program which has made him a wealthy man. 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 obvious leering. 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 was not able to ask Garrett Wang about the addition of a gay or lesbian character, but I did hand him a packet of information from the Voyager Visibility Project as he sat in the audience listening to Robert McNeill. He answered a range of innocuous and occasionally idiotic questions and introduced his parents and his fiancee from the stage.
The second day of the convention, I asked Robert Duncan McNeill, who brought his wife and his small daughter, a two part question. First, was he aware of any plans by the writers to respond to Gene Roddenberry's 1991 promise to add a positive gay or lesbian character to Trek? And second: what was his personal position? He started to say that the producers and writers were "afraid" or "opposed" to creating such a character, but changed his wording to "reluctant". Then, he went on to say that he didn't think that the show dealt with any character's sexuality. I did have the presence of mind to contradict him, since he had just spend fifteen minutes joking about Tom and Harry and the Delaney sisters, as well as pointing out that Chakotay's affair with Seska, Harry's fiancee, the captain's boyfriend --and more-- had all been very obvious statements about the sexuality of these characters. Unfortunately, he managed to escape making a statement about his personal position on the issue.
Getting up in front of an auditorum full of 2000 people is intimidating in the first place. Trying to anticipate or respond to all the possible ways of side-stepping the issue --listening carefully and having the presence of mind to respond to evasions and misdirection-- is an even greater challenge. Good luck and courage to those who give it a try! One more thing: practice asking the question. I'm serious. If you have a friend who can practice with you, try following up on various types of responses or evasions, so you'll be better prepared.
Again, please contact Outspeaker if you would like to receive formatted files for our petition, open letter and promotional cards that you can print out using a laser printer --or to order pre-printed materials.
Executive Producer, Star Trek Voyager
Paramount Pictures Corporation
5555 Melrose Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90038
You Can Do The Same At Your Next Con