Hmm, funny how the first gay male Klingon merits a whole article, but Reno and #1 being happily in love in the same show raises no eyebrows
Stop with the whattaboutism. First of all, it’s literally an interview with the actor about their character.
Secondly, declaring that articles about queer characters can only be allowed to exist if they include some unrelated “both sides” criteria is a clear attempt to silence queer voices.
Alright well thank you for the quick and harsh reply. I maintain that it seems a bit disingenuous and somewhat poor journalism to interview someone about a very specific aspect of a character, like first in history, and completely fail to mention that someone from the exact same species has the exact same character aspect in the exact same show
If by saying they should SAY MORE you think I’m making an attempt to silence, then Kirk I have no fuckin clue what you think attempting to amplify looks like.
Just to talk about the 500 pound targ in the room: I am unsure if it was ever mentioned how Klingon sexuality works (besides some glimpses into mating rituals in the TNG era and some hints regarding the anatomy in Discovery).
Why should concepts like straight / gay / bi matter in the first hand for an alien race?
Uh… why shouldn’t they?
Because they’re humanoids. We see ourselves in them. Therefore representation matters.
Homosexuality has been observed in over 5,000,000 mammaloid species, including targs.
Don’t feed the troll, there is no need to allow yourself to be put on the defensive justifying why an LGTBQ character exists. The person you’re replying to needs to make the case for why shouldn’t matter (but they can’t because the reason is they are bigoted).
Can an alien from alien be gay that would be a fun watch.
It’s already more than possible in your mind.
Removed by mod
It’s just a phrase. You’ve heard it. To finish it off: Homophobia only exists in 1 species (which, unfortunately for my example, would likely be Klingons).
Because they’re humanoids. We see ourselves in them.
I don’t. I think one of the more powerful aspects of Star Trek has been accepting completely alien lifeforms as inherently valuable without anthropomorphising them. We can accept the value in life without making them just like us. That’s a cheap writing technique to shortcut any kind of important world and character building, or moral uncertainty. This is one of the reasons “new” Trek has been so controversial. Writing is as subtle and nuanced and interesting as a YA novel.
To be clear, I’m not claiming Star Trek has never anthropomorphised aliens. Nor am I claiming it should never do it. I’m arguing it should be done sparingly and only when it serves a more interesting narrative. To make a topical American culture war issue the defining characteristic of a Klingon is easily one of the laziest writing mechanics I’ve seen in Star Trek, ever. It’s beating the audience over the head with a message. Star Trek has always presented moral uncertainty to viewers and allowed them to make up their own minds. This is far more powerful and interesting storytelling. Ironically, this is why The Orville has been such a hit. Despite the comedy aspects, it feels like Star Trek because it’s comfortable with moral ambiguity and treats the audience like adults.
Klingons are very definitely one of the species who have always been heavily anthropomorphised
As for “American culture war issue”…dude, gay people exist. It’s okay for gay people to exist in fiction, too. If you think this barely-mentioned aspect of his character is his “defining characteristic” then either you’re highlighting the fact that you haven’t watched the series you’re criticising, or you’re highlighting how disproportionately large this particular characteristic looms in your mind
dude, gay people exist
Of all the thought terminating cliches to ever exist, this one exists the most. No one claimed gay people don’t exist. Re-read what I wrote please.
Yes, you bashed out the tired old trope that if gay people are to exist in fiction then there must be a narrative reason. That’s nonsense. The fact that gay people exist IRL is all the reason that’s needed for them to exist in fiction
Yes, you bashed out the tired old trope that if gay people are to exist in fiction then there must be a narrative reason.
No, that’s not what I wrote. If you’re going to try to strawman my position the least you could do is put some effort it.
This is what I was responding to:
I’m arguing it should be done sparingly and only when it serves a more interesting narrative. To make a topical American culture war issue the defining characteristic of a Klingon is easily one of the laziest writing mechanics I’ve seen in Star Trek, ever.
If my interpretation is incorrect, please clarify what you meant
Klingons appear humanoid. Therefore humans see themselves in them regardless of what the writers intend. Therefore we have to shove representation in as a sort of innoculation against the exact mental gymnastics you’re performing.
Cultural inoculation is like a right wing conspiracy theory, but here you are stating it as fact. Maybe you’re right, and the writers really do view Star Trek as tool for cultural power and reeducation, instead of entertainment and art. I hope you’re wrong.
Setting aside a tiny fraction of people who – as Diane points out in the article – make their living farming outrage, does anyone actually care about a gay character on Star Trek in the year 2026?
Also, I assume that many of the Klingons we’ve seen on Star Trek over the years were gay. I think he’s just the first Klingon which was identified to the audience as gay.
I like how he rocks the skirt, I’m glad SFA finally resolved the skirt thing by having absolute gender chaos.
Worf: I do not see why it is necessary to wear these… ridiculous uniforms.
Riker: Protocol.
Worf: They look like dresses.
Riker: That is an incredibly outmoded and sexist attitude! I’m surprised at you. Besides, you look good in a dress.
That’s true in theory, but TNG still had a gender imbalance in who chooses to wear what under normal circumstances. And of course there’s Berman’s sexism with Troi’s clothes. SFA has complete gender equality with regards to clothes.
(But we can still talk about how Darem and Genesis are very similar characters, but act very differently because of gender socialisation. Caleb and Tarima also have lots of gender socialisation going on)
Was there ever an explanation for why Troi was always dressed for jazzercize? She was a regular Starfleet officer, wasn’t she?
All we know is that Jellico swooped in and saved the day!
I guess there is sort of an implication in Chain of Command that Troi chose to wear a “non-standard uniform” until Jellico ordered her to change. He says, “I prefer a certain… formality on the bridge. I’d appreciate if you wear a standard uniform.” I’ve just done a TNG rewatch, and I’m pretty sure there is no other in-universe explanation given.
She’s the ships counselor, who at any moment may need to have deeply personal and unofficial private conversations with anyone in need. Those discussions are officially informal. Thus she maintains a casual professional appearance.
It’s not jazzersize, it’s public lounge wear, she is at ease to help aid her clients ability to transition to an at ease state.
While doing official duty on the bridge it is appropriate for her to dress in uniform, but those duties tended to be momentary, not planned, so a wardrobe change would’ve been an odd choice.
Her official role was ship’s councilor, so I’d guess it was to make people feel more at ease and less like they’re talking about their issues to an officer. But mostly - Rick Berman.
Doylist: Berman was a fatphobic piece of shit who told her to lose weight before she could wear the uniform.
Watsonian: She had a special exemption to wear those clothes because of her culture and job. We actually see the same with Dr Migleemo. It appears to be tradition that counsellors and therapists wear less formal clothing to set their patients at ease.
I care. It’s pretty cool.
Same. And Diané absolutely rocks the character. A+ acting.
Agreed. An engaging character that, like Star Trek is oft wont to do, has an interesting arc that challenges the status quo and pushes for understanding.
“A Russian in a USS ship? This cannot be”
“A bald captain? This cannot be”
“A woman captain? This cannot be”
…
The same people that said Tilly didn’t belong in ST because weight are the same that say people in STA are too good looking. Choose one side, people. Either “no non perfect people” or “no beautiful people”, not both.
Wait, people think Tilly is fat??
She may have actually qualified as obese at times, as there’s an actual medical classification.
I don’t think that’s likely to be the case in that second photo you shared, she does have a heavy build in general, but there have been times since being on ST when she likely did qualify.
IIRC, obese is anything over a specific rage of BMI or BFP, whichever you use. So if a healthy BMI for you is 18-25 and you are 30 then you are obese.
I’m not a pro, so I’m not sure about the hard details, but the point I’m making is that obese isn’t a personal opinion of looks too fat. A person doesn’t necessarily even need to look it, but they could still qualify.
My SO looks fine at 30, but not much above that. I think they’re sitting at 28 currently.
To muddy the waters, being overweight exists somewhere between healthy and obese, and there isn’t a clear definition. So there is definitely subjectivity involved. But I think that when someone toes the line of obesity, they can absolutely be classified as overweight.
We can all see she’s overweight
I can’t. My perceptions have been altered by the high prevalence of obesity in our society. I now have higher standards. She looks a little thicker than most people, but not in a way I’d been conscious of before today.
It’s true that general obesity can make it hard to identify overweight people today. I’m lucky to live in Europe, and it’s not as bad here yet. Wiseman is somewhere around 35-40%, which is where the official diagnosis of “obesity” begins.
This is a good example of soulism. Something as basic about our perception of people as whether they’re fat changes based on our home culture. Ultimately, the quality of being fat is a social construct. Science can’t give us a hard cutoff, only culture can do that. Science can only give us degrees.
A naive realist would respond to this ambiguity by denying its existence and saying whatever they think is fat, is fat. A scientific realist would try to find an objective answer in science, perhaps using appealing to the authority of BMI, or looking for a more reliable measurement. A social constructivist would accept that there’s no answer. But a soulist would begin asking what definition of “fat” helps society the most, so we can make a conscious choice of what to believe. The soulist is the only one displaying true agency in how our perceptual world is created.
I like how that focuses on the desired outcomes. Research shows that health risks increase (on average) after a BMI of 25 (slightly more for women). So I would propose a soulism approach in which anyone over a BMI of 25 be considered overweight. That’s generally how medical guidelines categorise weight now.
does anyone actually care about a gay character on Star Trek in the year 2026?
According to Karim’s recent AMA here, yes, a lot. I’m old but I have to imagine it’s a lot harder being a queer kid in 2026 than it was a decade ago!
Also, I assume that many of the Klingons we’ve seen on Star Trek over the years were gay. I think he’s just the first Klingon which was identified to the audience as gay.
Also yes, the headline makes it clear this is Star Trek’s first gay Klingon. Not the Klingon species’ first gay.
does anyone actually care about a gay character on Star Trek in the year 2026?
Well, yes - plenty of people care about, and celebrate, representation.
Depends what platform you’re on. Facebook? Omfg. They think the whole series is worth abandoning because of the “woke” agenda. Even though ST has been woke since 1960.
Personally, I don’t give a fuck. Kind of like in a game. If a character turns out gay, then so be it. I have no emotion towards it. Overall Academy is a fun series. Just finished the Stars episode with The Doctor and Sam. Fantastic episode. Looking forward to cleaning up the first season
A lot of people didn’t give a fuck about Uhura being on the bridge, but that is not a reason to NOT include her character on the bridge. Just because you don’t consider yourself bigoted does not mean that gay characters should not be celebrated for breaking new ground.
I prefer every player-romanceable character in video games to be bi. If an NPC is monosexual, they should go date another NPC. If a character is ace, then there’s no problem. But I don’t like monosexual characters that date one player character but not the other.
![[1]](https://www.slashfilm.com/img/gallery/star-trek-discoverys-mary-wiseman-confirms-tilly-will-return-in-season-4-exclusive/intro-1639084934.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/62467cac1f8de697d4503f2d/Han-Van-Sciver-Mary-Wiseman-At-the-Wedding-Lincoln-Center-Theater/960x0.jpg?cropX1=113&cropX2=503&cropY1=0&cropY2=390){kind=link}
