Talk:Sexuality in Star Trek

LGBT in DS9

I do remember a lesbian episode in DS9. With Dax kissing another women. --Dima io (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I also recall Quark getting a sex change in one episode of DS9

TNG

No mention anywhere of the tryst between Riker and Ensign Ro Laren in the TNG episode "Conundrum"?? One of the sexiest scenes ever.

Riker: "What if I snore in my sleep?" Ro: "What makes you think you're gonna get any sleep?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.135.230 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Keiko and Miles O'Brien

Miles O'Brien, is infact of European decent, however that is because he is infact European. O'Brien is the only major Star Trek character described as both ethnically Irish and born in Ireland.

TNG had de facto gay characters

TNG did air episodes that seemed to have LGBT characters in them, and seemed to be offering a critique of homophobia.

This i moved from the article, as it seems to contradict the sources, and be OR (seem to whom?) Later paragrapgs go on to discuss fan speculation, but this sentence goes to far, making it sound like LGBT characters were really there, which they were not, imo. We have quotes from the writers saying there are no gay characters, which trupmps uncited speculation.Yobmod (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've found a source saying that Q was very slashable - http://www.genders.org/g27/g27_st.html -Malkinann (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

TOS had de facto gay characters

Granted,acting "effeminate" doesn't necessarily mean a man is gay. However, for decades such behavior (often with character flaws) was Hollywood's offensive shorthand for a gay male character. Due to this, I believe TOS did have gay characters -- certainly Petri in "Elaan of Troyius." I'd guess that the ruthless Claudius Marcus in "Bread and Circuses" was intended as bisexual. "Plato's Stepchildren" also fit the (then) stereotype of decadent, orgy-having Greeks or Romans. Gene Roddenberry admitted to making anti-gay jokes before he changed his mind late in life. In latter-day Trek (TNG and after), sympathetic nods to homosexuality are extremely rare, and all the non-hetero characters in DS9's Mirror Universe are decadent and villainous. Obviously, what you make of all this depends on how you, as a viewer, feel about gay rights. As you can guess, I agree with those who find it very disappointing. ProfessorAndro (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right forum for your paragraph. Lots42 (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How so? I am disputing the article's section on TOS, which cites two other characters as "the closest" TOS came to having gay characters. Also, it's impossible to deal with sexuality in Star Trek without describing the lack of positive, homosexual characters. 207.210.129.124 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've stumbled onto a lot of problems. One, no citations that Trek was mocking gay people. Two, many of the Trek creators are still alive so saying they were mocking gay people goes into the mucky territory of libel and being sued and all that good stuff Wikipedia is concerned with. In short, proof proof and more proof is what you need and I fail to see. And sure, you have every right to have the opinion that what Trek has in way of gay characters is dissapointing, but that's just it. It's opinion. "Mirror Universe Kira is bisexual." is fact. "It sucks that the bisexual Mirror Kira was evil." is opinion and would be rightfully edited. Lots42 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully ST could have had more background gay relations but they were very afraid of combining the regular cast need for serial monogamous relationships (keeping the support cast fresh and underpaid) with gay/bisexual. However, Troy was explicitly mentioned as being bisexual soon after introduced. Something about Riker had no problem with the extra women and Troy but could not tolerate the advances from the men. Try's mama was also explicitly mentioned and shown as bisexual although her drive was to possess a strong male. Also didn't they reveal that Tasha Yar was a closet gay right before they killed her character off. Yes early on Q suggested that he could swing either way because he was not actually tied to a particular physical body over which to have hang ups. 65.26.139.168 (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, what? The only part of that I really understood was the last sentence. Sources, man, sources. Lots42 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nemesis

The movie Nemesis had Data welcome men, women and transgendered species to Riker and Troi's wedding... Lots42 (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Interracial

I think that the article needs some profound restructuring. The main section is entirely devoted to LGBT issues, which seems a bit... overweighted to me. Memory Alpha by contrast has a large section on the Kirk/Uhura kiss in Plato's Stepchildren, which was controversial for its interracial issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Kirk/Spock

After trimming all the OR and uncited for Kirk/Spock fan fiction article, it is small enough to fit into this as a subsection (with some info going to Slash fiction). Should it be merged?YobMod 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably, it doesn't really seem like a subject which could stand on its own. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually. This article is already at 48 kilobytes and that article is a respectable size. Also it has references which are generalized to that article and would be mungled if merged over here. A subsection summary here would make sense pointing to that as the main article for more info. -- Banjeboi 13:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering how much of the stuff YobMod deleted before proposing this merge was initially drawn from those non-inline sources... --Malkinann (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am understanding the thrust (pun intended) of this thread, the Kirk-Spock phenom should only merit a sentence or two. Because, at this point in time, so much slash-fic exists. Once you get to Hogwarts/Squid (no, really) it becomes a mite overwhelming. Lots42 (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I really feel this discussion is premature, especially as the slash fiction article is underdeveloped. I believe this merge discussion could be a case of demolishing the house before it's built, as I gather that YobMod wishes to take slash fiction to GA. Taking that article to GA would mean that the literature would need to be looked at, which would have flow-on benefits for related articles such as Kirk/Spock - the first documented slash pairing. (Allegedly, The Man from UNCLE slash was written prior to Kirk/Spock, but there's little evidence.) Hogwarts/Squid is slash for the sheer fun of it, just so that you can say "OMG, isn't it funny, I just read this slash with Hogwarts and the Giant Squid..." It's not a One True Pairing (from the days when that actually meant something), as Kirk/Spock is.

Please note that I have expanded the Kirk/Spock article with information on the "Pon farr" subgenre of Kirk/Spock slash fiction. Kirk and Spock is about the story where friends become more - where their mutual accord in the series is explored and turned into something powerfully romantic for the fans, by the fans. According to Tosenberger, Kirk/Spock influenced the slash scholarship to focus on the "friends become more" story, not examining other movements in slash... "Friends become more" obviously wouldn't work for the contemporary popular pairing of Harry Potter/Draco Malfoy. --Malkinann (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The line: "reams of Kirk/Spock fan fiction which began to dominate fan publications in the mid- to late 1970s" is not true. There was very, very little Kirk/Spock fiction published in the 1970s, certainly not "reams." While there was much more Kirk/Spock fiction in fan publications in the 1980s and onward, slash NEVER dominated fan publications. Some stats are here: https://fanlore.org/wiki/Category:Star_Trek_TOS_Zines Slash may appear to have dominated, but that's only because it was often talked about more amongst fans and others; it certainly was a go-to for journalists for the "shock value". But in terms of actual amount, the statement about the 1970s is certainly wrong, as well as any statement about later years and fan publications. 97.127.4.1 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Starfleet Academy comics

Has this been touched upon before? I dimly remember a plotline in the Marvel comics Star Trek: Academy line where there was 'reverse' intolerance. If the following hasn't been confirmed and touched on in the article, it should. A commisioned ensign (it got complicated) expressed distaste for the concept of bisexuallity (or being gay, one of them) and a regular ensign got mad at this intolerance. In an odd twist, the regular ensign was disciplined because his intolerance was affecting the performance of his duties. The commissioned ensign was allowed to have the stupid feelings, it wasn't affecting -his- work in any real way. 09:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How odd, it looks like my tilde signature for the above paragaph got broken. Lots42 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you just added an extra tilde. ~~~~~ yields "01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)"; ~~~~ yields "--EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)". erm... --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Human/Android?

Didn't Data have a relationship with a human woman? Not Yar, at that time both were mentally ill. Another woman. Lots42 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in "In Theory", with an attractive blonde. :-). --EEMIV (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Major reorganization

This article was renamed "Sexuality in Star Trek" about a year and a half ago (see archives) in an attempt to broaden its scope, but this seems not to have happened as the article is almost exclusively written from an LGBT viewpoint. I suggest that, rather than breaking down the article by series, it's better to divide it by topic, with sections such as marrages, sexuality outside of marrage, interracial relationships, and LGBT relationships. This should provide a framework making it easier for future contributors to add material that addresses the full range of sexuality topics in Star Trek. Let me know what you think; I'll proceed shortly if there are no objections. Antony-22 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection; full endorsement. Happy editing! --EEMIV (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Make it so. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Best and the Brightest

The novel 'Best and the Brightest'...I just thought the homosexual subplot was one cadet falling in love with another cadet of the same gender and accepting this. Nothing further. Lots42 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

info for the page, or the page on "Rejoined"

This page has been greatly improved in the past 9 months. A possible addition: Cinefantastique Vol. 28 #4/5 (Nov. 1996) has an article on DS9: "Rejoined," "Taboo Breaker" by Dale Kutzera (pages 44-46). On page 46, Kutzera states:

"The reaction to the episode was predictably mixed. Some affiliates did not air the episode. Others excised the scene with the kiss. Mail to the writing staff was heavier than for any other episode (these writers) had been involved in, and much of it negative."

However, on the same page, writer Rene Echevarria describes the mail as being "ten-to-one pro (the episode)"; Echevarria also calls the lesbian kiss "by far the most passionate gay kiss I've ever seen on television." ProfessorAndro (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We can have this...

But we can't have webcomics? 128.122.89.59 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, articles on webcomics are allowed. Lots42 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable webcomics are allowed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Inter-species mating

Shouldn't it be noted that most of the time inter-species romances occurred between humans and aliens of the same skin colour? All of Sisko's love interests — human or non-human — were black, while all of Riker's were white. On the other hand, Geordie really was "colour blind" as one would assume humans in the 24th century would be.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this could be relevant to any Wikipedia article. Lots42 (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is that, despite Star Trek's often progressive stance, there was some kind of segregation at work.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if I agreed with you, it would still be original research and thus forbidden. 09:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have any sources to back this up. Maybe someone else does.--Dvd-junkie (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia gets weird on this original research idea. Because Dvd-junkie could publish to a website and then someone else cite you. When in fact the original research idea is irrelevant here when EVERYONE has access to the research material and the analysis is trivial. Original research should only be an issue when the source material is not easily obtained or the analysis is non-trivial so as to require a statistics or math expert.

HOWEVER, while there is a strong trend in Riker's girlfriends, he did have at least one black girl with which he had an over the top romance with. One of the Risa girls if I remember correctly. Use your publicly available source material. But you are correct in that Riker had no "shipboard romances" with black women though he looked with strong interest at several that where already taken, like Worf's ambassador girl. In an interview, the actor who played Cisco mentioned insisting on all the black actress because he thought new black actors were underrepresented in Star Trek. Heh he prolly just liked to hit on them.65.26.139.168 (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First successful inter-species marriage makes a certain social sense as a meeting of like or complementary minds plus intelligent "kinkiness". However, inter-species offspring do not make SciFi sense except by huge technological gene engineering as was eventually done for Klingon-Humans (and even then marginally plausible without further technology. Remember Romulan-Vulcan is a case of ancient colonization. Thus Spock makes little sense except in the context of rarely mentioned (mostly fan-based) speculation about galactic seed colonization by some ancient race using the same proto-human stock and cross engineering it with a native animal of each planet.

If we cast aside the improbable theme of sexual compatibility between species, then preponderance of heterosexuality, or at least non-monogamous bisexuality, in space going races makes sense. Until artifical breeding technology the genetics of monogamous homosexuals would be lost. Species that have large lifetime homosexual populations suffer a reproductive penalty counter to their survival at least until artificial breeding means become an everyday viable.

As much as side romances played a part in Star Trek, I just do not think that TV was comfortable about making alternate sexuality the main focus of episodes. Because realistically species with large "natural" (non-tech supported) fractions of homosexuals or bisexuals would have dominated episodes. I mean you could have a race that naturally had a heterosexual phase and then evolved after mating in gay life partners...but that point would tend to become the crisis point of the episode. And as noted star Trek focused on societies built upon life long relationships for most of its airings, even in the more risque polygamous marriages. Truthfully ST could have had more background gay relations but they were very afraid of combining the regular cast serial monogamous relationships with gay/bisexual. 65.26.139.168 (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this alleged fear? Lots42 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"White" and "Non-White"

Re "interethnic kisses between white and non-white actors", I've removed the latter phrase, I think it suffices to say inter-ethnic. Describing actors as "white" and "non-white" is problematic and debatable, so best avoided. (Personally I consider it a peculiar quirk of US racial politics that Spanish people are considered white, whereas Mexicans are deemed non-white, even though a Mexican person may be 100% of European stock.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymnophoria (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Describing actors as "white" and "non-white" is problematic"

Not really since it only says some are caucasic and others aren´t. Nothing else.--77.11.163.90 (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Exclusion of Lesbian and Gay Characters

I think the entry as it stood lacked NPOV balance. Granted, Gene Roddenberry himself and many of the lead characters support change, and fan productions have included lesbian and gay characters- but it is the executive production staff of the official franchises that control the licensed versions of the series and have continued to exclude out lesbian and gay core characters from those television series and their film spin-offs. This is resented within some sections of the LGBT science fiction, fantasy and horror community, who can now turn to numerous other television series that are more inclusive, who have rejected the franchise as a result. Calibanu (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)User Calibanu

Maybe that ist simple due to the fact that lesbian and gay characters are a very small minority?77.11.163.90 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Was this lost or did I miss it?

I seem to remember a couple of characters coming into conflict in the Star Trek: Academy comics. One was gay the second had problems. The first one couldn't deal well with these problems but was told to deal with it (by Sisko?) because the second one had the right to his feelings as long as it did not affect his work (which it did not). Am I remember this right? And if so, is it in the article? Lots42 (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Della van Hise's Star Trek novel Killing Time

The reference to Della van Hise's Star Trek novel Killing Time currently has three "citation needed" tags. The statements are evidently true e.g. [1] [2] [3] but I'm not sure whether any of those are suitable for use as citations. Anyway, this evidence is good enough to reduce the three tags to one. – Fayenatic London 13:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Cast and crew perspectives - undue weight

This section is overly detailed and tedious. Needs to be trimmed way down. Rodenberry's thoughts are relevant, the cast's much less so. There is easily 3 times more material in the section than is warranted. ► Belchfire-TALK 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

On what policy basis do you make this argument? As far as I can tell, you are simply trolling LGBT articles again and tagging them willy-nilly. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a LGBT article? Who knew? I thought it was about Star Trek. Well, this explains a LOT. Apparently, some editors have an ownership interest here. So, where should I apply to become an approved editor of this LGBT article? ► Belchfire-TALK 02:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's a disingenuous and evasive response. You're continuing to purposefully target articles tagged as LGBT as a member of WikiProject Conservatism. The campaign against LGBT elements in sexuality in Star Trek was begun by the now "disappeared" Lionelt (talk · contribs) in 2010 and has been ongoing for two years.[4] You've returned to continue maintenance tag warring on LGBT-related articles. As a result of your unending edit warring behavior against LGBT-tagged articles, I'm reporting you to ANI/3. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I think you might want to redact your personal attack, or we will indeed have something to discuss at ANI should you be so impertinent as to go there. Feel free to discuss the content of this article if you like, but no, I do not need to respond to your unfounded accusations. ► Belchfire-TALK 02:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Do what you must. Members of WikiProject Conservatism have been disrupting LGBT-related topics for years. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Belchfire has been disrupting and attacking editors repeatedly, soon enough they'll be shown the door if they can't control themselves and their radical POV efforts. Insomesia (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Belchfire, can you explain this "appears to be a copyvio" edit.--В и к и T 23:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Notable episodes

Only one of the notable episodes has a citation to a third-party source. Anyone watchlisting this article willing to delve into e.g. the TNG or DS9 Companion or Google News archives to dig up some commentary on these episodes? I agree that these episodes hook into the article subject, but the dearth of citations to news/critical outlets to back up this notion that they're "notable" is a serious shortcoming. --EEMIV (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was gonna be all sexy

but the article sucks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.181.226 (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Trill, and (lack of) trans representation in Star Trek

'Joined Trill that have bonded with male and female hosts have some commonality with transgendered humans, but are in fact the precise opposite of the species in "The Outcast". They are pansexual, with clear memories of what it is like to have been the opposite gender, or to have had a different sexual orientation.'

Speaking as a transgender human Star Trek nerd, it seems pretty different to me. Typically, a binary-gendered trans person's gender identity doesn't *change*; they just recognise at some point that their gender identity doesn't correspond with their assigned gender. (For genderfluid and other non-binary trans* people it can be more complicated than that.) In any case, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to explain joined Trill gender identity in terms of human transgender experience, when the vast majority of readers are not likely to understand the latter very well, and any trans readers are likely to be thinking "Oh really?" with an eyebrow raised higher than Spock's.

Trill hosts have their own brains and gender identities, and are presumably trans at about the same frequency as humans are, or at least there's no reason given to believe otherwise.

Also, being trans doesn't really give me much insight into what it would be like to remember a totally different body. Despite the simplistic "trapped in a man's/woman's body" trope, trans people have the same body all their lives; they just change some aspects of it (if they medically transition).

Fact is, Star Trek's representation of trans people had been even closer to non-existent than its representation of gay and bi people, except for the two *awful* episodes of DS9 that the article mentions, but are frankly best forgotten. Trill are not an exception to this.

Finally, citation needed for joined Trill always being pansexual. If this was stated, I don't remember it. Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Transgenders are an extremely small minority. It would not represent reality if we would see much if them in Star Trek.77.11.163.90 (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Plato's Stepchildren kiss.jpg listed for deletion

A file that this article uses, File:Plato's Stepchildren kiss.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wired article

Wired published a piece on Star Trek and LGBT issues, here. I've had it bookmarked since May to integrate with this article, and per usual, just haven't had/made the time :-/. Dropping the URL here in case someone else has time to delve. --EEMIV (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

LGBT - undue weight

For a show that never featured gay characters through its entire history, this article devotes a hugely disproportionate amount of space to the topic, occupying like 40% of the article. The LGBT section could be greatly trimmed. The topic seems way over-emphasized. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh. I just re-read this article, and came here to the talk page intending to comment on undue weight, and I find I already did that almost a year ago. And nothing has changed. If nobody objects, I will take a shot at trimming that section. The "notable episodes" subsection could easily be deleted, for example, or just converted to a list. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What is it you think should be trimmed? You say that there is undue weight in LGBT section, but it seems that the topic has been discussed in roughly 13 sources, so I don't really see the problem.- MrX 17:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe I made the point quite clearly in the first sentence of this section. The number of sources in the article are not relevant. WP:UNDUE requires that weight be given in proportion to the available reliable sources, not given in proportion to the individual interests of editors. For example, there has been more coverage (mostly pre-internet) of the first interracial kiss than there is of the absence of LGBT content, and yet the LGBT section is about half the article.

The lists of other examples, examples outside the Star Trek universe, video games, etc. in the LGBT section are just lists with most of the items not even notable LGBT context. These lists get into WP:TRIVIA or WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. The presence of those lists along with the omission of, say, lists of episodes, novels, and games featuring cross-species relationships, gives the impression of an editing community that's trying to make a WP:POINT about LGBT that, frankly, doesn't need belaboring. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with your original premise, but I would be fine with removing all or most of the non-canon content, and the list entries in "Other examples" that are unsourced or truly trivial. That would trim the LGBT section significantly. We should also trim plot trivia from the rest of the articles, and the unsourced original research, for example in "Later interracial relationships" and "Inter-species mating".- MrX 21:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur completely. This article is a highly politicized mess. 91.49.220.215 (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, years later... I made a start at making the episode list more concise without losing any references. I also removed the video games section as unsourced original research. I didn't get further than that, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Per MrX's suggestion above, I have trimmed out the unsourced original research from the "novels" section, as well as removed a badly sourced paragraph from "fan response" about rumor and speculation. The LGBT section is still about 1/3 of the article, but I think the overall weight is better balanced now that the cruft has been removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

LGBT characters I noticed

I currently go through all the series and films, and some things I noticed not ended in this article yet (or anywhere else, lik on Memory Alpha).

Eg. in one of the TNG episodes in the background we can see two female character going hand-to-hand to do you-know-what. While not explicitly a relationship, it IS a sexual contact.

In DS9 where all the crew go powerhungry maniacs Kira offers herself to the much-negletcting Jadzia Dax, who don't even notice. While it is all "only by gestures", the gestures are evident.

Finaly (I only finished to DS9 2nd season until yet) Jadzia is the perfect implementation of a bisexual person with her ever-changing sex. While for "a lifetime" Dax is either male or female, in literal-sense it perfectly sounds "for this moment". And the constant phrase "this is now a 28 year old woman" is ALWAYS balanced out with "well, who knows what comes in the next life", and some of the occassional witty-talk, like "I think you, Kira, bother too much with outlook. Ye, that alien has the brain out. That's natural for that species." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.47.71 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Article relevance?

Is this article relevant at all? It´s not that sexuality is a special theme in Star Trek at all. The show is not about that.77.11.163.90 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not often but the show does sometimes addresses matters of gender and sexuality. However, reliable sources outside of Star Trek and non-canon sources do go on about Sexuality a whole lot, people have even written books about it.[5] Makes me think that this article would be more accurate if it was named "Sexuality and Star Trek" (I'd rename it "Star Trek: Sexuality" if I could but that wouldn't fit with Wikipedia article naming conventions). -- 109.76.195.195 (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Male/male kiss on DS9

No mention of the kiss between Quark and Nilva in "Profit and Lace"? Granted, the characters are both heterosexual and Quark was (temporarily) female-bodied, but it still must surely be the first on-screen kiss between two male actors in Star Trek history. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there an independent reliable source describing it? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

LGBT section - for protagonists only?

In DS9, Kira's opposite in the alternate universe, the Intendant of the station, clearly finds both women and men sexually attractive. So many people here and connected with the franchise say there have been no LGBT characters, but the Intendant is a recurring character, and she is clearly bi in her behavior. That's the B in LGBT. Is she not included because she is an antagonist? She seems kinda obvious to me. Dcs002 (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source on that topic? If not, then it's original research. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Pon farr

I have serious concerns whether Pon farr has stand-alone notability, but this is a good merge target. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

In theory it could work, in practice it would not be a clean merge, or would take a whole lot of work. (It wouldn't be the first time that a "merge" in fact ended up being a delete.) This article is heavily weighted in certain directions that do not make it a good fit for discussion of puberty and mating rituals that Pon farr represents. Sometimes smaller discrete articles work better, and it would be preferable if something could actually be done to fix your concerns about the notability of the Pon farr article. -- 109.79.175.164 (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it's fine as a separate notable and well known topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objections and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)