Star Trek and sexuality Edit

We all know that Star Trek is fictional. But it also deals with problems that we have today in its fictional way. One of the problems, Star Trek never talked about much is homosexuality. I would say we should start an article about Star Trek and (homo)sexuality. Which characters throughout the series are visibly gay/lesbian characters? -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

How many characters would that be? At the moment I can't think of any single one that was definitely homosexual since, as you said, Trek pretty much avoided this issue. I don't think this deserves an own article at the moment... -- Cid Highwind 12:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I remember Lt. Hawk, who was supposed to be the first "official" gay character on Star Trek. Once Robert Beltran said in an interview, that Cmdr. Chakotay is gay, too. I know that this all is not canon but I would say it is part of the Star Trek philosophy how the series deal with gayness. Such an article is a good idea... -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Any potential hints about Hawk's sexual preference were cut or removed from the script (he is described as being gay in the novels, though, for example the recent "Taking Wing") and Chakotay ended up in some sort of relationship with Seven. I'd say that both would be valid additions to the characters' articles (Background section, if there is a valid resource to be cited), but not nearly enough to warrant an own article. -- Cid Highwind 13:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree. If there's a canon source it can be cited, or if there is reliable info it can be placed as background. Otherwise that sort of article isn't relevant to Memory-Alpha which only deals what has actually been portrayed, and is more relevant to a site about Trek in general than a site dedicated to documenting the referenced elements of the shows and movies.Logan 5 14:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sexuality is addressed in "The Outcast", "The Host" and "Rejoined". Also in the Mirror Universe, Ezri Dax was gay and Garak offered himself to Worf to which Worf responded 'you're not my type'. Jaf 12:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf
Sexuality on Star Trek is usually dealt with during commercial breaks -- a brif definition of the subject, with the valid resources Jaf just mentioned referenced might be appropriate (perhaps as an article sex) -- but MA is a family site, and Star trek is a family show, so explicit descriptions that don't exist on Star Trek shouldn't be used or referenced here, either.
Certainly any "possibly" homosexual characters would not be valid to this article -- let's consider MA as "don't ask, don't tell" -- there's certainly no real canonical reason for any of us to assume Hawk or Chakotay or Malcolm was gay, as we never were given any indication of that in any episode or movie (also, there are many characters that were never specified as being heterosexual -- but we don't make additions to their articles about how the writers failed to depict them as being straight, do we? :) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That is a fine solution. We can have Gender and Sexuality as sub-headings, we can also address the EMH's 'upgrades' and we can link this back to Reproductive system. And if there is any good info on Hawk or Chakotay we can toss it in the Background. Jaf 15:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf
Alternate universe Ezri was a lesbian, alternate universe Kira was bisexual, openly. That's at least 2 characters.
Which was because Worf misunderstood Garak's offer of help to be a sexual offer (maybe owing to the Regent's experiences with the Intendant). Which Garak adressed. Also, don't forget alternate Kira, who is openly bisexual. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).


I removed this twice, the anonymous IP user who added it has been banned.

  • "However, most people recognize this is an unconvincing and strained revisionist view, and the lack of homosexual relationships on Star Trek is more plausibly explained by the prevalent contemporary homophobia."

I'm explaining my reasoning rather than letting an edit war continue. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

This is not revisionist. Star Trek has always been ambiguous about probably 90% of their characters sexual orientation. Most characters do not talk about sex, or sexual attractiveness, on a regular basis, except when part of a plot. The types of sexually themed plots in Star Trek are numerous, but still represent a minority of the overall character information available on MA.

Unconvincing? Not sure why we need this in an encyclopedic entry. If the explanation is unconvincing, we will fix it. Not label it as "unconvincing"

I added a new paragraph explaining the existence of behind the scenes information indicating that these subjects, at the time of most Trek productions, were taboo or controversial in American culture. Since it is not just homophobia, but also a taboo against other types of sex, both hetero, bi, trans, etc, i removed the word "homophobia" and used "taboo"

I wish i hadn't expounded in so much detail, the IP user chose to profane himself while i was composing the talk (i've been back at and away from the computer a few times this morning) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

I've added a link to a site which describes most of the nasty politics of the Lawyers and Paramount's involvement in TNG's flirtation with portraying gay couples. Furthermore, I'm trying to balance content in this article to fit what has been seen onscreen and what went on behind the scenes of Star Trek itself -- I'm tired of being insulted and spoken to crudely because what has been portrayed on Star Trek doesn't meet someone's personal G/L/B/T view of sexuality. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:50, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Captainmike that it is not revisionist, unconvincing or strained. I would not so quickly dismiss, however, the cultural weight of our living in socially prescribed hetero-relational terrain as a very plausible explanation for reticence in identification of Queer/ LGB persons, or the portrayal of ongoing same-sex relationships. In other words, "prevalent contemporary homophobia", together with institutional heterosexism and hetero-relational assumptions may well all have played a very major role in the cautious approach to this subject; and beyond all doubt in my mind influence heavily bias and/ or discrimination against trans-gender persons and bisexual identity. That said, I very much applaud how progressive the various series' have been in the face of reactionary pressure. --Fenian 07:51, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
In the Federation, a society who claims to be accepting of differences, people of different sexualities should logically be represented in at least some small way. Naturally, they would be a minority, but during the thousands of characters presented in the various Star Trek spin offs, not ONE has been explicitly homosexual? That is a clear indication that real life politics and bigotry has interfered in the creative part of the star trek universe. I don't see why this can't be mentioned in this article? It is an obvious story "error" and those kinds of things are readily pointed out in countless other articles here on Memory Alpha. Granted, the comment was a little inflammatory, but still. Don't shove this issue under the carpet just because it happens to be a little uncomfortable to some people. Star Trek paints a Utopian future for earth and I'd like to think that myself and all other gay people would have a place in that utopia.--Druj 06:40, 13 Mar 2007

Gay people in the 23 - 25th centuries Edit

Just a question: Aside from the 'androgynous' species that occasionally titillate or terrorize the crews of different enterprises and voyagers, are there any examples of explicitly open and out gay people in any of the Trek series?

Tasha Yar, might be a lesbian and Lt Barclay used to have gay tendencies, before he was "straightened" out in later episodes...and there is some homo-erotic tension between Kirk and Spock in wrath of khan and The Search for Spock ("you are and shall always be my friend")...but are there others?

It just seems strange that we can go through all the physics of Star Trek (which actually seems conceivable in the future), but somehow like we gay people sort of disappear after 2063.

I think this is important, and as a test, can someone explain why the gay people disappear in Star Trek, WITHOUT referring to homophobic Hollywood producers and directors? It ain't like gay people don't constitute like 90% of Trek's viewership!

I didn't see any posts on this subject, so I apologize if someone has already said something about it.


So you're wanting some sort of tech answer. Look no further than The Simpsons - injections every 10 minutes!
Who knows -- there have long been people agitating for it, but producers and others have put the Kai-bash on it a number of times. There was of course DS9: "Rejoined", but we all know that wasn't really about it. In short, no it has not been openly addressed. And gay people as 90% of the Trek viewership? - please. I know that the GLBT community inflates their numbers, but that's a little ridiculous and self-important, even if the actual percentage is higher than general society (which wouldn't shock me one bit - just no way to determine it!) -- Dmsdbo 00:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The Intendant (Kira) in DS9's mirror universe is lesbian/bisexual. Didn't she have sex with Leeta and Ezri as well as hit on her normal universe self? So, the only real gay people we've seen in Trek are in the evil mirror universe. In some of the expanded universe books, there have been gay characters. Someone made Hawk from Star Trek: First Contact gay and his ex-lover is on the USS Titan with Riker. While I would like to see a positive portrayal of gays on Star Trek, this is not how I would do it. Rob 02:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
In the original script of Star Trek First Contact, Hawk was going to be gay, but then Brannon Braga rejected the idea. (I think this was in the extra features in First Contact special edition). Originally, Tucker, Reed, or Mayweather was going to be gay, but then, again, the producers decided against it. With the popularity of gay characters on television today, it's not the "unheard of" thing it was in say, the 1960's. I'm sure if Enterprise went till 7 years, they would have made an episode on it eventually. Especially with the new writing. -AJHalliwell 02:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I would very much like to see gay and lesbian characters as regulars in a future series. One thing that I would like to say to Rich, however, is that he seems to be perpetuating a lot of stereotypes here:
Tasha Yar, might be a lesbian
Why? Because she is a strong and independent woman?
Lt Barclay used to have gay tendencies
Such as being nervous and awkward?
there is some homo-erotic tension between Kirk and Spock ... ("you are and shall always be my friend")
Meaning that two men can only love one another if they are loving one another?
When Paramount finally allows gay characters to become the norm in the Star Trek universe, I hope they won't fall into the old predictable stereotypes.
T'Play(talk) 04:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
"Tasha Yar, might be a lesbian and Lt Barclay used to have gay tendencies, before he was "straightened" out in later episodes...and there is some homo-erotic tension between Kirk and Spock in wrath of khan and The Search for Spock ("you are and shall always be my friend")..."
I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that people in insane asylums had access to the internet. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Sadly the only openly gay people in star trek were from mirror universes. Which carry the stigma of being the "opposite" universe. And then also they were violent, backstabbing and blatantly "evil". The two were Mirror Ezri and Mirror Kira. Mirror Kira was explained by her actress to maybe not actually be bisexual, but so in love with herself that she acts that way. Jadzia Dax did kiss a woman, but her sexuality is blurry seeing as she has existed as different sexes, and that her feelings come from a heterosexual past host. So really the only gay person for sure in all of canon trekdom is the lying, murderous Mirror Ezri. – Saphsaph 06:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


These are all terrible arguments. Every relationship on trek is hetero, no you're not being discriminated against because they've never shown hetero porno. Homosex is a part of sex, but it is a topic unto itself in that the controversy it engendered is unique. Heterosex, on the other hand, is considered 'normal' and, as such, can be covered under sex. Sorry for the shitty editting, but I dont know how to ad it properly.

if there hasn't been any reference to homosexuality in Star Trek, isn't this a non-topic?

I believe this subject is covered in length at "sex" -- i recommend redirecting to sex.

(after all we aren't splitting it up into a separate article for heterosexuality, are we?) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

I can't stand people who do that. You're the type who goes "Well if we allow gay people to marry then I can marry my cat." Look at Wikipedia:LGBT characters in the Star Trek universe and tell me there isn't enough content to cover it here. Barmit 20:14, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Re:Mike Correct, although I wouldn't mind to keep the redirect if it keeps someone happy - unless this is one of those precedence situation that leads to inappropriate redirects popping up left and right... ;) I deleted the redirect page with the title "homosexuality in star trek" though, before I saw the actions taken by Mike. That title is simply inappropriate according to our naming conventions (breaking the POV).
Re:Barmit Huh? What has the first part of your response to do with anything? "Homosexuality" is a part of "Sex", isn't it? And if the potential content is not enough to warrant its own article, it gets redirected. And the original content of those articles surely weren't appropriate anyway. -- Cid Highwind 20:17, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I agree with a redirect. Homosexuality is really just a sub-category of sex and should be presented as such, but since, as far as I know, Trek has never addressed this on-screen, it should be a background section describing what it is and talking about how Trek doesn't talk about it, and then mention the things like "Rejoined" and the like. BTW- I agree that it's only fair to create a heterosexuality page if we have a homosexuality page. Mike meant nothing against homosexuals when he said that. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:57, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Sex, sexuality and gender are all cover at sex. I see no reason to start breaking it off into bits, it's a nice page. My money is on redirection. Barmit, please do your name calling elsewhere, this is not an issue of morality, it's an issue of canon and organization. Jaf 21:05, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf
Redirect. We've been over this before. It's never been directly addressed in Trek and so only has relevance as a subcategory of sex. Logan 5 21:16, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I agree: redirect. Let's see, that's six votes for turning it into a redirect. So, redirect it is. --From Andoria with Love 21:31, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Re: Barmit I support gay marriage -- i believe that it is a natural, American, right for a man or woman to do what they want in their own home or domestic arrangement as long as it doesnt infringe the rights of others.

That being said, what place does it have on a Star Trek webpage? -- they've never even mentioned homosexuality, or gay marriage. On two occasions, there have been lesbian-esque situations (Dax and Khan in "Rejoined", Ezri and Kira in the mirror universe) and a transgender scenario involving a man and a neuter (Riker and Soren in "Outcast") -- these scenarios are described on the page sex -- including a notation that those are the sole non-hetero attachments ever seen in Star Trek. Notations describing how prevalent attitudes influenced this are also on that page

The same prevalent attitudes of American cultured have influenced Star Trek dealing with heterosexuality -- at no time has heterosexual intercourse (involving the penetration of a vagina with a penis) ever been clearly depicted or explicitly discussed on Star Trek. Is my lifestyle being discriminated against? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Furthermore, "you can't stand people like me" ?(!) -- that's a really intolerant tone for someone to take -- especially someone who is arguing for more tolerance.

You should get your thoughts straight before you air them out next time (pun definitely not intended) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

There was an episode in Deep Space Nine that mentioned that Bollians have "Co-Husdands" (Season 7 Field of Fire). Although this may, or may not be relevant, I feel It should be adressed.
You tell him, Mike! Oh, but don't forget the lesbian-esque scenes between T'Pol and Rajiin in "Rajiin"! Rrarrrgh! :D --From Andoria with Love 00:42, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Although heterosexual intercourse has been "suggested" at a lot in Star Trek. Kirk's, ahem, "last meal" in "Bread and Circuses" and Riker & Troi's wedding night. They are interrupted in the middle of it by Shinzon's telepathic link with Troi (making the turbolift "rape" scene that was cut from the movie a little more explicit). Dr. Crusher's fling with the Trill in "The Host" was intentionally suggestive of bisexuality, especially when Beverly meets the new Trill host and has to break it to her she doesn't swing that way. Then again, the Trill have always been analagous of sexual ambiguity. One question I have is, since Andorian weddings involve four persons, do they have four sexes or are most Andorians Bi-?--Mike Nobody 01:08, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Not that that has anything to do witht his topic, maybe their tradition simply requires 4 people, 2 of one sex, two of the other present in a marriage. Just because 4 are necessary at a marriage doesnt mean a thing about there being 4 sexes. -Alan del Beccio 11:25, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Even though the non-canon DS9 novels have established that the Andorians have four sexes -- two of them outwardly resemble males and two of them outwardly resemble females. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:04, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

So then the the other two are hermaphrodites of some sort? Technically speaking, transgendered persons might qualify as another "sex".--Mike Nobody 12:25, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

even in non-canon novels theyve never described their sexual anatomy -- just their outward appearance.

Why not read sex and talk:sex to find out more? all of this info is covered there.. and discussing it here seems off topic. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:35, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The online game Star Trek Online a foundry mission (Love And Borg) had the main villain character (Tal Yog) have a husband however this was probably because we have only seen the male sex in the series but this is still unique. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

For referenceEdit

If anyone needs it, I'm watching "The Host" (TNG). Here's the relevant dialogue between Kareel Odan and Dr. Crusher:

  • Kareel: "Is there to be nothing more?"
  • Crusher: "Perhaps it is a Human failing. But we are not accustomed to these kinds of changes. I can't keep up. How long will you have this host? What will the next one be? I can't live with that kind of uncertainty. Perhaps someday our ability to love won't be so limited."
  • Kareel: "I understand."
  • Crusher: "Odan, I do love you. Please remember that."
Kareel kisses Crusher's wrist
  • Kareel: "I will never forget you."

The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Garak and Bashir in DS9's "Past Prologue"Edit

I believe that Garak and Bashir's first meeting in Past Prologue counts as homosexuality...of sorts, if Bashir was female, it would have been obvious to everyone just what kind of 'company' from his new interesting friend Garak wanted. I am aware that Mr.Obsidian could be using sex as a tool to lure Bashir in, but if the incidents of female agents that hit on James Bond while making contacts counts as heterosexuality, than this counts as homosexuality. Especially if, Garak was hitting on Bashir in this scene, because he's an agent, than this will imply that Garak knows that Bashir has that kind of interest...Bashir did ask rather excitedly, over dinner with Sisko, how much of Curzon (the Old Man) is left in Dax. - T'Sura

Removed 2Edit

I removed:

Although this is regarded as a personal choice in some cultures, various societies throughout history have discouraged various forms of homosexuality, or a wider range of non-reproductive sex, considering such diversions as a deviation from their biological norm. In Ancient Greece, homosexuality was considered a normal rite of passage, provided that one does not remain a /homosexual/(one who participates in same-sex relations to the exclusion of heterosexual relations). In Ancient Rome, homosexuality is again, accepted as a social norm, though to be a homosexual is not, and catamites are perceived as less manly than those who participates but do not receive (prison rules). In the East, along the Pacific, Japanese and Chinese society were tolerant of homosexuality and other 'non-reproductive sexual behaviour' until the influences of the West through contact with the Victorians, and the import of Western customs into mainland through The Great Leap Forward period.
Modern dictatorships (post 19th century) tends to have extremely repressive laws upon homosexuality, (eg; Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia), regardless of public sentiments (China). States undergoing warfare or military tension also tends to be extremely repressive towards homosexuality and any non-reproductive sexual behaviour (restricting access to sex toys, contraceptives, pornography, and maybe even legislate against certain sexual positions; oral sex is illegal in Singapore). United State's anti-homosexuality stance was the strongest during the Cold War, where homosexuality within American borders was denounced as Communist behaviour....mirroring Soviet Russia's condemnation of homosexuality as a Capitalist behaviour.
Today, most secular and/or diversity tolerant cultures accept these expressions, though some consider any sexual expression to be private and discourage public display or disclosure of an individual's sexuality.

This has no relevance here. For this particular article, the background section should contain background notes on this and only this subject, as related to a particular citation or credible reference, and it should be about Star Trek. For example, in Trek: The Unauthorized Behind-The-Scenes Story of The Next Generation has a sizable discussion about the proposed script for TNG Season 1 that addresses homosexuality and AIDS, as well the repercussions and hypocrisies those involved faced or encountered as a result. --Alan del Beccio 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My contribution removedEdit

I've made a contribution yesterday only to have it removed in less than 24 hours. My addition to this section related to the Srivani in Voyager "Scientific Method" in regards to the nature of their race, where their scientists and doctors seemed devoid of any males. No one including the characters deduced that they were all exclusively females. I suppose everyone can offer their opinions such as perhaps their species of females are only allowed to be doctors and scientists, or perhaps their species only allows space travelers to be female, etc. It's Star Trek, anything is possible. To my knowledge, the storyline surrounding this species has never been discussed, and just as it is automatically assumed that all species that any star trek crew encounters are going to have similar opposite-gender coupling, I have to wonder why after all obvious evidence in this episode, it can not be assumed that this is a female only species. This would then make the species, or perceived to be (and I am using all possible terms) gay, lesbian, same-sex, androgynous, asexual. It is Star Trek after all. Yes, one can say that it does not relate to the story line, or is not an obvious fact. As I've explored this web site, there are many references of suppositions or deductions from story lines. How would this be any different?

Thoughs please.BruceLd 18:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)BruceLD

See Talk:Srivani.--Tim Thomason 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Straight actorsEdit

I am offended by this clearly biased list. Where is the list of straight actors? --Alan 05:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly those who are not on the list are assumed straight :) – Morder 05:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Why not have a list for openly straight people. At least William Shatner is one. I don't know how many others have actually stated it anywhere. :/ --Pseudohuman 06:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Been there, done that... and I even was half serious about it. Listing all gay people may seem cool to some ("equal rights", "non-discrimination", yadda, yadda), but in fact, it looks like a witch hunt to me. There's nothing wrong with noting in individual articles whether a person is in a relationship with another man or woman, but do we really have to have a list that basically states: Look at them, They are TEH GAY!!!11? -- Cid Highwind 09:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
No we don't. On Race, is there a list of African American people actors? - AJ Halliwell 09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand mentioning an actor if their orientation or handicap actually had something to do with a character or episode's development, such as the case of Howie Seago being deaf and petitioning the producers "to create a show about deaf people, the better to dispel untrue and prejudiced myths about them," yet not even that useful and relevant Trek-related factoid is mentioned on the deafness my knowledge this would be one of the few qualifying references on par with the example I gave above, and it doesn't even refer to any actors, specifically. --Alan 10:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is absolutely no good reason to have these performers listed as such. If we want this information at all, it belongs in the bio on their respective articles, not on some list that is supposed to be an in universe article, and preferably not some list at all. Unless we want to create a list of performers by race, or list all of the Jewish performers in Judaism, etc. I'm with Alan, this list seems to be a very bad idea, and should go. Cid, the fact that you have to word it in such an childish way makes the point of how lacking in need this list really is, and how we do not need it (I know you were trying to be funny, and I'm not accusing you of anything but, or any malice or anything bad). --OuroborosCobra talk 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Dammit, I was just about done with my heavily-researched list of openly black Trek people! :-P But, yeah, I agree... get rid of it. --From Andoria with Love 14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we all agree on that. When I saw the list this morning, I thought "What the f***?", as we've constantly been saying "What next? A list of all people who are gay, straight, black, have a university degree, hate their neighbors... etc" on various talk pages. Absolutely no need. --Jörg 15:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I kind of liked the list. I dont object to the removal of it on the grounds of irrelevancy here on this page, but it's not that weird to me to list people involved in trek to have made a statement regarding their own orientation, be it straight, bi or gay/lesbian. Perhaps a category that links to the actress/actor pages or something would be an acceptable alternative. --Pseudohuman 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Generally, we don't categorize on those grounds (or we haven't in the past). The list, which was here before I added a bit to it, is only good on the grounds of "see all these cool guys, it's not that big of a deal," which is hardly an argument and is trumped by the "let's categorize all non-white, non-Protestant, non-right-handed, non-red-tie-wearing people" conclusion. The best way to show how "not that big of a deal" it is, is to barely even hint at it in the bio pages, such as Takei's upcoming marriage, or DeBuono's activism, just as we hint at straight people with their marriages and such.--Tim Thomason 17:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
...not on some list that is supposed to be an in universe article... - That is the kicker right there Cobra. Obviously these actors don't exist in universe and their orientation is completely irrelevant to their character. – Morder 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand it if people weren't comfortable with the list, but I would've found it interesting. As a bisexual person, I am curious to see which actors were gay or bisexual. As to the argument "Where is the straight list?". Wikipedia has lists such as "Gay actors", "African American Actors". That list isn't in fact there for the to show that it is "not that big of a deal", it's just interesting for a minority to see who also belongs to that minority. Although one could create a list of the majority, it isn't really interesting to them because they are the majority so they don't bother. No one said they couldn't. I do however think such a list shouldn't be on sexuality for many reasons including it not being in universe. It should under "Gay Star Trek Actors" and only have a link to it in the bottom under "see also". As to relevancy, since when do we really use that excuse? As far as I knew we created articles for every information we could find. After all we have an article for tree, bicycle, "Abdon's species", grass. I'm sure an article with the list would be just as entertaining to someone, informative, and as long as an article on grass. And in the end two of the points of memory alpha is to both inform, and entertain and this article would do both. – Saphsaph 06:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Images in this article Edit

I find it rather... tacky... that the only photos in this article are star trek's only two same sex kisses. I'm sure that considering all the womanising Kirk did, someone could find ONE picture to show that the people who edit MA aren't just interested in Star Trek for the lesbians. 22:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you anon but I would at least say that these are two of the more out of norm kisses in star trek (most of kirk's kisses were just ho-hum he kisses someone else). Though I would say that the Kirk / Uhura kiss would definitely belong in the category of out of norm as well. Feel free to change it though - this is a wiki after all. — Morder 23:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


In the mirror universe, captain's woman were in a sexual relationship with the captain of that starship until he was killed or deprived of duty. In 2155, Lieutenent Hoshi Sato was in a sexual relationship with Captain Forrest then to his successor Commander Archer. Later, in 2267, Lieutenant Marlena Moreau was in a sexual relationship with Captian Kirk.

Uncited, and also has a distinct reek of original analysis. I'm not saying captain's women definatly don't belong on this page, but I think unless that info is better researched/cited, more written in line of what was shown or said, and well, less anecdotal feeling, I don't see much point. -- Capricorn (talk) 04:54, February 24, 2016 (UTC)
Below is another removed note. (I guess I can kinda see why a vague page like this would attract analysis like this)

In 2375, Lauren implied that Dr. Bashir may or may not be bisexual, when she asked if he was jealous of her crush on Ensign Nog. (DS9: "Chrysalis")

So, 1) This is personal analysis reaching dramatic conclusions from a very simple statement 2) It seems a much more simpler conclusion that she's implying Bashir's jealous of Nog, not Lauren. Or to put it differently, she assumes that Bashir is romantically interested in her just like she's been doing more or less constantly in every scene she's been in. -- Capricorn (talk) 09:30, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Removed Mk 4 Edit

I removed the following because it is only commentary and unsourced information:

Unless Human nature has changed between modern times and the era of Star Trek, there are probably many homosexual individuals throughout the Human culture of the future, but they are rarely specified as such in any canon sense. Federation culture does not seem very sexually repressive, so it is likely that all heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, or transgender members of their society are regarded as equals, and as such, none of the people seen on Star Trek have had any need to present or justify any of their sexual preferences unless it occurred in the course of an episode or movie; therefore, we have very little information about their sexual culture. However, behind-the-scenes information suggests the lack of homosexual relationships on Star Trek is more plausibly explained by prevalent Western social taboos, as the television series and films tend to avoid addressing what it is like to be gay in the future. The production team over the years has stated that they do not want to create a "token" homosexual character for the express purpose of the issue, anymore than they want to create a black character purely to address racial issues. This explanation may be misleading. Star Trek did of course depict black characters, as would be expected simply because its vision of the future did not exclude black Humans; whereas of its numerous depictions of sexual attraction, none happened to be truly same-sex.

As for the following, it is somewhat out of date, and also lacks citations:

Many non-canon comics, games, and novels have taken much more liberty than filmed Star Trek in describing attitudes about sexual freedom and homosexuality in alien cultures. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry in particular was known for adding many sexual themes to his creations. Some of his drafts for stories from the unproduced Star Trek: Phase II series would have been the inclusion of scenery from Earth portraying it as a nudist paradise. Some of his contributions of this nature ended up influencing the story of the Edo in TNG: "Justice".

--Cleanse ( talk ) 10:03, November 2, 2017 (UTC)