I don't understand the criticism that DSC is inferior to TOS because of "inclusiveness". Surely a black lady, an Asian/Oriental guy and a someone hailing from Commie Land as integral members of the command crew was far more of a culture shock back in the day then a few more ladies and a couple of gay people is now?

Also "it's all action" - not really, there are only a couple of action sequences each ep.

@M. LeMarchand said:

I don't understand the criticism that DSC is inferior to TOS because of "inclusiveness". Surely a black lady, an Asian/Oriental guy and a someone hailing from Commie Land as integral members of the command crew was far more of a culture shock back in the day then a few more ladies and a couple of gay people is now?

Also "it's all action" - not really, there are only a couple of action sequences each ep.

Its the lack of respect of canon that is my criticism could care less who is in charge or starring or whatever but if your going to make a Star Trek show respect the canon of the prior shows.

Plus if you want to promote all inclusiveness with all inclusiveness characters make those characters interesting and engaging and don't beat the dead horse when you want to make a valid point about all inclusiveness.The main criticism on Discovery is not about the SJW,LGBT agenda since it never was an issue within Star Trek to begin with(the show has always been a front runner in many social issues during it's various incarnations ).the problem stems from the fact that the producers obviously don't know anything about Trek or just blatantly disregard it and it shows when the show is at odds with established cannon.

Plus the characters that are the main focus of the show are boring bland and behave like assholes,Burnham at one point is emotionless wooden.,prozac bland and at another point she is acting overly emotional ,hysteric or is being an asshole. how can an audience root for a character like that? The show would greatly improve if they shift their focus from Burnham to Pike why ?not because he is a white male but because he is an interesting character plus he has a great sense of humor(a much needed thing in this series which was far too dark,dreary and moody for most Trek fans).This is why a lot of Trek fans welcome his arrival on the show and I hope the producers will take this to heart not writing him out of the series too soon.

The show fails at many points which hardly has to do with overbearing nostalgia or the very forced manner this whole all inclusiveness is portrayed or the problems with the established cannon.The main problem with this show is that most Trek series are at the core about hope and optimism that mankind will elevate itself from,egotism,racism, discrimination, inequality, war etc etc that will eventually lead to a kind of utopia for all not this depressing ,violent brooding dystopia that is Discovery.

@Nexus71 said:

The show fails at many points which hardly has to do with overbearing nostalgia or the very forced manner this whole all inclusiveness is portrayed or the problems with the established cannon.The main problem with this show is that most Trek series are at the core about hope and optimism that mankind will elevate itself from,egotism,racism, discrimination, inequality, war etc etc that will eventually lead to a kind of utopia for all not this depressing ,violent brooding dystopia that is Discovery.

That sounds like the same reasons I found the Original Battlestar Galactica to actually be superior to the "re-imagined" version that just flipped some genders (and races), and made the ships filthy and most of the characters psychotic. As if "dark" and "depressing" is automatically a good thing.

That sounds like the same reasons I found the Original Battlestar Galactica to actually be superior to the "re-imagined" version that just flipped some genders (and races), and made the ships filthy and most of the characters psychotic. As if "dark" and "depressing" is automatically a good thing.

While I agree that the original BSG still holds my favour(despite it's often criticized campy style and optimism) and I think the show is something that TV now is lacking the remake had it's merit as well I did like they were trying to do something completely different with the original material while still using most of the established things from the original,And I agree I had some issues with the gender swapping in the case of Starbuck I agree in the case of Boomer/Sharon/Athena I think they turned her into probably one of the more interesting characters of the show which far exceeded the original Boomer.Also I do think that they took the darkness and grittiness too far with almost the entire fleet being busy in backstabbing and betraying others.If the main criticism of the original that it was too lighthearted for a show about a species surviving a genocide,I can relate to that but even so in the original they did treat this as well they just don't dwindle in their misery like the reboot did .And rather then divide the people wouldn't such an event also ignite some sense of solidarity in order to survive rather than being busy with political scheming,backstabbing ,treason and other foul things.But overall the reboot was pretty good during the miniserie and the first two and half -three seasons.after that the emphasis became too much focused on religion and the supernatural.Also the writers had twisted themselves in so many corners that the only way they could resolve the series was a giant fucking Deus Ex Machina. Also didn't like the introduction of the "Original Five" and I think they stretched the series too much with the final season and the show should have ended with "Sometimes A Great Notion" which though being a bleak ending might have been more in the spirit of the series of "all this has happened before and wil happen again"rather than the religion heavy finale "Daybreak". If all this was the works of some God ,I as a believer of that faith would have serious issues with that Gods and his motives of killing billions of humans for the sake of making a point.Also it stil doesn't make sense whatsoever because at first the Cylons were under illusion they were the instrument of God's wrath on the humans who had strayed too much from the religion,later we find out that it was mainly the jealousy of the Calvin models that motivated the attack on the colonies(where the Calvin model obviously is playing the role of "the fallen angel" Lucifer)

@Thespear said:

If you guys recall, Lorca was only included in the bridge crew after the initial revolt began, shortly after the very first trailers of the new show came out. This apparent appetite to kill off Stamets and Burnham also seems to me to be a reaction based on the opposite of "inclusiveness". No doubt those who share this view will likely to point to some other aspect of the show or the actors' performances to justify this prejudice. This is what I mean about wishing people were more honest about their feelings.

Ever wondered why there wasn't this reaction after Picard followed Kirk? People gave TNG years to mature even though that series itself was flat and repetitive, perhaps with the exception of TOS qualitatively the worst tv of the ST series. Don't get me wrong TNG was ST, but as drama or imaginative tv...it was horrible.

I have never wondered this because it did happen. TOS fans didn't like TNG because it was too far removed from the TOS designs. The poor writing of season one didn't help matters. Lorca wasn't added due to some sort of fan campaign against Burnham, he was cast to be captain because the ship needed a captain.

@mcse2000ca said:

Its the lack of respect of canon that is my criticism could care less who is in charge or starring or whatever but if your going to make a Star Trek show respect the canon of the prior shows.

Surely at this point we don't know how off-canon the show is? There is stuff we've never heard of (Spore Drive, Spock's sister) but this may yet be explained. "Different" Klingons happened way back in one of the movies with no further explanation beyond "We do not talk of it" for decades until some retconning a few years later, and it would look ridiculous to be using 60's "future tech" on something set in "our" future. (Though won't any ST show be kinda non-canon as we've already passed certain "historic" events from the show without them happening?).

@Nexus71 said:

Plus if you want to promote all inclusiveness with all inclusiveness characters make those characters interesting and engaging and don't beat the dead horse when you want to make a valid point about all inclusiveness.The main criticism on Discovery is not about the SJW,LGBT agenda since it never was an issue within Star Trek to begin with(the show has always been a front runner in many social issues during it's various incarnations ).the problem stems from the fact that the producers obviously don't know anything about Trek or just blatantly disregard it and it shows when the show is at odds with established cannon.

Plus the characters that are the main focus of the show are boring bland and behave like assholes,Burnham at one point is emotionless wooden.,prozac bland and at another point she is acting overly emotional ,hysteric or is being an asshole. how can an audience root for a character like that The show would greatly improve if they shift their focus from Burnham to Pike why ?not because he is a white male but because he is an interesting character plus he has a great sense of humor(a much needed thing in this series which was far too dark,dreary and moody for most Trek fans).This is why a lot of Trek fans welcome his arrival on the show and I hope the producers will take this to heart not writing him out of the series too soon.

The show fails at many points which hardly has to do with overbearing nostalgia or the very forced manner this whole all inclusiveness is portrayed or the problems with the established cannon.The main problem with this show is that most Trek series are at the core about hope and optimism that mankind will elevate itself from,egotism,racism, discrimination, inequality, war etc etc that will eventually lead to a kind of utopia for all not this depressing ,violent brooding dystopia that is Discovery.

Not interesting to some, but interesting to others. To me, this is the first Trek show with characters I find believable. I wonder if the show runners may have chosen a pre-TOS era in order to keep the characters more recognisable to a modern audience. It's also odd that the fans who bleat about the "loss" of TOS's supposed Utopia don't seem to think it includes "the gays", despite the fact that it wasn't a huge secret that George Takei was homosexual.

I'm also curious as to how people who berate DIS for not fitting in with canon can call for Pike to be a permanent fixture. Surely this won't fit in with canon? A few months on a secret mission might fly, but a years-long gap in his history would be hard to explain away.

Not interesting to some, but interesting to others. To me, this is the first Trek show with characters I find believable. I wonder if the show runners may have chosen a pre-TOS era in order to keep the characters more recognisable to a modern audience. It's also odd that the fans who bleat about the "loss" of TOS's supposed Utopia don't seem to think it includes "the gays", despite the fact that it wasn't a huge secret that George Takei was homosexual.

Sorry but why do you keep claiming that those that don't like DISC don't like it because of gays sorry but you must know very little of the franchise since the whole thing about all inclusiveness was never an issue with Star Trek since it already was part of Star Trek .The franchise in the past has dealt with matters ,like war(TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT), racism(TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT), genocide(TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT),same sex relationships (TNG), relations that required three sexes to have children(ENT), HIV positives (ENT)etc etc.So NO it doesn't matter for Trek fans whether the main characters are gay,bisexual,transgender ,black,yellow,green or purple as long as the characters are written in an interesting and engaging manner so that we as the viewer can sympathize with them or feel a connection with them.And honestly Burnham isn't written in that manner Pike on the other hand is.You can't blame us for not liking a show when the writers obviously don't know how to write believable characters especially since they are so radically different from the established canon.

If you want fans of a particular franchise to go along with your stories and characters you have got to give them a frame of reference and familiarity so fans can sympathize with your main character since that character acts within a previously established frame of reference.Had DISC been a show on it's own merit this would not have been so much of an issue since we the audience aren't familiar with the history of that show,but since the producers of DISC insist it is part of the Star Trek franchise the show has to abide to certain established rules,concepts and history otherwise fans of that franchise will criticize your show.Sure even the trek fans can and will accept some deviations of canon between the various Trek shows ,but if your show just blatantly disregards the established canon then you are bound to receive a shit storm from these fans since it was they who are responsible for the franchise's lasting popularity and are the ones who buy the DVD's ,Blu rays,toys and will subscribe to CBS or Netflix so they can watch the show.

I'm also curious as to how people who berate DIS for not fitting in with canon can call for Pike to be a permanent fixture. Surely this won't fit in with canon? A few months on a secret mission might fly, but a years-long gap in his history would be hard to explain away.

DISC is not canon because the show uses technology too far ahead of it's time from established canon,it makes Vulcans act contrary to the way they were established,same thing for the Klingons etc etc.To give an example DISC introduces the Spore drive to travel vast distances and travel in time and between universes .If the show had just been another SF show this wouldn't make a difference but when it is part of a larger franchise and is connected with a show like VOY immediately the question arises with the fans that if Spore drive was known in the early 23rd century why wouldn't Capt. Janeway use that same technology to travel the vast distance from the Delta quadrant to the Alpha quadrant in the 24th century?This would imply that Janeway wouldn't have had to travel seven years let alone the original 50 years to get back to Earth again, or at least somebody at Star Fleet HQ would have remembered that they once used Spore drive to travel vast distances.By introducing the Spore drive DISC undermines the whole dramatic premise of VOY (a lonely Starship lost in an unknown part of the galaxy 50 years from home trying to get back).And if your show does the same thing with the various other Trek shows it is in conflict with the established cannon.And it was also established in the original pilot The Cage&season 1 episodes The Menagerie I&II that Pike was the captain of NCC-1701 for at least ten years before Kirk became her captain in 2265 so there is some room for Pike's character to be developed further.

I think you are a person who also believes that most Star Wars fans hate the Last Jedi because of gender politics and believe the bullshit that Rian Johnson and Kathleen Turner are spewing on the internet about fans being bullies and man babies.While purely looking from a movie making 101 perspective TLJ is an incoherent mess with a tone that is all over the place and an abysmal pacing.

Slyck73,

I think my overall point is that whereas most people were willing to wait one or two years to get to 'like' TNG , there seems no such tolerance with DSC.

I am also correct about Lorca's character btw. Don't remember the dates but his character was DEFINITELY an addition after the initial fan freak out when the first clips of Georgio and Burnham were released along with the first clips of the original discovery which also had to be changed too. Look, I am not blaming the producers. They adjusted their product for the market....I am merely pointing out that a white male Captain was not originally in the plans but included because of fan reaction. This does not mean the whole alternate universe was not in the plans....just that he Lorca was not the ORIGINALLY the captain of the Discovery..

I have done the same too. I think I rather harshly prejudged ENT. Only more recently have I re-watched the series and began to appreciate the consistent story trend that series presented. It was quite compelling. I would place ENT after DS9 and VOY as the best ST series so far. TOS was the first so it is hard or unfair to be too critical but as TV goes it was very very one dimensional and predictable. TNG had no such excuse and was wildly unimaginative. VOY had the best premise and because of Kess, 7 of 9, Neelix and Jane-way and crew's unique situation, is one the best to re-watch. DS9 also had a variety of characters in different circumstances that were quite well explored. I liked what they did with Sisko who became and unwilling, skeptical deity.

After Sisko and co defeated the Founders/ Dominion the entire franchise sort of ran into a dead end. That dead end was that any new series going even further into the future was not really a 'realistic' proposition. What encounter even more advanced enemies that lowly mankind and the Federation would conquer? After 50 years we can see that our predictions of the future are so off course that going even further into the future would be disastrous. Imagine two straight lines starting from the same point and then moving further and further apart in different directions.

So I see a progression in the ST series. I see an evolution from flat story telling 'about' the future to examining man's maturity in the future. As such I want any new ST series to 'fill in the gaps' about mankind in space, in the future. I want REALISTIC CHARACTERS with depth and foibles; strengths and weakness; complexity and shades of humanity. This is why I thought the introduction of the new star as a mutineer was really inspiring. I am willing to wait to 'get to know' more about Stamets, Tilly, and the original crew. I think that is was the creators originally wanted to do. However it seems that a large group of the "fans" simply want to see another Kirk, Spock and McCoy go thru the motions each week.

Maybe what the disgruntled DSC fans really want is the comfortable predictability of The Orville which, btw, is also fine. The Orville's universe is safe , predicable and has all the right people in the right places. The ship itself is pristine, rather like those giant luxury cruise liners. The bridge crew characters resemble the characters one would find in a well written ensemble sitcom, each which their own comic 'flaw'. The Orville addresses complex moralities issues but only from an arm's length. I find the sophomoric humor that is a large part of the show often off putting. Sci-Fi and comedy can go together but the humor must be generated organically. That's not easy to do and the producer's of The Orville don't appear to be interested in doing the hard things.

Like I said before, the Orville is to DSC as McDonald's is to Red Lobster.

I have to disagree with you Oduntola the producers of DISC have no idea what they are doing and didn't have any idea how to make a successful series that is part of a franchise.Mind you it was under the direction of Les Moonves (the man who green lit DISC) that ENT got into trouble where he (Les Moonves) had no concept of SF or has any concept of what Star Trek is /was (according to Brannon Braga and Rick Berman).It was largely Les Moonves' meddling with the show that led to the things that fans disliked about ENT such too much advanced tech,Temporal Cold War,etc and these were actually the least of the bad ideas Moonves had that Braga and Berman had managed to fend off .So you are going to have the same man produce a new Trek show ?? the man who according was more busy with trying to put in things into the show that would appeal to the current demographics with bringing in ideas that made no sense then and even less now.The man who doesn't understand SF and the lingo and the same man who probably had ulterior motives for wanting to destroy the legacy of Star Trek.Because Star Trek prior to ENT was led by a management that was receptive to the popularity of Trek which gave the producers of Trek carte blanche which caused a lot of resentment in other divisions of CBS/Paramount.in 2001 and the start of ENT all that changed and Les Moonves became head of management and it is then when the "games"and tinkering with Trek started.And this constant interfering(just because Moonves & co in that manner could get some satisfaction by harassing the producers just because of jealousy )led to the varied quality of season 1 & 2 of ENT.

Now almost 15 years later all those involved with the prior Trek shows have left and Les Moonves without the opposition of those people that do understand Trek could put his idea of what Star Trek is into a new series and behold DISC is the result with all of the dumb ideas of ENT but upped to level 11 .At least some good came from DISC Les Moonves was sacked and let's hope that someone who understands Trek is given the helm of CBS so he might do some good in recovering the series as much as possible(The introduction of Pike might be sign that somebody at the helm is trying to minimize the damage Moonves has done).

I think you also are mistaken in why the Orville is more popular it is not because of the familiarity for Trek fans but the fact that the Orville in essence is an entirely different type of show.The Orville is a show in the same vein as Galaxy Quest both are satire and satire by nature is a spoof on something it can reference that already exists so audiences can identify what they are spoofing .The Orville is a satire of Star Trek ,the Star trek series are an entirely different beast they are basically televised morality plays in a SF setting. that is what Trek fans expect and want of a Trek series.

And no Trek fans don't want more series or movies with Kirk and co they want good and engaging characters they can relate to ,they want good stories that might shed a different view on current events and history or at least give some sparkle of hope and light in the dreariness of ordinary contemporary life.And since Disc fails at both for many (if not the majority)of the Trek fans so people won't watch it period The whole Trek fans won't watch DISC because they are white racist misogynous males is the same bullshit Disney tried to use as an excuse why fans hated TLJ or the cast of Ghostbusters 2016 used to hide the fact they made a horrible product.

Space... the final frontier .these are the voyages of the starship Discovery ,it's five year mission to call out gender and race discrimination.... to aimlessly go where no transgender has gone before!

Invidia I know what the mindset behind the BSG reboot was yes I understand that TV shows (for while) after 9/11 was going for a more realistic approach and why they were going for a more gritty less polished look and applauded the show for that to some degree but IMO it went too far with it just like the original overdid it with the camp and optimism.The remake went so far that every principle character was a troubled,egocentric,self promoting,treacherous,unfaithful,back stabbing a-hole that by season 4 you actually want the Cylons to eradicate the last remnants of the colonies because they deserve it until the show continues and show that a large part of the Cylon skinjobs are a-holes as well so who as a viewer can you root for in such a dark,dreary and abysmal mess? In the end I only found Boomer mark II (Athena),Helo and dock Cottle to be the most sympathetic of all because the rest were so unsympathetic,this is what I meant with taking the grittiness too far .The producers and writers(Ron D Moore) were too busy being clever and having too many twists and turns that they lost IMO an important aspect:a show should also entertain and also to provide a form of hopeful escapism from every day life.

But at the time of the original BSG's production the US also dealt with some serious issues(oil crises,Iran,Jonestown,inner city violence/decline,drugs epidemic,an economy in decline,Watergate) and so shortly after the Vietnam war.Things in seventies were a bit dreary and bleak in general plus we had been having these dark,gloomy alienated SF movies that underline this atmosphere movies like The Planet Of The Apes Series,Soylent Green,Omega Man,Invasion Of The Body Snatchers,Silent Running and Logan's Run.Part of the reasons why Star Wars became such a phenomena in '77 was this anti -reaction to these Dystopian SF movies by offering a bright and hopeful future(with slightly campy acting)as a reaction to all this gloomy stuff.The original BSG was aso part this whole new optimistic(oversimplified campy)movement.Also part of the reasons why TOS became so popular during the reruns in '70's was that it offered an escapism for the gloomy,dark SF of the era.And this atmosphere prolonged until far in the 80's and was part of the reasons why also ET became such a success and the the TOS movies were so popular and why movies like Carpenter's The Thing and Scott's Blade Runner bombed at the cinemas at the time (people had become fed up with the dark ,dreary and paranoia of the 70's).

But like I said I still appreciate both versions of BSG (otherwise I wouldn't have both both complete series plus movies on DVD)But I think both have their pros and cons,but as you can read in my posting on the subject the gritty or realistic nature of the reboot was not my main criticism on that show.And as far as 9/11 having an influence on a Trek show is not something DISC can solely claim since in particular season 3 and 4 of ENT were heavily influenced by the events of 9/11 (especially the Xindi conflict season 3 story arch).So having a more realistic gritty how within the Star Trek confines is possible and updating it with current times is also possible without having to put everything into question about a better and brighter future.And I think also part of the reasons why people dislike DISC has something to do with the people getting a bit fed up with these gritty,dreary and realistic reboots and remakes much like the audiences did back in 70's and want something bright and hopeful even in a post 9/11 Trump World.

And I have ,after having watched the entire season 1 and four season 2 episodes already explained my problems with DISC in detail and why it doesn't work for me (and probably other Trek fans).I also explained how certain problems could be resolved to make ik more "Trek" and why the show had an uncertain and shaky premise to begin with.And the most important issues that had a major effect on the show were which company held certain IP's of the franchise(CBS for the series /Paramount the movies) which was a major reason why the reboot movies and DISC look the way they do and Les Moonves being a producer who didn't know anything about SF and Star trek in particular and the same Les Moonves who was in large part detrimental of what people didn't like about ENT and by all accounts was dead set on seeing ENT(and Star Trek in general) fail .Also the whole elongated troubled pre-production where producers came and went where they had producers/writers who had some familiarity with the franchise were fired or put on hold by CBS (Bryan Fuller,Manny Coto and Nicholas Meyer)because their scripts and stories were too "Star Trekkie" (??) in favor of disregarding established cannon and promoting gender and race issues on a franchise that never had issues with these matters or change to beging with just because it's a "thing" nowadays .

Was waiting to watch 2.4, which was rumoured to address some of the "canon" concerns before posting and then life got in the way.

Anyway, not seen 2.5 yet, but 2.4 certainly suggested why the Spore Drive is no longer in use. Though I felt they needn't have gone as far explaining screen tech (and was also confused the the Translator gag - wouldn't most of the crew members have been speaking the same language without need for translation?).

@Nexus71 said:

The whole Trek fans won't watch DISC because they are white racist misogynous males is the same bullshit Disney tried to use as an excuse why fans hated TLJ or the cast of Ghostbusters 2016 used to hide the fact they made a horrible product.

Space... the final frontier .these are the voyages of the starship Discovery ,it's five year mission to call out gender and race discrimination.... to aimlessly go where no transgender has gone before!

You're not selling yourself as someone who isn't a member of that first group with your closing sentence.

@Nexus71 said:

I think you also are mistaken in why the Orville is more popular it is not because of the familiarity for Trek fans but the fact that the Orville in essence is an entirely different type of show.The Orville is a show in the same vein as Galaxy Quest both are satire and satire by nature is a spoof on something it can reference that already exists so audiences can identify what they are spoofing .The Orville is a satire of Star Trek

To be pedantic: GQ was a spoof of ST, not a satire.

To be accurate, The Orville is more of an homage to or a pastiche of TNG (with added MacFarlane-style jokes). Take away the jokes and it would be a TNG clone. I'm sure I read that Seth MacF pitched for a new ST show and was rejected, hence The Orville - but a quick search just shows interest in doing so: https://www.ifc.com/2011/10/seth-mcfarlane-star-trek

@Nexus71 said: the Star trek series are an entirely different beast they are basically televised morality plays in a SF setting. that is what Trek fans expect and want of a Trek series.

Have you watched The Orville? Because you've just described it!

Thank you Philippe! Some DSC detractors are so anxious to diss this series a) they don't give it the same chance they gave other less quality ST series and b) they react very predictably when someone simply points out the facts. At least GQ is honest in its satire or spoofing, the Orville is not. Look, it is television, somewhat entertaining but only in the fact that it borrows HEAVILY from an established franchise and does NOTHING to advance the concept or space travel or the moral issues ST always handled bravely. Indeed that is my biggest gripe with The Orville: the writer/producers are lazy! They take quality issues e.g. 'infant sex selection' or 'the tyranny of the majority' and fail miserably to take a stand! They simply use the issue and rework the ST formula and then walk away. Real ST does NOT do that! They take a point of view and stand by it!

Nexus71: "The whole Trek fans won't watch DISC because they are white racist misogynous males is the same ****** Disney tried to use as an excuse why fans hated TLJ or the cast of Ghostbusters 2016 used to hide the fact they made a horrible product." Forget TLJ or Ghostbusters and address the clear fact that some ST fans dislike the new series MAINLY because of the diversity on the bridge. You have only to read the negative commentary to confirm this fact! They forced a change and look, now the show is becoming more popular. They forget that before TOS first aired, there were NO Russian, Asian, Black people on such a show. It's not that a ST with two minority females on the bridge would not have been successful, we never got the chance to see, it's because SOME fans couldn't stand it!

I didn't find the female Starbuck to be interesting at all. Really, to the extent any of the reboot characters were supposed to be more "interesting" was just in the types and degrees of their psychoses. The writers/producers evidently decided that's what makes characters "deep" and "real" and "interesting." BS. That and making Starbuck (and Boomer) female was somehow automatically supposed to make her (them) "better," which is the definition of sexism really.

And the Moclan stuff about "male" and "female" is claptrap nonsense because they don't exist just to cause social unrest or whatever. Male and female are different parts of sexual reproduction. Both are required for reproduction to take place. Saying that Moclan "males" reproduce by themselves without needing females proves that their "male" and "female" don't really exist at all, not in that sense. Being "female" doesn't mean just having bumps on the chest, or whatever. And if the "males" reproduce by themselves, they are necessarily asexual, not "male."

Can't you ever respond at less than novel length?

At any rate, the things written that happen TO Starbuck don't automatically make HER an interesting character - no more so than if they had happened to any other female character, for example - nor do they make the actress good at the role, etc.

Maybe you're just easily fooled. errr, satisfied.

On the other hand, similar situations written by Fred Saberhagen in the 'Berserker" series, ARE very empathetic.

And if you want to buy into the party line that "gender" is whatever a person FEELS LIKE, go right ahead. But that doesn't mean it then somehow makes sense. It's not my fault if others misuse the language, or they want to use "gender" because that seems to carry more weight than just "preference" or "attitude" or whatever. They're still wrong. Just as "homosexual" is inaccurate too. Sex is a type of reproduction. Since nothing that any two people of the same GENDER can do to each other, can result in reproduction, the term "homosexual" is incorrect, but perhaps chosen by those with an agenda because it seems more weighty than a more accurate term such as homoerotic.