Star Trek- The new Sulu is going to be gay as a tribute to George Takei

[splashscuba]

What you or others assume is irrelevant. The questions why someone who is gay is commented on as 'openly' but someone straight is not.


I don't find any need to assume stuff people's sexuality or marital status, why would you?

Me neither. I'm not really interested in what other people do in the bedroom.

[Udayana]

...
The questions why someone who is gay is commented on as 'openly' but someone straight is not.
...

Surely this is just because there are gay people who are "out" and others that want to keep their sexuality private? Non-gay people don't have that issue unless they have other out of the ordinary tastes.  Not a question of morality but of conformity.

I do agree the term is unnecessary as you could just say "gay" or not mention it at all.
 

[Bubbles]

Me neither. I'm not really interested in what other people do in the bedroom.

No neither am I, I don't think it's about that.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely this is just because there are gay people who are "out" and others that want to keep their sexuality private? Non-gay people don't have that issue unless they have other out of the ordinary tastes.  Not a question of morality but of conformity.

I do agree the term is unnecessary as you could just say "gay" or not mention it at all.

Indeed it is, which is what I've been suggesting. The continued use of the term openly in terms is a character merely being portrayed as having a same sex partner is supporting the idea that it was once hidden. Having seen too many of my friends struggle to come out, having an assumption in built that after that they are still different from heterosexuals and have to be noted as being open simply by saying something that reveals their sexuality like the name of their partner is something we need to move beyond.

There was a fuss when one female character on Doctor Who talked about her wife leaving her as this was apparently part of the 'gay agenda' rather than something that should be unoticeable.

[Nearly Sane]

No neither am I, I don't think it's about that.

then why make assumptions about it?

[Nearly Sane]

Because no one needs to be openly straight, people assume others are straight anyway.

People assume things, so their brains can do more important things.

there is no need to assume anything regards this.  Perhaps one of tings you might get your brain to do that is important is regard actions by straight and gay people as equal

[jeremyp]

But Sulu is a popular well established character and it seems totally wrong to change the perception of him this late in the day.

I defy you to find anywhere in the original series where Sulu's sexuality is explicitly or implicitly defined as either straight of gay.

Having said that, Simon Pegg is wrong. Introducing a new character who happens to be gay is not tokenism unless you can't write characters and it's blatantly obvious that is why the character is there. Suddenly deciding that Sulu's character is going o be gay especially because the actor who played him is gay is tokenism.

It is like rewriting Wuthering Heights with Cathy as a transvestite or James Bond as a  black lesbian

If you try to do that, the result needs to be judged on its artistic merit. I'd say one thing about James Bond: for me, it is an intrinsic part of the character that he is a white misogynist.

Frankly, I don't think reimagining existing characters as black or gay or female (when they were male before) is necessarily a positive way to promote equality. Why not write new strong characters that happen to be black/gay/trans or whatever?

or Jack Reacher being played by a midget (oops they did that). Just wrong... Write a new story instead.

I've read all the books and seen the film. Tom Cruise does a perfectly fine job. Frankly, I find the idea that Jack Reacher is a giant to be a bit of a Mary Sue characteristic. Tom Cruise makes the character more believable, if you ask me.

[jeremyp]

. It's a nice little nod to George Taken

Except that George Takei does not like it because the character he played was apparently straight (I have to take his word for it because Sulu's sexuality was never explored in St TOS.

, and what does 'openly gay' mean here? You wouldn't refer to Kirk as 'openly straight'.

No need to pretend that the situation is symmetrical. People are generally assumed to be straight unless they explicitly say they are not.

[jeremyp]

his comments effectively make a nonsense of him having a sexuality being wrong for the character

He's an actor. His sexuality is irrelevant to the sexuality of the character.

As to 'openly', you seem to have missed the point, had Sulu been shown kissing a woman in the film, would you have complained that he was being shown as 'openly straight '?

Nobody seems to be complaining except George Takei.

When Jake who works for me says he's away with his partner John for a country weekend, I don't think 'Oh look thete's Jake being openly gay. We need to get away from this weird hang up too many people have.

It's a fact of life. Historically, it has been seriously limiting to declare that you are gay. And even today, gay people are a pretty small percentage of the population as well as suffering tough prejudice that being "openly gay" is a difficult decision that many gay people have to make. Do not diminish the prejudice gay people suffer by trying to pretend that it is no big thing to be openly gay.

[Bubbles]

there is no need to assume anything regards this.  Perhaps one of tings you might get your brain to do that is important is regard actions by straight and gay people as equal

You are rather assuming that I don't.

[Bubbles]

Indeed it is, which is what I've been suggesting. The continued use of the term openly in terms is a character merely being portrayed as having a same sex partner is supporting the idea that it was once hidden. Having seen too many of my friends struggle to come out, having an assumption in built that after that they are still different from heterosexuals and have to be noted as being open simply by saying something that reveals their sexuality like the name of their partner is something we need to move beyond.

There was a fuss when one female character on Doctor Who talked about her wife leaving her as this was apparently part of the 'gay agenda' rather than something that should be unoticeable.

Well one actor left Dr Who because he felt there was an agenda and it was a children's programme.

[Bubbles]

Except that George Takei does not like it because the character he played was apparently straight (I have to take his word for it because Sulu's sexuality was never explored in St TOS.
No need to pretend that the situation is symmetrical. People are generally assumed to be straight unless they explicitly say they are not.

Yes I'd agree.

That's what I said.

[Nearly Sane]

Well one actor left Dr Who because he felt there was an agenda and it was a children's programme.

And that is relevant to this how?

[Nearly Sane]

You are rather assuming that I don't.

No, I am taking it from your position that you think it's reasonable to classify someone telling me the name of their same sex partner is openly being homosexual but that's not true of a heterosexual. I am taking it from you treating them differently

[Bubbles]

No, I am taking it from your position that you think it's reasonable to classify someone telling me the name of their same sex partner is openly being homosexual but that's not true of a heterosexual. I am taking it from you treating them differently

You make far to much of things.

What matters is how someone treats people, and I don't treat gay people any differently to anyone else.

What I assume until I know better,  doesn't matter as long as those people are treated respectfully.

I don't care if someone as a couple is married or not, but assume they are until I'm told otherwise.

It saves asking personal questions.

I don't care if two men living together are gay, but assume they are not, until I'm told differently.

To me, that's not prejudice or inequality, but just manners.

I suppose we would assume a unrelated man and woman living together may be a couple, whereas maybe two men or two women, we wouldn't necessarily.

We assume things because we lack information and it's impolite to ask, or maybe we don't think it is our business.

It's not prejudice, it's just i assume people are like the majority because the chances are they are, when they're not, then I just accept it.

🌹

[Nearly Sane]

Once again, this isn't about assumptions that you make, it is about using the word openly for one sexuality and not another. It is classifying the actions of people differently.

[jeremyp]

Once again, this isn't about assumptions that you make, it is about using the word openly for one sexuality and not another. It is classifying the actions of people differently.

You understand that a random person you see in the street is much more likely to be straight than gay? Furthermore, there are people - mostly gay - who prefer to keep their sexuality a secret for whatever reason, usually they are worried about prejudice.

While it might be nice if being straight or gay had about as much significance as being left or right handed, we don't live in that world yet.

[Nearly Sane]

You understand that a random person you see in the street is much more likely to be straight than gay? Furthermore, there are people - mostly gay - who prefer to keep their sexuality a secret for whatever reason, usually they are worried about prejudice.

While it might be nice if being straight or gay had about as much significance as being left or right handed, we don't live in that world yet.

Yes, I understand that but find no reason to consider their sexuality at all. And as for the second, the way to get there is not to discriminate in describing a character of one sexuality as being openly of that sexuality when all they do is the same as another sexuality for which you do not use the word.

[jeremyp]

Yes, I understand that but find no reason to consider their sexuality at all.

Well we are in the situation of discussing a situation in which the sexuality of a character in a film is at issue. We can't really avoid considering Sulu's and Takei's sexuality since they are part of the news story.

[Nearly Sane]

Well we are in the situation of discussing a situation in which the sexuality of a character in a film is at issue. We can't really avoid considering Sulu's and Takei's sexuality since they are part of the news story.

Indeed, not but what does the openly add to HWB's remark?

[Aruntraveller]

You make far to much of things.

What matters is how someone treats people, and I don't treat gay people any differently to anyone else.

What I assume until I know better,  doesn't matter as long as those people are treated respectfully.

I don't care if someone as a couple is married or not, but assume they are until I'm told otherwise.

It saves asking personal questions.

I don't care if two men living together are gay, but assume they are not, until I'm told differently.

To me, that's not prejudice or inequality, but just manners.

I suppose we would assume a unrelated man and woman living together may be a couple, whereas maybe two men or two women, we wouldn't necessarily.

We assume things because we lack information and it's impolite to ask, or maybe we don't think it is our business.

It's not prejudice, it's just i assume people are like the majority because the chances are they are, when they're not, then I just accept it.

I don't like this assumption lark.

In fact I find it annoying. I will explain why.

Myself and my partner belong to the same bank we occasionally have to transfer funds from his account to mine. When my partner tells them he wants to transfer funds to "my parnters account" he is asked "what's your wife's name?"  Two assumptions fro the price of one there. Firstly that your partner is married to you and secondly that your partner is of the opposite sex. This happens so often that it is really tiring. I perahps wouldn't mind but we have been with the bank for decades and they do know on their records that we are a couple.

Unsolicited phone calls - when I answer I get on occasions "Is Mrs Surname at home?" "There is no Mrs Surname?" "Are you sure - we have a couple registered as living at your house?" YEs I'm quite sure - and how is the weather in Bangalore?"

Assumptions are lazy and unthinking - and as I said I don't like them.

[Nearly Sane]

'Openly'
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ttUvsrcxKmI

[splashscuba]

Indeed, not but what does the openly add to HWB's remark?

I'm with Nearly here. Openly is superfluous here. Gay is sufficient to provide the necessary context.