“A Tale of Two Topas”

This wasn't a four star episode.

This was a five star episode.

Pretty damn good, if a touch ham-fisted at times.

Talla's plan probably should have accounted for Klyden's whereabouts so that Isaac and Topa wouldn't be interrupted by him. He clearly didn't sign up for his husband's concert.

We got the first new admiral we've seen since season one I believe.

Good riddance to Klyden...this breakup was long overdue. Playing an asshole is a thankless job, and Chad played him well.

Right on the cusp of 3 and 3.5 stars...Palicki pulls it up to the latter.

@ Jaxon

Yeah, Klyden was a terrible person, but a great character, and Chad Coleman played him tremendously.

This was very strong and for once this season, the length felt earned. Very well-acted by everyone and beautifully heartfelt.

I liked this a lot. A great issue style Trek episode that Trek would never touch, and I agree that the length of the episode felt justified for the first time.

Genuinely interested if there will be consequences for Isaac. The last scene with Claire indicated his actions were intended to ingratiate him with the crew, but I'd imagine that the Union itself (or Charlie), may be less than keen on having a Kaylon on board who's shown that he's not bound by Union protocols.

A good episode, I'm liking the callbacks to earlier seasons and making the characters deal with the consequences of the choices that they have made.

I do feel that the episode took the easy option of making Klyden an out and out villain in this. Whatever his reasons he was in his own way trying to protect topa. The 'I wish you were never born' line really led a bad taste in my mouth. Too easy.

Also, aren't moclans much, much stronger than humans? I'm calling B. S on Kelly manhandling Klyden like that.

3 stars.

Great episode! Loved it. And yes good riddance to Klyden!

And great new Admiral, hope we see more of her.

And this is the first time I thought the show's extra run time really worked in its favour.

Even though Topa hasn't been a primary character that final "engage quantum drive" was million times more powerful and memorable than Burnham's cringeworthy "let's fly"

This one was good, this one was really good. One of their best for sure.
1h and 15mins well spent!
Bravo Orville!

Commander Grayson is normally not my favourite, somehow to superficial. She is not the person I would open up for. Furthermore, I have never really aligned myself with the Moclans. From the beginning I found the concept quite silly.

Having said that. This episode was great or rather magnificent. The only thing that really was not perfect was the alibi concert, it felt too constructed but I can live with that.

Best episode this season so far. Infact, I would put this as one of the best of the entire series. I agree with everyone about the running time too.

Here's hoping there will be another series of The Orville.

A little drawn out, could have been tighter. Would have liked to see more of the internal struggles / emotions of Topa. Well drawn Klyden, sorry to see him go. Interesting story, interesting dilemma.

3*

When I started the episode and noticed that 75 minute run time... for fuck's sake, not again. But there was very little fluff in this episode. Quite heavy episode, but definitely season's best so far, and maybe one of The Orville's best. They made the decision and laid the groundwork way earlier and now it came back to bite them in the ass in the form of "two Topas." Bravo, Seth MacFarlane!

Klyden isn't being made into a villain here. I think that bridge was crossed when he attempted to murder Bortus and they just sort of brushed it under the rug like "oh, those silly Moclans and their culture."

I actually think Orville has done a pretty good job of doing a subtle (and this is almost NEVER subtle) piss take on TNG's "oh, that's just their culture" attitudes.

No, the Moclans have a horrible culture and Klyden's devotion to it has made him a self-hating bag of neuroses that he attempted to force on his child.

Yeah Klyden may have cared about Topa in his own warped way here. He may lament that Topa has no future in Moclan siociety , but I doubt she wants one, and she clearly does in the Union.

The good riddance is for the sum total of his treachery over the whole series.

Holy hell.

That was an amazing episode. I’m in tears here.

Just wow.

@ The smiler

"Also, aren't moclans much, much stronger than humans? I'm calling B. S on Kelly manhandling Klyden like that."

Klyden is a civilian, Kelly is a trained military officer.

@Maq

"Having said that. This episode was great or rather magnificent. The only thing that really was not perfect was the alibi concert, it felt too constructed but I can live with that."

The only thing not perfect about the concert is the fact we didn't get to see Bortus sing "My Heart Will Go On" :D

I thought this was an excellent episode; the "Orville's" Moclan episodes have consistently been very good, and of the show's three big alien races, theirs continues to remain the most original and interesting.

This episode was written and directed by Seth Macfarlane, and it epitomizes all his best qualities. There's a love for music, concerts, a sense of optimism, and a nice vein of earnest compassion. Like the first episode of the season, which he also wrote, there's also a concern about suicide.

The episode does have a middle-brow, "After School Special" vibe, but because there are so few mainstream stories about kids transitioning, de-transitioning, or gay conversion therapy, the episode manages to still feel edgy.

I thought the episode had some very minor flaws; IMO the "you're perfect" scene should have lasted a few seconds longer, Kelly lays the Girl Power on too thick in one scene, and Bortus' songs (great song choices by Seth) were IMO not well sung.

I thought the final line was very good. "Engage the quantum drive!", when spoken by a girl who has just transitioned, almost reads like a rebuke to contemporary reactionaries (over a dozen conservative states in the US are passing "Don't Say Gay" bills). It's not quite as good as Seth's "I want to see what happens next", which an earlier episode ended on, but there's still something hopeful about it

I thought the first act of the episode was particularly great; I've always wanted a Trek episode where we simply walk about the various departments on a ship, watching mundane stuff taking place (like Picard's night-time walk in "Lessons"), and Kelly grants us this at the start of the episode. There's a nice, unhurried, "slice of life" tone.

I also liked how the B plot echoed the A plot; here yo have a buried alien culture excavated with technology, and a little girl's buried "identity" "resurrected" by the same.

I hope we get at least one other Moclan episode before the season ends. With "About a Girl", "Deflectors", "Sanctuary" and "A Tale of Two Topas", these Moclan episodes have developed into the show's most consistently good arc.

@Tim

True, but the Moclans (like the Klingons) are a warrior race. I don't think the average Starfleet officer would stand much of a chance against a civilian Klingon (the fact Jadzia could hold her own against Worf was made to look surprising and unusual, despite her extensive familiarity with Klingon culture and fighting techniques), and it seems like The Orville is going for kind of a similar concept here with the Moclans.

I have to say I concur with the general consensus this is a very strong episode - probably the best episode of The Orville overall.

It's remarkable to me that The Orville has - for the second time this season - been more explicit and done a better job addressing progressive politics than modern Star Trek. Last week we saw the series go full-bore anti-Trump, and this week we see trans issues handled much more comprehensively and explicitly than Discovery's largely empty representation. And yes, I realize that Topa's situation (as someone who had involuntary gender reassignment at birth) is more analogous to that of an intersex person, but the whole of the episode was set up as a pretty explicit reference to the contemporary "debates" around trans children.

The effectiveness of this episode is remarkable insofar as it was carried by drama alone (the few times Klyden tried to take a swing at someone doesn't count as "action" to me), and despite the 75 minute runtime, there were really no scenes that I can point to this week as extraneous. Maybe the third act bringing in the political aspect with the Moclans wasn't entirely necessary, but it did provide some analogues with how (needlessly) politicized the issue of trans adolescents (particularly in sports) has become.

All the emotional beats here were very much earned. Topa's pain came across as real, and the actress got across the pain she was feeling very well. Bortus's own internal conflict between trying to make his daughter happy and to try to salvage his toxic relationship ran true. Even Klyden - who has always been a total jerkass - felt like he was coming from an understandable place, projecting his own shame and self-hatred onto his daughter's condition rather than just listening. I will not miss him, considering how one note and awful he has been.

I do have to say it was a bit random of a decision to have Kelly be the one Topa confides in, as there's a strong argument that Dr. Finn should have been the confidant. But Finn has had solid focus in two episodes so far this season, and I understand the need to spread around the focus. I think Adrianne Palicki isn't the strongest actress, but this was some of her best work on the show.

There really isn't anything I can point to I'd change, except maybe the idea that Kelly could overpower Klyden so easily. It's absolutely a four-star episode.

I've often been skeptical of the Orville in the past - and I still think it suffers from a bit of corny overindulgence - but I've really been loving how MacFarlane has been using the show to tackle very contemporary issues in a fearless way. This season's focus on social commentary (suicide, radical nationalism, transhumanism, etc.) contrasts a lot with SNW's focus on theming its season around *genre* and experimenting with aesthetic and tone. Both shows end up contributing different things, both of value, but with this new episode it's hard to deny the Orville is getting my attention a lot more right now.

@Karl Zimmerman
"It's remarkable to me that The Orville has - for the second time this season - been more explicit and done a better job addressing progressive politics than modern Star Trek. Last week we saw the series go full-bore anti-Trump, and this week we see trans issues handled much more comprehensively and explicitly than Discovery's largely empty representation. And yes, I realize that Topa's situation (as someone who had involuntary gender reassignment at birth) is more analogous to that of an intersex person, but the whole of the episode was set up as a pretty explicit reference to the contemporary 'debates' around trans children."

Thanks for stating this so plainly and openly. I'm sick and tired of getting attacked, again and again, when I'm simply stating the obvious.

Yes, the Orville has turned into a full-blown political propaganda channel. This episode is yet another example of this trend. And no, old Star Trek (as well as the old Orville) was never like that.

At least, unlike last week, the story here makes sense in-universe. Unlike "Gently Falling Rain", where the writers forced American politics on the Krill without justification, Topa's situation here is believable and it flows naturally from what happened before.

But it's still a propaganda episode, and a very devious one. It gives you a sci fi scenario in which a sex-change operation is justifiable in a kid, and expects you to draw the "obvious" parallel to real world transgender kids. Worse: it gives kids with gender-related issues an unrealistic expectation of "I'll transition and everything will magically be okay".

Yes, I too supported Topa's decision here. S/he was *already altered as a baby*, for very questionable cultural reasons, so it makes perfect sense to undo the alteration.

But no, this does not mean that performing transition treatments on (real human) 10-year-old boys is anything less than a perverted abomination. Nor does it mean that adults should rush into transitioning just because they "feel wrong inside their bodies". PC-cult woke madness remains PC-cult woke madness, regardless of the touching (and very-well made) story we've seen here.

P.S.
I'd love to hear Slacker Inc's take on this episode. After all the justifications he gave the propaganda of last week, this week he is oddly silent.

Gee, I wonder why that may be... ;-)

Another solid epusode, doing sci-fi allegory properly

I find it interesting how Klyden is such a stickler for tradition when it comes to hidms daughter, and yet eschews the Moclan tradition of divorce by death. Obviously they needed to have some way to carry off the story and analogy eithout losing a main character, so these's likely more pf a production reaspn than a narrative reason for it. But I do wonder if there's not more story to tell with Klyden... driven as he is by self-loathing. I wouldn't be surprised if we DID see him again,and it seems unlike many here, I look forward to the potential in that.

Anothing thing to note is what an interesting reflection Klyden is for TNG's Worf, far more do than Bortus. Think about it, both Worf and Klyden are incrediblely self-conscious about their idenities as it relates to their people. Both lean into their species' traditions HARD, trying to be the most Moclan/Klingon they can be, often to the bewilderment of their crewmates. But while Worf is largely beloved, Klyden is considered a javkass. Onr difference I can see is that Klyden's dogma aligns with his society, whereas Worf's often highlights the hypocracy of his people. Interesting. Sci-fi audiences must just love the outcasts more.

@Nolan
"I find it interesting how Klyden is such a stickler for tradition when it comes to his daughter, and yet eschews the Moclan tradition of divorce by death. Obviously they needed to have some way to carry off the story and analogy without losing a main character, so there's likely more of a production reason than a narrative reason for it."

I think it works narratively as well.

I love how he basically tells Bortus "You piss me off so much that I'm not even going to bother killing you". Klyden pretty much says this explicitly, which is - I think - both hilarious and poignant in a way that only the Orville can manage.

@Omicron
"I'm sick and tired of getting attacked, again and again, when I'm simply stating the obvious."
I guess you mean obvious things like "it's still a propaganda episode, and a very devious one" or "performing transition treatments on (real human) 10-year-old boys is anything less than a perverted abomination. Nor does it mean that adults should rush into transitioning just because they "feel wrong inside their bodies""

First of all transsexuality starts to show around 7 or 8. You probably argue that we should just wait another 10+ or more years until transpeople can get the treatment they want. Oh, and what adult is rushing into transsexuality?? It's not like people wake up one day and think:"Peeing standing up would be great!" I'm Biggus Dickus now.

The last post before this you write stuff like "why can't we just have a reasonable debate about an issue?" and then go on to write another post about how devious something is and what perverted abominations all this is. Have you ever had an actual talk with a trans person, did you ever read medical journals about transitioning or talk to a specialist? Because considering what you write, I would assume that you haven't done any of those things. Still, you seem extremely convinced that you are right.

-It's even less then when some people like jk rowling pointed to the fact that the amount of trans-men seeking treatment had increased 4400%!!!!. O M G!!! People, it's time to panic!!!!
Of course these people either did not actually look at the number of cases and what it meant or in fact did know and did it anyway. In the baseline year people were referencing, 32 girls were referred to treatment in 2008 for all of the UK which is around 0.00016 of all female children and that number went to 852 in 2015 which is still only 0.004 and far lower than the estimate of transpeople which is somewhere between 0.5% and 1% of the population.
Still, how many people to this day believe that there was an extreme increase, not an extremely discriminated minority seeking treatment more often and how many of those are now fervent supporters of limiting transrights.

"And no, old Star Trek (as well as the old Orville) was never like that."
??? There was an episode where a society forced one member to not transition from no-gender to female. Riker, always first in seeking out new life forms and to boldly go where no one has gone before, had sex with her. They meant it as an analogy to homosexuality but it almost works better for transsexuality. It even tackles two issues, transitioning and a man having no problem with falling in love and having sex with a trans women.

ps: to also give a long term view. In a few decades, if society doesn't crumble, the whole trans issue will be over anyway. Medicine will be so far as to make transpeople indistinguishable from cis people.

@Booming

Bigots are always convinced they're right.

@Booming

I've spent enough time trying to argue these things with PC-cult people to realize that:

(1) It's a complete waste of time
(2) The endless resulting back-and-forth is inconsiderate towards the people who want to discuss the actual episode.

So I'm done doing that.

Doubly so, when the person in question has a history of deliberate trolling.

TL;DR
Sorry, not interested.

@J.B.
"Bigots are always convinced they're right."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've misunderstood my stance.

I oppose two things:
1. Transgender procedures of any kind IN CHILDREN (exception: kids who were born intersex anyway)
2. Treating the transgender thing as some kind of "silver bullet" for adults who are unhappy with their bodies.

On the other hand, I support:
1. Giving adults total freedom to do whatever they want with their bodies.
2. Acknowledging that the transgender option is AT TIMES a good one.
3. Respecting people as human beings, and stop being so obsessive with gender roles and gender issues.

Now, if a person thinks that the above constitutes "bigotry", that's their very own problem.

I very much hope, J.B., you are not one of these people.

(if you are, then see my response to Booming. I am not interested in debates with people who repeatedly insist that black is white. I have better things to do with my time then deal with such madness)

You either believe gender dysphoria is real and transitioning to become your actual gender is a real solution or you don't. You obviously dont and Seth McFarlane does. The irony of this whole thing is the fact that it actually does directly relate to the issue as conservatives see it too.

Topa is born a woman.

She was assigned the wrong gender by the majority.

She has it surgerically corrected.

If a child was subjected to transgender surgery as a child, wouldn't you support reversing that if possible if they wanted it and the parents? Or is it solely the opposite? Because this isn't actually a weird sci-fi metaphor either as that happens to intersex people all the time.

It's not a great metaphor for trans but there's more issues here and showing Topa's state isn't propaganda. It's discussing the issue of cultures attempting to impose their assumption of gender on people that is frequently wrong by a situation that should be universe.

But yes, this is Orville's "Measure of a Man" in my view as I do believe in gender dysphoria.

Omicron calling people he disagrees with mad, cultist or trolls, calling the episode itself devious and deciding that having a discussion is pointless from the get-go. At the same time he provides no reasoning for his views because he believes that his views are by default correct. Then he declares himself to be totally reasonable and tolerant.

Why should only adults get treatment? Why is the arbitrary date society puts on becoming an adult the separating line between getting treatment? When is somebody an adult? For a long time it was 16 (for example in Rome). During the middle ages one became an adult with the start of puberty. A men could inherit at the age of 14, in other word start ruling. Today in the US in some parts it is 18, in other parts you only get full rights with 21. In the rest of the world today adulthood starts between 15 and 21. In the US you can emancipate yourself from your parents by the age of 14.
Be that as it may, sorry transsexuals. Omicron thinks that you should only be allowed to get treatment when you become an adult because he knows better what is good for you than you do.

tl;dr
Omicron being Omicron.

"You obviously don't and Seth McFarlane does."

I think dialogue said in this episode that typically the Union (and thus Seth) would require someone to be an adult to consent to gender change, and the only reason an exception here was made was because Topa had already been artificially altered, so this was a restoration.

I have to say I agree with that too...this is not something that can be reversed.

I was also worried going into this episode that it would too easily justify trans operations on children. Fortunately, by the end, the issue seemed to have been fully deliberated and the outcome felt justified.

But the only reason it was justified, including in the script, is because Topa was originally female. Doesn't Dr. Finn explicitly say she would never perform this operation on a minor in any other circumstance?

So my question is, did that nuance fly over the head of trans kids activists? Is it clear that this operation was justifiable only because of its very unique contextual circumstance? Or does Seth McFarlane get to have his cake and eat it too by allowing the nuance to be lost with half his audience and not with the other half?

Despite that grayness, I still found it to be one of the better episodes of the season and thoroughly enjoyed every 75 minutes of it. The writers have really made me care for the characters. And I find it amusing that the episodes Seth has written this season really outshine the episodes penned by all the veteran Trek writers.

One last thing, I love Klyden and I think his actions were both pretty despicable and in keeping with his character. But a future episode MUST deal with reconciliation between Klyden, Bortus, and Topa. I wouldn't like to see the moral of the story evolving into "it's okay to be eternally estranged from an otherwise loving parent who didn't support your transition to another sex."

@Jaxon
"I have to say I agree with that too...this is not something that can be reversed."
So you think the rights of transsexuals to make that decision should be limited to 18 and above because at some point transitioning becomes irreversible (for now; in the future it will be different)? Is your view based purely on your believe that people cannot be trusted with such a decision until they are 18? Have you done any research about the matter? Would you say that blocking access and by that making the lives of actual transsexual a lot worse is a good trade off considering the small likelihood that somebody wants to de-transition. So far de transitions rates are very low and many of those aren't done because the people are unhappy with being trans itself but because of societal pressure. Is protecting 1 person worth the decade long suffering of 100 others?

https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-shows-discrimination-stigma-and-family-pressure-drive-detransition-among-transgender-people/

Plus, there never will be and never was a medical treatment that made 100% of the treated people happy.

In several states in the US you can get medical treatments like the pill or vaccines without consent of your parents at the age of 12. Furthermore, puberty blockers are just that. If you stop taking them, puberty kicks in normally.
https://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/en/page/debunking-transphobic-talking-points-longer-version#blockers

@Jaxon
"I think dialogue said in this episode that typically the Union (and thus Seth) would require someone to be an adult to consent to gender change, and the only reason an exception here was made was because Topa had already been artificially altered, so this was a restoration."

Yup.

Though it's a "blink it or miss it" moment, and it goes against the general vibe of everything else in the episode.

Makes me wonder if the sudden new "political activism" of the show is by some mandate from Disney, and Seth trying to soften the blow by passing such lines under the radar.

@Booming

Three things:

1. The only reason I'm calling you a troll, is that you've openly admitted in the past that you like pushing people's buttons and watch them squirm.

2. I am all for a reasonable discussion with people of different opinions. The problem, sir, is that you are not interested in a reasonable discussion.

3. What I call "madness" are the social trends of the past two years, which have all the characteristics of an organized religion. And what I call "cultists" are people who mindlessly parrot the the "scared truths" of this religion without bothering to stop and think whether these tenets make any kind of sense.

"1. The only reason I'm calling you a troll, is that you've openly admitted in the past that you like pushing people's buttons and watch them squirm"
Ok, you dingdong. For the millionth time. I NEVER SAID THAT. You just imagined that. The fact that you are repeating that again and again, even though I corrected it many times, makes me think that you maybe should get a check up for a brain tumor or alzheimer.

"The problem, sir, is that you are not interested in a reasonable discussion."
How very insulting, my lady. That is not the way to behave for a proper woman.

Again you are just writing the same post. Aka, I do not need to discuss anything because the other side is wrong and crazy.

Let me just point out that the age of medical consent in most countries is between 14-18. In the UK and Spain for example it is 16. In Germany there is no minimum age. Here it is based on maturity of the person.
15 or 16 seems like a good age to make a final decision about transitioning.
https://fra.europa.eu/de/publication/2017/mapping-minimum-age-requirements-concerning-rights-child-eu/consenting-medical-treatment-without-parental-consent

@Jaxon
I want to add another question. So for example Omicron's view is that any kind of gender affirming treatment should be illegal for minors, also probably including reversible treatments like puberty blockers. Are you just against the actual operation or against any gender affirming treatment?

I want to say that this and my other questions do not have the purpose of portraying you as something bad. I want to understand your viewpoint and what it is based on.

@C.T. Philipps
"You either believe gender dysphoria is real and transitioning to become your actual gender is a real solution or you don't."

This kind of either/or thinking that's the crux of so many present day social problems...

How about this view:

Transitioning *can* be a real solution in *some* cases, but there are also false alarms. It is extremely important to be able to distinguish between these two things, lest people undergo needless extreme procedures which - if done for the wrong reasons - would only make them more miserable.

Present-day society is way too trigger-happy in this regard. The mainstream narrative completely ignores the complexity of the human psyche and the fact the people (especially young people) can get all kinds of crazy ideas in their heads for a variety of reasons. In short: Just because a gender transition could help in *some* cases, does not mean that it is the right solution for any person who longs for such a transition.

I also maintain that a good deal of "gender dysphoria" is caused by social norms and gender roles. Many cases of men who "wants to be women" are simply cases of men who want to adopt stereotypical woman behavior. A lot of trouble could be avoided here, if society simply stopped demanding people to conform to any specific gender role.

Still, I have no doubt that after we weed out all these false alarms, there *are* people who would genuinely be happier if they transition. These people should definitely go with it, and do whatever they need to do to be happy.

(do you see now why it's not a simple either/or situation?)

"It's not a great metaphor for trans but there's more issues here and showing Topa's state isn't propaganda."

Oh, I agree that's it not a great metaphor for trans. Unfortunately, the episode is presented precisely as such a metaphor.

Moreover, if you look at the first 20-or-so comments here, you will see that the most viewers have certainly treated this episode as a metaphor for transgender procedures in children.

What a fantastic episode! I'm so glad they revisited this series plot thread.

By Klyden... I won't be missing you at all. Good riddance.

Strong performances by all in this one. Adrianne Palicki continues to lead the pack. Great performance by Andi Chapman as Admiral Howland.

I'm not sure this episode supports "trans rights" as much as some think (want). EVERYONE except the Moclin was horrified by the initial sex change, so this is definitely righting a wrong but this episode certainly states one shouldn't make a decision without adult consent prior to adulthood (18?).

75 minutes and I wasn't once looking at the clock.

Easy 4-star episode for me. Just brilliantly done. Probably the series best to date.

@Booming
"Ok, you dingdong. For the millionth time. I NEVER SAID THAT. You just imagined that. The fact that you are repeating that again and again, even though I corrected it many times, makes me think that you maybe should get a check up for a brain tumor or alzheimer. "

Yeah, definitely not a troll. Nothing to see here, eh? ;-)


"Again you are just writing the same post. Aka, I do not need to discuss anything because the other side is wrong and crazy."

Hey, it ain't my fault that you can't accept "no" for an answer.

I would like to remind you that we've actually had more than one discussion on this topic in the past two years. We also had discussions on many other "hot" topics. It's not like I've never given your lot a chance to speak for your views.

The problem is that you guys spent nearly all your time:
(1) twisting other people's words.
(2) handing out ad-hominem attack.
(3) bringing false information, and then doubling down when others prove that the info was false.
(4) showing zero interest in getting to the truth, and being entirely concerned about "winning" the argument at all costs.

So yes, after over a year of this sh*t, I've come to the conclusion that trying to reason with your lot is pointless. The problem is not that you are "wrong" or even "crazy". The problem is that you guys are blindly following a social trend with religious zeal, and it is simply impossible to reason with a fanatical believer.

I have to say that I’m not a huge “Orville” fan — it unabashedly started out as a Star Trek parody/homage of ST:TNG — but even I have to give this episode 4 Stars!

It was nearly *perfect* — right down to the “You’ll Never Walk Alone” instrumental reprise at the end.

Kudos to the actors, writers, producers, production crew, and VFX wizards for almost seamlessly pulling this off!!

@Omicron
Now people who have an opinion different from yours are blind followers and fanatics.
You have done points 1, 2, 4 yourself in this thread. Not 3, though because you haven't given any information or facts. False or otherwise.

ok, honey. I have provided several facts and studies. Have fun disproving them. The Harvard medical school and the stanford university school of medicine would certainly appreciate your input.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/lgbt.2020.0437

Here another one from Korea about puberty blockers and how save they are. They are in use for many decades.
https://www.e-cep.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3345/kjp.2015.58.1.1

How about you actually provide some facts. Not feelings, not accusations and insults. Facts.
But you can't, can you? Because that's just it. You don't have any and never bothered to look for any.

FWIW, considering how easy it was for Isaac to perform a full gender confirmation surgery in like an hour or less (which undid a previous surgery), within universe it clearly seems that it's not a "forever decision" and easily reversible.

In terms of the real world, when it comes to pre-adolescent trans youth, it's really just about presenting as another gender, and then maybe puberty blockers to delay the onset of secondary sexual characteristics while they figure stuff out. Very few kids under the age of 16 are offered hormones, and very few people under the age of 18 get full on SRS. So when we talk about trans kids we're mostly just talking about accepting kids as the gender they are, not the medical side of things.

@Booming I don't care what your links say, there is nothing that can persuade me that short circuiting human puberty is "safe" and what's more, while I never so much as threw a punch at any person in my life or even been in a fight with another human being, if some doctor tried to prescribe that poison to my kids I might just do real violence.

You fuck with peoples' children at your peril. If you believe nothing else I say believe that.

Karl is correct. That is the state of things for trans minors. As my sources showed very few who start transitioning don't go through with it and the vast majority of the people who detransition do so because of societal pressure.

@Jason
" I don't care what your links say, there is nothing that can persuade me..."
Well, if that doesn't say it all.

"if some doctor tried to prescribe that poison to my kids I might just do real violence. " "You fuck with peoples' children at your peril."
As always. Not facts, just threats and feelings.

Puberty blockers were regularly used as a method to delay precocious puberty prior to their use in trans youth. It's probably still the more prevalent use. We researched it when our daughter started getting breasts at nine, but that was one year too late to be considered precocious these days. Too bad, because it seems like her adult height is only going to be 4'10", and she probably would have gotten a couple extra inches with puberty delayed a bit.

"So you think the rights of transsexuals to make that decision should be limited to 18 and above because at some point transitioning becomes irreversible..."

Yes, I meant exactly what I said.

Throwing a word salad at my answer doesn't change it.

"I want to add another question. So for example Omicron's view is that any kind of gender affirming treatment should be illegal for minors, also probably including reversible treatments like puberty blockers. Are you just against the actual operation or against any gender affirming treatment? "

I oppose anything in a minor that is irreversible, which includes surgery and f-ing around with puberty.

They can live the other gender without medical intervention...dress that gender, use that bathroom, etc. Years of that will demonstrate clearly that it's for keeps and that they are far less likely to do something they'll regret later.

IMHO as a parent, the situation is pretty different when discussing FTM or MTF. Basically because the effect of testosterone is forever on your body, whether you go through normal puberty or transition.

With FTM, there's basically no reason you have to start early to get good results. Once you are on male hormones for a few years your voice will deepen, your face will masculinize, and (if you're unfortunate) you'll eventually start going bald. But when you're done, you'll look like any cisgender guy - albeit possibly a short guy with wide hips. I suppose puberty blockers if taken early enough may eliminate the need for top surgery, but that's about it. Interestingly while the facial/voice changes are irreversible, fertility is not - trans men can temporarily stop taking hormones and still get pregnant (presuming they didn't get bottom surgery, which most transmen avoid because the surgical options just aren't great.

For MTF the surgical options are much, much better, but your chances of "passing" are much, much better the earlier you do it. If you wait too long you have a deep voice, a masculine face, and maybe a receding hairline, but if you intervene in the teen years you will be indistinguishable from someone cisgender. For self-interested reasons if my son wanted to do this I'd hope he at least went through a few years of male puberty so he could freeze some sperm in case he ever wanted biological children, but otherwise I'd be fine with early intervention.

" Basically because the effect of testosterone is forever on your body"

I have no doubt about that. It doesn't change my sentiments.

My absolute support of abortion rights is rooted in my belief that a woman has total sovereignty body and anything in it for as long as it is in it. Forced birth is a life changing event, to say nothing of childrearing. The consequences are forever.

Since that's the root of my belief in the right, any talk of heartbeats and when life begins is going to be ineffective on me, because it is irrelevent to the basis of the right

@Karl
That must be difficult. Really sorry to hear that. I hope she has a fulfilling life. :)
It's true puberty blockers are far more common than most people believe.

@Jaxon
"Throwing a word salad at my answer doesn't change it."
English isn't my first language, sorry. Still your opinion seems to be rooted in feelings as well. As I mentioned puberty blockers are very save and if you stop taking them puberty will kick in in less than a year.

This was a good episode, though a little more one-sided than I'd like. For a second, Klyden having been born female gave me the false hope that the story would be more nuanced than it turned out to be. Ultimately, he still ended up the cartoonish vaudevillain that you have no choice but to toss your tomatoes at. But it does add dimension to Bortus and brings us Topas as a young perspective character.

Orville proves itself yet again to be far superior to Disco Picard at using sci-fi to analyze current social issues. This show and SNW give me a newfound hope for sci-fi drama that had been all but extinguished by those monstrosities.

I can hardly believe it. After two absurdly bad episodes, and one that was merely boring, they've turned in a real pearler.

Music was great too.

How old is Topa here?

Born in early Season 1, so if a season is a year, barely two.

The episode Topa was born in aired in September 2017, so on that metric, almost five.

In human equivalence, they seem to be going for somewhere in the 10-14 range.

They're planning to do a Academy Entrance exam so I'd say 15-16.

Mind you, my view of the subject is to pretend that New Horizons is like 10 years after the first season.

Does it make sense? No.

However, maybe they have really long tours of duty in the future.

I'll write a proper review later but for now just to say this was excellent. Brilliantly executed story with flawless pace and acting. Probably the best episode of the Orville so far. Four stars. For me it was more about women in society and the way their body is often forced to change and their biology seen as less, trauma of the teenage girls cos of societal expectations, internilased mysoginy etc.

Also Kelly rules! :)

I meant "they are forced to change their body" gah

"Mind you, my view of the subject is to pretend that New Horizons is like 10 years after the first season."

That might wreak some havoc with the Taleya / Anaya storyline...it began way back in S1E6.

^ It would also mean everyone held the same rank without promotion for ten years. Plus, no one has aged nearly that much in the interim, including Finn's kids and some already elderly admirals.

@Desi
" For me it was more about women in society and the way their body is often forced to change and their biology seen as less, trauma of the teenage girls cos of societal expectations, internilased mysoginy etc."
It works as both. Transphobia and misogyny often go hand in hand. The study that I posted shows that discrimination of transwomen is far more common. It is also more common that countries accept male to female transition for example in Iran. The reason is that transitioning from male to female is a step down in most societies.
Maybe at some point we will get to the beauty standards of greek antiquity. Spartan women were seen as the most beautiful, most famous example is Helen of Troy, because they trained every day, were taller and very strong. It is probably no coincidence that Spartan women had the most rights and freedoms in antiquity. At least let's get away from all those super thin body standards to lower the amount of eating disorders. A friend of mine works in the fashion industry and sometimes sends me vids of her shows. I can never watch them because the models are so extremely thin and I cannot tell her because I don't want her to feel bad.

https://www.quora.com/What-did-the-idealized-ancient-Spartan-woman-look-like

While true about them staying at the same rank for ten years, it's the future and we know the Trekkian worlds aren't much of a problem with people staying in their roles for a long time. While visibly not aging, maybe the medical care is just that good in the future.

Re: Moclus

I think a decent Alternate Character Interpretation is the Moclans are choosing to interpret events that way because they do recognize the Kaylon threat and are looking for a face saving political measure.

"Ooo, we hate Isaac for this and will thus blame his entire race and not our desperately needed allies."

They were willing to break free over the krill but the Kaylon are an existential threat.

Good episode. I genuinely didn't know how the ending would turn out, which says something the plot's ability to make the viewer care. Although it effectively undid the tragic procedure performed on the infant Topa in Season 1's "About a Girl", but it didn't seem like either a use of the Reset Button or a cheapening of that tragedy, because a price was paid for that developement, in the form of Klyden's hateful rejection of the now-female Topa, and the struggles that she will now face as a female Moclan. I also liked that the storyline couches Klyden's position in a cultural plausible origin, so that there is a character-based motivation for his bigotry that elevates it from a more one-dimensional cartoonishness.

One thing I thought was missing was a discussion among the pro-female characters as to how old Topa was, what age of consent was for Moclans, and how long Topa would have to wait to reach that age. While the diplomatic and political angle underlining the conflict over allowing her to undergo corrective surgery was well handled, this point was missing from those parts of the dialogue. Would the Union continue to disallow it once she reached adulthood? If she were still the equivalent of a grade schooler, then this could have plausibly placed her in the position of having too-long a wait to undergo what could ameliorate her thoughts of suicide, which would raised the dramatic stakes of keeping that solution farther out of her reach. However, the fact that the crew -- including Dr. Finn -- regard her as old enough and mature enough to have reached her decision to undergo the surgery seems to imply that she is either at or not too far away from the age of consent (as does the fact that sources gleaned from Google seem to indicate that actress Imani Pullum, who plays Topa, is apparently 18) which makes the episode's silence on this point seem contrived.

Another thing I didn't understand was why the senior staff thought that they had any plausible deniability about Isaac performing the procedure on Topa, given that they all had to arrange the big musical event in order to make it happen, or what the point of it was, if they didn't make a point of ensuring that Klyden was going to be there.

Lastly, I hadn't noticed the issue of the show "padding" out scenes with redundant establishing shots and redundant iterations of shots until Jammer pointed it out in his review of "Mortality Paradox", but godDAMN did I notice it in this episode, in the shots showing everyone assembling for the musical assembly. What's up with that? Does the production get paid extra by each second of unnecessary running time?

Still, a good, solid episode that kept me engaged throughout, and which provides pathways for consequences in future episodes.

@Luigi Novi

I've complained about padding in previous episodes but didn't find the shots of the crew assembling padding here. It gave an idea of how large the crew actually is and an image of them as a community who all come together to support Bortus 'in concert', seeing how diverse it is in terms of species was interesting too, and the contrast between the bustle in the corridors/the audience filling up and the then silent rather eery empty corridors as a contrast was effective. It also gave a sense of build up to Topa's procedure.

I wonder if the child's name, Topa, has any larger meaning.

To’pah/toppa’ is a Klingon swear word meaning “animal" ("You incompetent topa!" - from TNG's "The Chase").

Topas is also Portuguese for "uncertain origin" or "half breed" and in Italian is a slur for female genitalia.

Has it been established that Moclan kids grow at a rapid rate? Topa seems to have grown at least twice as fast as a human kid.

I quite liked the episode, I just thought while watching it that TNG would have done a far better job.

For one, there was only one plot thread and that was very predictable. Klyden had no argument, which wasn't surprising because he was basically a stand-in for trans rights opponents, but at least they could have given Moclan society or biology something to strengthen his position.

There was also Claire's duty of care for Topa, which I didn't think was fulfilled by letting Isaac, a machine, perform surgery in her absence. We have robotic surgery right now and doctors don't wander off for a coffee break while letting it do its work. We know Isaac has a tendency to misunderstand things and I would have said in a medical situation, supervision would be crucial.

It's not just this episode, but I'm finding the show lacks subtlety and ingenuity. It's pleasant to watch, but it oversimplifies things and tackles hard questions with easy answers.

Haven’t commented here in a while, but I was just very impressed by this episode. In tears much of the time.

Regarding the conversation above, Union policy does not allow children to undergo surgical transition without parental consent—but it only requires 1 parent, which I think makes sense given the likelihood of species that reproduce asexually, not to mention single parents.

To me, this is exactly the right balance to strike when confronting children’s rights. It’s true that they should not be making major health decisions on their own, but they are still autonomous people. What was key here is what Claire said, they, the adults, let Topa *guide* them to the decisions that they made on her behalf. They listened to her, took note of her dysphoria and possible suicidal ideation; they asked her questions and took steps to educate her about the full range of possibilities that might make her happy. Well, all except Klyden, who couldn’t put his daughter’s needs above his own.

Klyden definitely is a bigot (so are a couple posters on this thread), but the episode correctly attributes that bigotry to his own trauma. In the end, his bigotry isn’t his most damning fault, it’s his selfishness.

4 stars

I've thought about it for a while, and I've changed my mind about this episode.

I think that the last two years, in which:

1. The topic was forcefully shoved down our throats non-stop in aggressive ways, silencing and bullying any person who dared to voice a different opinion.

2. It was always coupled with completely insane notions, like exposing 7 year-olds en-masse to these concepts, and treating gender swaps with the casualness of changing socks...

have rendered some people, including myself, over-sensitive to any presentation of the topic.

But this situation is not the episode's fault.

I cannot even accuse the episode of being insensitive to the present social climate, because it was written before that situation arose. It ain't Seth's fault that he can't predict the future.


Two more facts that I've been considering:
1. A happy ending to Topa's arc is something that this show really needed.
2. When looked with an objective eye, the episode does not - at all - support any of the crazy notions that are rampant today. If anything, it aptly presents the dangers of allowing twisted social norms to decide a person's gender identity.

And ultimately, this episode also deserves praise for giving us an actual glimpse into the inner struggle of transgender people. Whatever your views on this specific matter, it's always good to have more compassion and more understanding in the world.

So there you have it. I've completely retracted my previous stance, and apologize to anyone if they were offended by my previous statement.

I will also add that this episode was beautifully done on all fronts.

(I do, however, firmly stand by my similar critique to last week's episode)

Don’t you dare apologize Omicron. Don’t even think about it, dude. For what its worth, I also disagree with you, but if someone was offended by characters appearing on their screen, the fault is entirely their own for reading them.

And he is still pushing transphobic narratives about how people are being transed or rushed into being trans !WHILE AGAIN PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST! It's is essentially his version of "some of my best friends are trans but". Of course he cannot say directly that because he has probably never had a meaningful conversation with a trans person in his life. Now he can whine again about how horrible it is that he is getting push back for promoting those narratives. #intolerantlivesmatter

Here the debunking of his narrative.
https://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/en/page/debunking-transphobic-talking-points-longer-version#rushed

It's also quite revealing that none of the guys who pushed the "puberty blockers are poison" narrative have even acknowledged the fact they are used for decades, mostly in non trans contexts and are very save. They didn't care about the treatment of precocious puberty, which affects around 1% of all children. They only started to talk about puberty blockers when they noticed them in relations to transpeople. The willful ignorance is also very revealing.

If you want to talk about problematic genital surgery, intersex people would be useful because many intersex people are actually turned into girls shortly after birth and then have to undergo sex change operations later on. Why are they turned into girls? A surgeon ones put it very bluntly "It's easier to dig a hole than to build a tower."

Outstanding episode, four stars. Other than the "horror" ep, the Orville is bringing it this season!

I agree that nuTrek would not touch this, and not just because they'd be afraid of the issue. This was mainly just people talking in rooms, no pew-pew space battles, which is nice from time to time.

@The Empath: "A little drawn out, could have been tighter."

It could have been, but as others have said, unlike some other episodes I really don't mind that it was allowed to go this long.

@OTDP: "I'd love to hear Slacker Inc's take on this episode. After all the justifications he gave the propaganda of last week, this week he is oddly silent.
Gee, I wonder why that may be... ;-)"

Oh jeez. The actual reason is pretty boring: our credit card issuer changed from VISA to Master Card, which meant a whole new card number (despite our being years away from the previous expiration date) and an annoying series of monthly providers we had to go correct payment info with. In the case of Disney (we have Hulu with their bundle, also including Disney+ and ESPN+), it didn't take, and after multiple consultations with customer service, we had to cancel our account and start from scratch. Which meant it took a few days before I was able to watch the episode. Mmkay?

"But no, this does not mean that performing transition treatments on (real human) 10-year-old boys is anything less than a perverted abomination."

Apparently you missed when Claire said it was Union policy not to do gender reassignment surgery on anyone under 18? She argued convincingly that this was an exception because the idea was just to change Topa BACK to what she started off life as.

"PC-cult woke madness remains PC-cult woke madness, regardless of the touching (and very-well made) story we've seen here."

Yes, I agree. And I doubt Seth disagrees. This very well-aimed joke was after all on his show (I know he doesn't write it anymore, but he does the voices and I'm sure has veto power): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59kf86v_Cpc

"I oppose two things:
1. Transgender procedures of any kind IN CHILDREN (exception: kids who were born intersex anyway)
2. Treating the transgender thing as some kind of "silver bullet" for adults who are unhappy with their bodies.

On the other hand, I support:
1. Giving adults total freedom to do whatever they want with their bodies.
2. Acknowledging that the transgender option is AT TIMES a good one.
3. Respecting people as human beings, and stop being so obsessive with gender roles and gender issues.

Now, if a person thinks that the above constitutes "bigotry", that's their very own problem."

I agree 100% with all of this, and I support Rowling and other "TERFs".

"The problem, sir"

I've always pictured Booming as a "ma'am". Am I wrong?

"I also maintain that a good deal of 'gender dysphoria' is caused by social norms and gender roles. Many cases of men who 'wants to be women' are simply cases of men who want to adopt stereotypical woman behavior. A lot of trouble could be avoided here, if society simply stopped demanding people to conform to any specific gender role."

Also agree with this. As does my mother, a far-left professor emeritus of sociology (which got her estranged from a couple of her women's studies professor friends).

@C.T. Phipps: "I think a decent Alternate Character Interpretation is the Moclans are choosing to interpret events that way because they do recognize the Kaylon threat and are looking for a face saving political measure."

I agree with this, and it was even hinted at in their reasoning when discussing the idea.

[I wrote the above as I read each comment. OTDP clarified/changed some things, but I didn't go back to edit my earlier responses.]

@Booming
"Now people who have an opinion different from yours are blind followers and fanatics."

That's not what I said at all.

Twisting my words again, are we?

"And he is still pushing transphobic narratives about how people are being transed or rushed into being trans !WHILE AGAIN PROVIDING NO EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST! It's is essentially his version of "some of my best friends are trans but". Of course he cannot say directly that because he has probably never had a meaningful conversation with a trans person in his life.

Now he can whine again about how horrible it is that he is getting push back for promoting those narratives. #intolerantlivesmatter"

Wow.

First an implication that I have a brain tumor, then twisting my words, and then... the above rant.

This gal is just a bundle of joy that doesn't stop giving. All in the name of diversity and preaching tolerance, of-course.

And people wonder why I adamantly refuse to have discussions about delicate topics (like the transgender issue) with this person. What a profound mystery, eh?

@Omicron
"That's not what I said at all."
Here what you wrote.
"The problem is that you guys are blindly following a social trend with religious zeal, and it is simply impossible to reason with a fanatical believer."
How did I get blind followers and fanatics from that sentence?! It's a mystery.

" First an implication that I have a brain tumor, then twisting my words, and then... the above rant."

Omicron you are arguing to limit transrights. You can wrap that in flowery speech but in the end by calling puberty blockers or gender affirming treatment for minors perverse abominations you are arguing for a rollback of transrights. Sorry, if me pointing that out or mentioning that your believes are entirely based on feelings bothers you.

Oh and dear sweet Omicron, I said that you must have a brain disease because I was being nice. You repeated the whole "I said I'm a troll" 20+ times now. I told you 20 times that I did not say that. Still you continue. What would you call somebody who constantly tells hurtful lies about somebody?

I've always said the great thing about The Orville's Moclan storyline is the fact that it isn't a direct analogy for any LGBT issue on Earth. That's part of what makes it so interesting to explore and why the show has repeatedly struck gold with these thoughtful episodes. As such, I'm surprised to read reviews seeing this as a simple trans story when it's far from that.

Consider this: at this moment in time in the West (but particularly Anglosphere countries), we have a mass social contagion of teenage girls identifying as non-binary or as male, only to desist within a decade. Some of these girls never go as far as hormones or surgery, so detransition isn't too much of a problem. Yet many in their early teens are put on an affirmative pathway leading to permanent and irreversible physical changes up to and including double mastectomy and even phalloplasty the moment they're old enough to consent. Instead of addressing the toxic culture that leads tomboys and girls who don't fit in to think they're actually boys, we surgically change them into approximations of boys. Once they hit their early twenties and are in a different peer group environment without the influences and stressors that drove their transition, increasing numbers of these girls are realizing that they made a mistake and reclaiming their femalehood. Yet it's not as easy as the procedure shown in this episode. As relevant and hard-hitting as this episode is now, it's going to look brave and prescient in just a few years' time when the class-action lawsuits of detransitioned young women start hitting the headlines.

Topa's detransition is also a great analogy for the kids out there with Munchhausen's by Proxy parents who have deliberately raised their child as the opposite sex due to the desire to have a trans child. This is increasingly happening under the radar - abusive parents (often the mother) do it for social media clout, because they wanted a girl but got a boy (or vice versa), or as a way to get back at their ex-partner. Topa discovering that she was forcibly transitioned as an infant and brought up as the opposite sex purely to satisfy her zealot parent's gender ideology is a powerful scene that recalls the case of David Reimer.

It's an incredible episode with stellar performances, writing and direction, somehow even more powerful than the season opener which deftly addressed the topic of suicide. Peter Macon is just fantastic as usual, Adrienne Palicki is really great too, and Imani Pullum is to be highly commended in a difficult role under heavy makeup.

I’ll add 2 things:

1. It’s amazing to me that the folks who ascribe the visibility of trans kids to “indoctrination” by nefarious adults in no way question whether their own beliefs have been indoctrinated into themselves. The horror stories about tomboys cutting their boobs off is such obvious and easily disprovable conspiratorial Shylock that I’m embarrassed for those who take it seriously.

2. I’m 34 years old, so I’m old enough to remember the same panic around my sexual orientation—horror stories about gay men lurking near school playgrounds with ambitions to “turn” kids to their side, or worse—that the current backlash of transphobia is profoundly sad. I really hope these kids don’t have to suffer as much as my generation did before these outrage machine hucksters and gullible concern trolls crawl back into their corners.

Fair point N.

On reflection, the episode would have been more interesting for me if Topa wanted to join the Moclan's academy (and for some reason was barred from joining the Union's). That would have meant she had to be male, and the argument against would have been a lot stronger for both Klyden and Topa. Then the fact that Topa still wanted to transition despite giving up his chance at the academy would have been a lot more powerful, and also bittersweet.

Still a very good episode, and I'm aware I should be cherishing episodes like this more since Star Trek lost any interest in science fiction once Enterprise ended.

*shlock, not Shylock. Ah, how I’ve missed the uneditable comment section.

@Booming
" You repeated the whole 'I said I'm a troll' 20+ times now. I told you 20 times that I did not say that. Still you continue"

I think your behavior in the past 48 hours speaks for itself. :-)

Now, are you going to finally accept my "no"? You can't force a person into a discussion, you know.

I would also like to remind you, that there are plenty of other people here who share my views on pre-puberty transitioning. So if the topic is really important to you, why not debate it with them? At the very least, it would make a more interesting read then this continued pointless rant against a single poster.

(I would however like to know whether N's claim that many teenage girls identifying as male desist within a decade, if anyone can verify)

@ Tom

N’s claim is at most unprovable, but what data exist suggest that detransitioning is exceedingly rare.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/detransition-or-retransition-5093126#toc-retransition-statistics

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/dispelling-myths-around-detransition

@Tom
Oh he just made all that up. Omicron, him and the others here just imagine that this could happen and based on that want to take away rights of an oppressed minority. The whole "parents try to produce trans kids on purpose" is a nice twist. I'm sure many right wing people will believe that outright.

It's like thirty years ago when people were constantly talking about homosexuals tricking children into their lifestyle. It's the exact same pattern. It's also fairly close to the anti abortion narratives. "It's not about taking away, no, it's just about protecting children."

Of course as I did in this thread several times. None of them can produce any statistics or facts of any kind because they do not exist. The facts that do exist contradict everything they say.

@Omicron
"this continued pointless rant against a single poster."
Let me get the smallest violin...

Oh and don't get me wrong I'm mostly talking about you, not with you. You obviously have no substantive arguments for your views, so there is nothing to discuss. So when I ask you to discuss this then I know that you won't because you can't. I'm just doing it to highlight to other people that you have no facts, that you are making this all up. Maybe you are even so far gone that you believe it. Who knows? Who cares. Doesn't really matter. So if you, based on feelings and paranoia, want to take away the rights of a minority then that is just your view. You are arguing for taking away the some of the rights that trans people have right now. You are attacking an oppressed minority to make yourself feel better.

That is really all there is to say about you.

And the cherry on top is right wing men bemoaning the toxic culture women have to live in and use that to discriminate transpeople. Who do you think creates and perpetuates this toxic culture?!

Fun fact: Most intolerant group towards trans people and most sexist towards women in the USA:"Right wing men." *gasp*

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/11/deep-partisan-divide-on-whether-greater-acceptance-of-transgender-people-is-good-for-society/

https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-60-percent-republicans-dont-want-woman-president-lifetime-poll-902254

SlackerInc said:

"Apparently you missed when Claire said it was Union policy not to do gender reassignment surgery on anyone under 18?"

Well technically she said "on a minor". We don't know exactly what the Union cutoff age for that is, but it's almost certain still post-puberty. All indications are that both of Claire's sons still qualify as minors.

@ jackal

“True, but the Moclans (like the Klingons) are a warrior race. I don't think the average Starfleet officer would stand much of a chance against a civilian Klingon (the fact Jadzia could hold her own against Worf was made to look surprising and unusual, despite her extensive familiarity with Klingon culture and fighting techniques), and it seems like The Orville is going for kind of a similar concept here with the Moclans.”

There are more scenes than I can count of Starfleet officers holding their own against Klingons and giving as good as they get….

… there was also an earlier Orville episode where Kelly held her own against Moclan warriors.

Honestly except when the needs of plot require it (see recent SNW episodes with the Gorn) our heroes seem to be able to fight just about anyone on an equal footing.

Just watched it, holy shit. This is peak TNG tier. Easily one of this show’s best episodes ever.

> I've always said the great thing about The Orville's Moclan storyline is the fact that it isn't a direct analogy for any LGBT issue on Earth. That's part of what makes it so interesting to explore and why the show has repeatedly struck gold with these thoughtful episodes.

@N:

I've belabored this point myself in my head, and we aren't alone. Good sci-fi presents an allegory that works on multiple levels (not just a thinly veiled "Komms" are the Soviets and "Yangs" are freedom-loving Americans, not let me read from the Founding Fathers' documents). It also presents two or more sides in a fair light (Klyden has personal experience and in his mind is protecting his culture and his child) even if the story ultimately comes down in favor of a rival perspective. Exploring both sides and presenting actual "dilemmas" and not justing posing True/False questions on the Social Justice Pop Quiz is so much more interesting. Should women be allowed to vote? Yes. Of course. How dare anyone insinuate otherwise. Booooorrrring. Even if I agree.

That Season 2 episode with the planet of hidden female refugees asks "How do keep a federation going when one of your major constituent cultures believes strongly and sincerely in something most other members find repulsive ... and that planet's membership is vital to your survival ... do you sacrifice those women or make a stand and pat yourself on the back as you ensure the annihilation of all life in your galaxy or do you compromise ... and what does that say about your morals that you compromised? Where will you compromise next?"

If it were just "Moclus oppresses women; Moclus bad!", then it would be mighty boring.

It's so, so, so much more interesting than "characters see situation XYY that is 99.9% the same as situation XYZ in present-day America and they just shame one side as being bad non-stop" without a solution other than the empty platitude of "be better." (Here's an idea Hollywood/California: don't waste so much damn water and have so many people living in an area that isn't meant to sustain that many people using so many resources, far above the OECD average, while driving to and from everywhere in large vehicles, you damn hypocrites.)

The situation is also not right vs. left as if there are two opinions, one regressive and one progressive.

There are three perspectives.
(1) Men are born with XY chromosomes and produce sperm. Men are also macho and logical. If you are a man who likes flower arrangement and pink and live in the USA, then you need to be corrected. Your father needs to take you on a hunting trip and then to a strip club.
(2) Men are born with XY chromosomes and produce sperm. Women are born with XX chromosomes and produce eggs. Either can have any personality. *And this used to be the stereotypical leftist position before the 2010s. Yes, exceptions exist, but we don't say that humans are not bipedal just because some people lose a leg in war or are born without legs at all.*
(3) There are womanly souls and manly souls. (Nebulously defined at best. Several rely on arbitrary stereotypes or use circular reasoning that a woman who says I'm a woman, which is ... anyone who says I'm a woman.)

You could interpret this episode as being pro-(2) or pro-(3). The language mirrors that of people in Camp (3), but the previous Moclan episode and this episode also embrace (2) in that you can keep the body you were born with -- no modification necessary -- or at least undo modifications already done.

The show doesn't give any credence or time for the reasoning or commandments of (1). Klyden is just subservient to the peer pressure of his homeworld, his homeworld, and obsessed with being "correct" in the eyes of the hive mind of Moclan Twitter or whatever. He is scared and feels weak and ashamed. He finds power in looking for a side to be a crusader of. He can only react and think emotionally and is self-loathing. Isaac spells it out in the medical bay. Instead, the show examines how someone can fall victim to narrow thinking and it doesn't take a straight answer of (2) or (3) because the issue isn't exactly the same, for the same reason that Bajor/The Maquis and the Cardassian Empire aren't exactly like Palestine/IRA and Israel.

The only time I explicitly recall an alien race said to have quantitatively more strength than a human is when Kasidy said Vulcan have "triple the strength" of a human in Take Me Out To The Holosuite", but later in Enterprise we saw Archer hold his own with Vulcans more than once.

It's typically attributed to a planet's environment, but I'd say Vulcan's desolate nature woulds at most give a Vulcan decidedly more stamina than humans, not necessarily brute strength.

I'd say the same for Xelayans in this series, but they've clearly gone for broke with them,...they can basically do Superman like feats in terrestrial environments...everything but the eye lasers.

> not just a thinly veiled "Komms" are the Soviets and "Yangs" are freedom-loving Americans, not let me read from the Founding Fathers' documents

... now let me read from ...

Is what I meant to write.

Lost in the immense shadow of the main story is a subject that Mercer brings up here, not for the first time...namely the ridiculousness of the fact that apparently the Moclans are the only members that provide the Union with weapons and defense material and that the Union has not lifted a finger to remedy that.

Each time Mercer has brought it up is in the wake of a scenario where the Union shows willingness to do or excuse unsavory things it claims not to approve of simply in order to indulge the Moclans. Now that Klyden is gone, this is the new elephant in the room.

As they first discover the burial vault, the music sounds quite similar to Kirk's theme
(G C D E D C A' G') from the Wrath of Khan. Except this one modulates itself by one half step at the end of the phrase.

@Booming
" I'm just doing it to highlight to other people that you have no facts, that you are making this all up"

Why me specifically? There are about a dozen people here who voiced similar opinions. What possible justification could you have to paint this target specifically on my back?

Also, do you really think that a focused attack on one poster is helping your case? It's kinda funny that your response to a person who says "I am not going to engage you because of your aggressive and dishonest debate tactics" is to behave precisely as they claim you do.

"Oh and don't get me wrong I'm mostly talking about you, not with you."

So how about you stop talking about me? Nobody here cares about your personal petty squabbles.

@N: You raise great points, really underlining why it's strange for anyone to take this episode as trans activist propaganda. As I said, I'm totally on JK Rowling's side and pretty sensitive to how trans activists have become sacred cows in modern culture--but I didn't detect that in the slightest here. (It relates more to anti-circumcision activism, really, which seemed to come up in the discussion of the first Topa episode but hasn't been mentioned here.)

BTW, I'm sure @Booming will insist that it's incredibly rare [yup, confirmed later in the thread], but by whatever amazing coincidence I personally know one of those de-transitioned girls. My eldest children's stepsister was a girl, started calling herself a boy (with a different name) in early adolescence, then by a year or so later was like "never mind". Fortunately I don't believe she had any surgery or drugs.

Speaking of @Booming: "And the cherry on top is right wing men bemoaning the toxic culture women have to live in and use that to discriminate transpeople."

JK Rowling is not a man and not right wing; I am a man but not right wing, and we both bemoan that culture in that exact way. As does my sociologist mother who is on the far left. Maybe try to open your horizons a bit.

@Jonathan: "It's so, so, so much more interesting than 'characters see situation XYY that is 99.9% the same as situation XYZ in present-day America and they just shame one side as being bad non-stop' without a solution other than the empty platitude of 'be better.'"

Very well put!

@Jaxon: "It's typically attributed to a planet's environment, but I'd say Vulcan's desolate nature woulds at most give a Vulcan decidedly more stamina than humans, not necessarily brute strength."

It can vary a lot on the same planet, even between closely related species. Chimpanzees share 99% of human DNA, but are significantly stronger. Homo Heidelbergensis is even more closely related genetically but was over seven feet tall and extremely powerful.

Like most of you, I enjoyed this episode and thought it was very well done. I'll sidestep the political / social mudslinging by some in this comment thread, but will say this - transitioning is not a simple thing and there is certainly no one-size-fits-all answer. Every child who feels uncomfortable in their body is an individual and needs to be treated as such, with compassion and understanding, not slogans or as political pawns.

Another thought - Topa has just been abandoned by her previously very loving and doting father in a very hurtful way. That's sure to have deep emotional repercussions. I wonder if they'll revisit that at some point.

@Omicron
"Why me specifically? There are about a dozen people here who voiced similar opinions."
You started this and I'm counting 4-5 so far. Again I'm amazed by your ability to ignore the simple fact that you argue for taking away trans rights. Right now there are almost 90 bills in the US limiting trans rights. As I outlined, you and SlackerInc and the rest are using the same arguments homophobes used towards homosexuals 30 years ago. Danger to children, people are tricked into the lifestyle, trans conversion therapy as a solution. Well, in the end you will probably lose this fight but I'm sure on the way people like you will hurt many millions of trans people. The foundational text of the so called terf's is this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transsexual_Empire

In it the author writes:"The problem of transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence. ... . I believe that the elimination of transsexualism is not best achieved by legislation prohibiting treatment and surgery but rather by legislation that limits it."
So are you just a useful idiot in the attempt to eliminate transsexuals or do you know what you partake in?

@SlackerInc
I'm really fascinated by you people. I quote a scientific study done by Harvard medical and you then mention that you know one case of which you apparently know next to nothing and declare that more important than a peer reviewed study of more than 17000 people by the most reputable scientific institution in the country. In which the main reason for detransitioning was societal pressure, not that the people who detransitioned thought that they weren't trans. At least Jason was honest enough to outright declare that no scientific evidence can change his mind. For example, Germany lost 59 soldiers in Afghanistan, still I know one guy whose close relative was one of those 59 but I do not conclude from that that there were far more combat death.

And to point it out to you. You are perpetuating a transphobic talking point. If you people would succeed to forbid for example puberty blockers, then that would not only do great damage to trans people but also to people with precocious puberty. Karl Zimmerman pointed out that his daughter has that. I also know somebody.

"And the cherry on top is right wing men bemoaning the toxic culture women have to live"
The point I was making here was that it's first and foremost right wing men who create the toxic culture towards women.

Rowling's reasons are apparently a general fear of men. She was severely abused by a heterosexual men during a relationship and openly admits that her behavior is in many ways pathological. But only because she has made awful experiences doesn't give her the right to discriminate another group. I love the story where Stephen King wrote a long post praising her for her writing to which she reacted quite pleased and when somebody asked him about the trans issue he agreed that:"trans women are women." and Rowling's blocked him immediately and erased her loving response to his praise.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/stephen-king-jk-rowling-trans-row-b1850212.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2021/05/24/jk-rowling-canceled-stephen-king-for-supporting-transgender-women/

Ok and because nobody pointed it out specifically and some are already pushing lies. In the USA you have to be at least 16 to get hormone replacement and 18 for gender reassignment surgery.

@Booming
"I'm really fascinated by you people. I quote a scientific study done by Harvard medical..."

Yeah, how curious.

For years you've antagonized almost everyone here and made a mockery of all attempts to engage with you in an honest discussion.

And now you're shocked to learn that nobody wants to follow your links and waste their time wading through your bullsh*t and seperating the lies from the truth? Even when what you're saying directly contradicts their personal experience?

Me thinks you have a serious credibility problem. And you might want to change your tactics here, because your current approach is doing your stance far more harm then good.

Unless, that is, you enjoy annoying others and wrecking havoc so much, that you're prepared to sacrifice your position in order to achieve that high. In that case, my advice to you is to continue, because you're excelling that part.

:D
Ok, Omicron. Thanks for your concern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plteXDmbA2I

So funny to see the amount of butt hurt conservatives writing their anti-trans crap here like it’s still 1995. Move on dinosaurs, Trek has.

@Booming

Whatever gave you the impression that I am "concerned"?

It's not my problem.

I just find it amusingly ironic, that a *social scientist* can be so oblivious to the social effects of their conduct. It's so absurd, that I just couldn't help myself pointing it out.

Enjoy shooting yourself in the foot. ;-)

Hahaha OMG
ok, advice then. Thanks for the advice.

Booming said: “Rowling's reasons are apparently a general fear of men. She was severely abused by a heterosexual men during a relationship and openly admits that her behavior is in many ways pathological.”

Rowling also has basic facts mixed up. She thinks trans women are a threat to women in women's only bathrooms – because she denies they are women at all, but are men, whom she essentializes as rapists – when all data shows that it's trans women being assaulted in men's bathrooms. Note too that she doesn't care about trans men – who by her own definition are women – attending men's bathrooms, again where the data shows they're overwhelmingly assaulted.

In other words, a Christian woman who denies that her arguments stem from her personal prejudices, and couches her arguments in the “concerns of a feminist”, is by her own definitions turning a blind eye to the assault of what she deems to be women.

When presented with facts like these, she will double down. This is unsurprising, as belief largely springs from who we are and how we behave, rather than facts . And moral hysteria tends to always stem from an unconscious belief that something is perverted, with what is deemed perverted always being that which deviates from what is considered orthodox. Homosexuality and miscegenation were similarly deemed deviant, largely as a result of certain people being predisposed to have heightened disgust responses to certain things (religiosity, traditionalism and cognitive inflexibility correlate with disgust sensitivity). A lot of these fears and concerns are a post-hoc justification of a disavowed revulsion.


Booming said: "As always. Not facts, just threats and feelings. "

The scientist who coined the term "moral panic" defined it as when "a condition, person or group emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests. While the issues identified may be real, the claims EXAGGERATE the seriousness, extent, typicality and/or inevitability of harm."

Before he died, he predicted that trans issues would lead to the next moral panic.

Meanwhile, in the real world, a doctor is more likely to kill someone by prescribing aspirin than "wrongly transition" a child, or even an adult. And there's no "nefarious agenda" to turn kids gay, or promote mixed race breeding, or feminize men, or push kids toward transitioning, or allow American Indian rapists to live amongst the pilgrim wimin. This is classic hysteria. To believe this is to accuse scientists and the medical establishment (and parents) of being monsters.

The practices they develop, and continue to develop, are a reasonable attempt to address problems and weigh costs and benefits (for every person who benefits from a late transition, is another who would have suffered less or avoided suicide due to a much earlier one etc). The guidelines and limitations the medical establishment imposes on itself are a reasonable and responsible compromise. The idea that doctors are trigger happy to transition kids, or that kids are being duped by an evil cabal, is a giant, exaggerated strawman. It's like the satanic panics of the 1980s.


Omicron said: “which have all the characteristics of an organized religion."

It's the other way around. The vast majority of anti trans stuff comes from religious organizations, and media organizations, websites and think tanks with close links to religious or right wing organizations, all of whom engage in deliberate fear-mongering (the top trending Ben Shapiro video last week compared the “trans lobby” to a “cult of Moloch which sacrifices babies”).

The infamous paper used to prove that “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” is a thing was itself done by a Christian scientist who harvested their data not from patients, but Catholics and Christian parents on religious, anti-trans blogs (since then we've had many large scale studies debunking this “social contagion” narrative).

Omicron said: “I also maintain that a good deal of "gender dysphoria" is caused by social norms and gender roles...”

There may be a handful of people for whom this is true – just like there are some people who are wrong about themselves being gay – but this is not true for a “good deal” of gender dysphoria. The largest studies on this question (eg in 2021, by the Journal of Pediatrics), explicitly conclude things like: “We did not find support for this etiologic phenomenon”, and that “associations between more recent gender knowledge and factors hypothesized to be involved in rapid onset gender dysphoria were either not statistically significant, or were in the opposite direction to what would be hypothesized.”

And to argue that "transgenderism reinforces gender roles" is to basically argue that transgender folk would lose their dysphoria if it was normal to cross-dress. ie - if every woman on the planet wore more "male" clothing, "did manly stuff" and were more "gender fluid" , a transman would feel more comfortable not transitioning. That absurdly tasks the entire planet with breaking free from their gender roles (many would deem this an imposition), forces the trans person to wait on that magical day, and that's not how dysphoria works anyway; there's a visceral hatred for the body on a kind of deep-seated chemical and physical level, not necessarily the gendered tropes that comes with it (and indeed, many trans folk who adhere to no gender tropes, still feel dysphoria).

Kinda funny how everyone has a go at modern trek as being supposedly woke, and yet when The Orville does it, nothing! These are obviously hot topics in our world at the moment that Seth is mining from.

After the lackluster Shadow Realms I said we needed a Bortus episode, stat. It took a while but we finally got it.

And it gave us one of the best episodes of the show. Truly excellent, everything and everyone firing on all cylinders here. Adrianne Palicki is f-a-n-t-a-s-t-i-c here. Great script by Seth, emotinal, layered, and not afraid to show consequences. Great directing as well. This might be his best work yet on the show.

Topa's plight breaks your heart, and the ending is perfect. It will be hard to get back to space battles and run-of-mill plot heavy episodes after this. I wil be very surprised if this doesn't get four stars, or at leass 3.5. It's a winner, easy.

All these transphobes here like Slacker and Omicron thinking trans people existing is an abomination and indoctrination not even realizing that they are the Klyden of their stories, having been indoctrinated themselves.

This. Is. The. Series. Finale.

While I hate to admit it, I like a certain amount of *pew,pew, pew!* in my Star Trek (and -more-or-less-Star-Trek) episodes.
Otherwise, said episode better be The Inner Freaking Light (not The-Visitor-good, not The-City-On-The-Edge-of-Forever-good, The-Inner-Light-good...Did some pen or desk from the set of The Visitor sell at auction for x100-over-estimate...nope, that was that flute from The Inner Light 😢)

Anyway, this episode is that good. And the score during the last 30 seconds of the episode knows it.

With this episode, Seth McFarlane has crafted his "now we live in you" moment.

Play your flute in your quarters, "Tale Of Two Topas"...You've earned it.

The transphobes on this site are no different than the people who made all the exact same arguments against gay people back in the day. "The pervert deviants are coming to corrupt your kids!"

They're just new versions of the same people. Years from now, when people look back on this period in history where transphobia is considered a respectable bigotry, posts like theirs will be little time capsules of hate from small minds with big victim-complexes.

A very timely NYT op-ed which I would commend @Booming and others to read: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/opinion/the-far-right-and-far-left-agree-on-one-thing-women-dont-count.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/opinion/the-far-right-and-far-left-agree-on-one-thing-women-dont-count.html?referringSource=articleShare

@Jason: I'm not a conservative, and neither is JK Rowling. In my adult lifetime I voted for Gore, Kerry, Obama twice, Clinton, Biden. My super left-wing mother agrees with me on this and she voted for Ralph Nader twice. Neither she nor I are the least bit religious. But I know it's easier for you (and Booming, et al) to just put anyone who disagrees with you about trans issues in the "conservative" box so you don't have to think very hard or deal with any nuance. 🙄

@TheRealTrent: You engaged in a fallacy there, perhaps unknowingly. I have seen basically the same fallacy applied to people with schizophrenia, especially after mass shootings by schizophrenics. Someone might raise the concern that a schizophrenic person is more likely than someone who is not mentally ill to engage in violence. Someone else will counter with the factoid that schizophrenics are more likely to be victims than assailants. This may be true, but it doesn't shed any light on the question of whether they are more likely than neurotypical people to commit violent acts. It may well be (and this is where my money would go) that people who behave erratically are more likely to hurt other people and also to make themselves targets of violence.

And the real moral panic is when people say op-eds like the one I linked to "cause harm" or "put trans lives at risk" (BTW, another common fallacy is the idea that there is an epidemic of Black transwomen being murdered, when a careful look at the statistics shows that they are no more likely to be murdered than cisgender Black people are.)

Speaking of an incredible lack of nuance:

@John Harmon: I will thank you not to slander me by putting words like "abomination" in my mouth (or my keyboard) that I never uttered or typed. 😡

Agree with many here saying this is one of if not the best Orville episode (and there have been some good ones!), and one that had me going for the Kleenex a number of times. Amazing DUAL performance of both Topas, one of Palicki’s best performances, and while the singing was just okay, Peter Macon also had one of his finest outings, and everyone had a superb script to work with. Maybe it’s because someone’s Seemingly bursting into tears every five minutes on DISCO, but both Bortus’ and Topa’s tears felt REAL and hit me hard. Between these last couple Orvilles and SNW being either fun or good (or both), it’s been a fine time to be a Trek fan.

Also…you guys can’t fight in here!

@SlackerInc
Now you want me to read an article from the !opinion! section of the New York Times. Where is my stress ball?!
And you are comparing schizophrenia to transsexualism??
Ok, I know that you are not completely gone like Omicron, who obviously at some point thought about me "I will teach this bitch a lesson" As if I had never had to deal with shitty guys on the Internet.

SlackerInc you want to take away trans rights. Plain and simple. You support a group of people, the so called "Terfs", of which a significant part deny that transsexuals exist, that want to ban any kind of trans treatment. Did you read the quotes from the transsexual empire, the foundational text of the terf movement?
Here is another quote:" All transsexuals rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves ... Transsexuals merely cut off the most obvious means of invading women, so that they seem non-invasive."
Radical feminists and right wing extremists working for the same goal. That must be the weird version of the horseshoe theory.

Let's make this concrete. Do you think that puberty blockers should be banned? What do you say to the scientific evidence that they are safe? Puberty blockers are used mostly for precocious puberty, should that be forbidden as well? If you forbid gender affirmative care for trans minors, then the suicide rate, which is finally going down, will very likely go up again. What are your thoughts on that? Do you have any stats that support the claim that significant numbers of women who underwent lasting gender affirming care detransitioned? If a bigger number of women try transsexualism because they struggle with our misogynistic gender norms or lesbianism do you think that is a bad thing? My opinion is that if a significant number of those don't transition than that is not a bad thing. It's like when people experiment with homosexuality. You have to go through years of counseling and live as male (or female) for a long time before anything permanent is done. What are you doing to lessen misogyny in society?

Here an article, not from the opinion section, about Rowlings.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/03/the-metamorphosis-of-j-k-rowling-00043835

Excellent episide, full on gender critical messages. Well done Seth, you wonderful man. Patriarchal and misogynist Moclan society is a perfect mirror for the "trans community".

Topa is a girl, abused and mutilated by her abusive, transgender parent Klyde, who herself suffers from internalized misogyny and believes being female, being part of a binary sex system, is wrong.

Wow. So well done.

And Commander Grayson was awesome here. She went almost full GC feminist while chiding Klyde for mutilating her baby girl and denying her her womanhood. So powerful.

And then Isaac, who challenged Klyde by deeming her cultural misogyny incorrect.

And the ending is just perfect. The pro trans zealots are enraged, but Topa is safely aboard the Orville with her loving father. Wow.

Topa is just such a great allegory for all the young lesbians who have been fooled into abandoning their womanhood by activists. Her friendship with Grayson is truly heartwarming.

And then, of course, the speech by the woman who lived in the mountains but comes down to defend her sister.

Damn, this episode could have been written by JK Rowling. But it was Seth McFarlane. Unbelievable. This changes my view of him.

While I think the episode is an obvious metaphor for transgenderism and the challenges associated with it for the individuals who wish to transition, I feel like we may do the story a dissrevice by pigeonholing it as a "one messege episode". It's about many other things: parenting, free will, oppression by society, the rights of the individual within a military structure, sacrifice, self-fullfillment, and of course, exacavating pyramids :-)

Someone here had a the great insight that the B story, while seeming insignificant, is actually a metaphor for the main story. That is... impressive. Both the insight - because I didn't think about it myself - and the fact that it's in the script. That's why the script works so well, it's thematically reach and nothing is wasted here. It's super tight and staisfying.

@Dave the bear wrestler

Klyden is not a she, Klyden regards himself as a he and has had the surgery. So I'm not sure what your point is in misgendering him but supporting Topa's biological reversion to her birth gender.

I think it is great that guys like Dave the Beer Wrestler, whose only contact with the lesbian community so far has probably been pornography, has now become such a strong and sincere supporter of queer causes.

@Lynos

Yes, eg Issac taking the arrows for the team and protecing them from the danger of the booby trap was echoed by what he did later in stepping in to perform the surgery.

@ Booming

Oh yes it's beer, thought it said bear! I must polish my glasses.

@booming

polished them...hey, it is bear. :D

@booming

Do you think I missed the pathetic sarcasm in dave the beer's post on my first reading? I give up. I am abandoning this thread forever!!!

@artymiss
I beg your pardon?? I didn't see your post before I posted my reaction to Dave tbr. :)

whoops I meant dave tbw not tbr. In my mind his name has already morphed into Dave, the Beer Restler.

@artymiss

Tue, Jul 5, 2022, 1:44am (UTC -5)
@Dave the bear wrestler

Klyden is not a she, Klyden regards himself as a he and has had the surgery. So I'm not sure what your point is in misgendering him but supporting Topa's biological reversion to her birth gender.

Klyden IS a she. This is what is so upsetting to him and what is surfacing in Topa. If the surgery completely turned her into a man (in both cases), then why would they have any issues? Good lord, having surgery here, just like on Earth in the present, doesn't change your gender, it just changes the curtains.

@Yanks

The surgery isn’t what makes Klyden a man or Topa a girl, it’s their internal sense of identity. Klyden’s was forced upon him, but he still accepts and internalises it—as far as we know—and until he starts identifying differently, he is correctly referred to as a man.

The question is actually pretty tricky. Is there transsexualism in Moclan culture? Is Klyden a transsexual? Does Klyden have gender dysphoria now? It is true, though as long as he identifies as such, he should be considered male.

@Elliott

"The surgery isn’t what makes Klyden a man or Topa a girl, it’s their internal sense of identity. Klyden’s was forced upon him, but he still accepts and internalises it—as far as we know—and until he starts identifying differently, he is correctly referred to as a man."

The surgery was forced on both of them. Now they BOTH have hate for knowing about the procedure. Klyden doesn't have the youthful viewpoint that Topa does. Klyden is worried about acceptance in Moclain culture, Topa does not. Klydan even said it in the episode. something to the effect "it was the worst thing that ever happened to me" when he was referring to learning of his surgery. I think deep down, he wishes he could be reverted back like Topa was. Neither is a man.

@Yanks

I don’t disagree with your reading of the fictional character, but it is still a question of autonomy and choice. The trauma undergirding Klyden’s likely dysphoria is important, but he identifies as a man, therefore he is a man.

@Booming: "Do you think that puberty blockers should be banned?"

No. Like most things, there are valid medical uses for them. Feeling weird about how your body is changing in adolescence, at the normal time that happens, is not one of those.

"If you forbid gender affirmative care for trans minors, then the suicide rate, which is finally going down, will very likely go up again. What are your thoughts on that?"

My thoughts are that (1) I don't accept your premise; (2) Even if we take it as true for the sake of argument, reducing suicide rates is not the be-all, end-all of medical treatment. If it were, we could go back to lobotomies and straitjackets.

"If a bigger number of women try transsexualism because they struggle with our misogynistic gender norms or lesbianism do you think that is a bad thing?"

Yes, I do. We should be more supportive of women with all kinds of personalities, including supporting lesbians, rather than seeing becoming stereotypical masculine men, with the use of drugs and surgery, as the answer.

"What are you doing to lessen misogyny in society?"

Other than speaking out? I watch women's tennis and the WNBA with my wife and kids, along with (particularly salient on this forum) undergoing a years-long project to watch Voyager with them so they can see a strong female captain. I am a stay-at-home dad and my wife kept her "maiden" name and gave our younger kids her last name instead of mine. Does that sufficiently meet your approval or does it fall short?

From the Politico article you linked (very interesting, thank you--even if it's a tad slanted):

"[H}er side seems to be winning"

Delighted to hear it.

BTW, I also watched several seasons of the show "transparent" and was happy that they gave gender-critical feminists a fair hearing (in the episode set at the Michigan Women's Music Festival).

I also highly recommend the podcast "Blocked and Reported", started by two liberal journalists (who still advocate voting for Democrats as of the most recent episode) who got canceled for writing articles skeptical of the trans-activist movement.

@Dave the Bear Wrestler: "Damn, this episode could have been written by JK Rowling. But it was Seth McFarlane."

Haha, you make an excellent case. All the more cleverly written that the trans activists don't seem to see it.

"he identifies as a man, therefore he is a man"

Good that this system of "if you state that you are X, then you are X" based solely on someone's say-so isn't open to abuse in any way!

Honest philosophical question: if I sincerely identified as a woman for one-and-a-half days towards the end of 2014, was I a woman during that time?

@Dave the Bear Wrestler yeah you completely missed the point. Conservative bigots still missing the point of Trek-like stories. A tale as old as time

@N

Every system is open to abuse. We don’t throw them out based on that potential.

@SlackerInc
Ok maybe I should have started with that. Do you think that a person can be trans or do you think that transsexuality should not exist as many Terf's do?

Let's get to i then.
"Feeling weird about how your body is changing in adolescence, at the normal time that happens, is not one of those."
That's not what transsexuality is. So you only want to ban transsexuals getting hormone blockers, even against the wishes of the trans minors, the parents and medical professionals or the recommendation of the American Psychological Association? You know better?


"My thoughts are that (1) I don't accept your premise; "
https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/camh.12437

and this (The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical journals on the planet)

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00139-5/fulltext

"Yes, I do. We should be more supportive of women with all kinds of personalities, including supporting lesbians, rather than seeing becoming stereotypical masculine men, with the use of drugs and surgery, as the answer."
I'm not talking about really transitioning. I meant women and specifically lesbians trying out male identities, maybe make some useful experiences and after deciding that they are not trans, go back. Oh and obviously we should do more to support women to be whatever want to be masculine, feminine or something else entirely. Same goes for men, of course.

" Does that sufficiently meet your approval or does it fall short?"
It wasn't about that. I kind of got a little tired having all those right wing guys being pro abortion one day and feminist supporters the next. I know that is not you.

"Delighted to hear it"
Again.
https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/camh.12437
Access was limited in the UK on a wave that she started. In Germany conservatives and the hard right love to quote her now. Even Wladimir Putin defended her. The hard right, religious fundamentalists and parts of the radical feminists. Quite the alliance.

So bottom line, yes, you want to take rights away from transsexuals.

I actually know quite a few "radical" feminists and all of those are pro trans. Here is what Judith Butler said about so called Terf's
"My wager is that most feminists support trans rights and oppose all forms of transphobia. So I find it worrisome that suddenly the trans-exclusionary radical feminist position is understood as commonly accepted or even mainstream. I think it is actually a fringe movement that is seeking to speak in the name of the mainstream, and that our responsibility is to refuse to let that happen. ... . Let us be clear that the debate here is not between feminists and trans activists. There are trans-affirmative feminists, and many trans people are also committed feminists. So one clear problem is the framing that acts as if the debate is between feminists and trans people. It is not."

Here the entire interview.
https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times

whoops, I meant "I kind of got a little tired having all those right wing guys being anti abortion one day and feminist supporters the next."

My bad, I'm drinking fairly expensive, bad white wine (spritzer).

@Elliott

"..., but he identifies as a man, therefore he is a man."

Don't agree at all. Fictional or not.

I believe that we should accept that people are the gender they identify as. However, there's a bit of a temporal bias here as well. I mean, consider Abigail Thorne of Philosophy Tube. Before she came out as being trans, she presented as male, but was very trans positive. She had several Youtube videos where she said something along the lines of "I am not a trans person." If you took Thorne at her word at that time, she was male, but now, we know she was always female, as she has clarified she was deeply in denial.

This matters for The Orville because Klyden is a deeply repressed, deeply misogynistic character who just happens to have been born female. Someone who was secure in their male status would not really care that they "used to be female" - no matter how ugly their culture was. That Klyden projects so much onto Topa suggests he's not male, he's so deeply closeted he's not even willing to admit it to himself.

@Karl

Yes, I agree, but we don’t gender people based on our perceptions of their pathologies; politically and socially, a person tells us who they are and we are obligated to accept it.

Elliot,

Out of courtesy, and in the moment, I may address a person as his preferred pronoun but this doesn’t mean I am obligated to accept it. For me it’s a difference of opinion.

Is the 16 year old daughter of a friend who binds her breasts, wears baggy clothes and her hair short, and calls herself “Isaac” really a boy? And if I disagree with what is presented before me am I a bigot? Or could the “trans” person be a bigot for having a hardline rejection of my opinion of the matter?

I have no words.

"You are perfect"

I have tears in my eyes.

I think the show deserves applause for the nuanced way it handled the issue. The lively debate on this page is proof-positive of the impact that well-done science-fiction have on a cultural debate.

This was well-done science-fiction.

On any other show, I feel like all Topa would have to do is give Klyden an impassioned speech that melts his heart and changes his mind, and the family would be saved. This was a realistic portrayal of a man who underwent a lot of pain and anguish because of his experiences, and all of that doesn't just go away with a few words. It takes a very strong person to accept and admit that maybe he's been wrong about something, and Klyden is not a strong person.

@Troy G.
"I may address a person as his preferred pronoun but this doesn’t mean I am obligated to accept it. For me it’s a difference of opinion."
"It" in this case meaning that the transsexuality of this person is a real thing and, of course, any kind of intolerance is in the most basic sense a difference of opinion. Elliot is, if I'm not mistaken, homosexual. So if you say that you may address the person he has married as his husband but also think that a Human cannot be attracted to his or her own sex, then you are not obligated in a legal sense to believe that homosexuality is a real thing but believing that would make you a homophobe. Being intolerant can come with societal or economical costs if a society decides that a certain intolerance disturbs societal peace.

"And if I disagree with what is presented before me am I a bigot?"
The meaning of the word bigot is pretty fuzzy. What you definitely are if you disagree that transsexuality exists is intolerant and more specifically transphobic.

"Or could the “trans” person be a bigot for having a hardline rejection of my opinion of the matter?"
Believing that a member of an oppressed minority is bigoted for not accepting your intolerance, that is probably something most people would perceive as a good example of bigotry.

"Don't agree at all. Fictional or not."

Ok Yanks. That makes you a bigot

"Out of courtesy, and in the moment, I may address a person as his preferred pronoun but this doesn’t mean I am obligated to accept it. For me it’s a difference of opinion.

Is the 16 year old daughter of a friend who binds her breasts, wears baggy clothes and her hair short, and calls herself “Isaac” really a boy? And if I disagree with what is presented before me am I a bigot? Or could the “trans” person be a bigot for having a hardline rejection of my opinion of the matter?"

No Troy, you are without question a bigot. Your "opinion" doesn't trump someone's identity

I'm late on pointing this out, but I think Booming was inplying that Judith Butler is a radical feminist.

She is the bete noire for radical feminism. She eepresents the undoing of radical and emancipatory feminism. She made feminism a neoliberal consumerist choice in a way. She is the godmother of third wave feminism, a post-modern, individualized take where because no fixed definitions exist and because all narratives are equally subjective we tend toward the logical endpoint of "feminism is when someone seen as a woman chooses to do X."

Radical feminism holds that women and men are just biological variants of humans and that one's personality is separate from genitals. Having XX or XY genes is like having freckles or black hair or hazel eyes. However, the way society treats women, the way men want to use women's bodies and objectify them can impact greatly on how girls and women experience and react to life. This is the same reasoning as anti-racism (or anti-racism outside the West or before 2020). Black people do not have fundamentally different souls or minds. They are however treatly different by society because of their skin color.

It aggravates me that people outside of feminism or outside of academia get this wrong. It's like calling Mohammed the greatest Buddhist to ever live. Radical does not mean extreme. Radical means getting to the root. Radical feminists argue that women's oppression is rooted in how men treat women on the basis of women's bodies. This contrasts with first wave feminism, which had your Lucy Stones but also women who argued that women were funadamentally different from men but equal or thought that women's oppression rested on unequal laws, not social structures.

Radical feminism drew from materialism, leftism, and early second wave feminists like Simone de Beauvoir or the Feminine Mystique author (name?). They still exist. See Gail Dines. The angry bra-burning stand for-your-rights tough tomboy stereotype women (I respect that resolve) had their last hurrah as the face of feminism in the 80s. In the 90s, waters got muddied with Butler and the third wavers. The strawman feminist in popular imagination remained mostly the second waver through the 2000s, after which the Butlerian third wavers were known outside of the ivory tower. Known, but not understood.

@Jonathan
"She is the bete noire for radical feminism."
For some radical feminists. At the same time she is the one, if not the most influential feminist author of our times. That you paint her as some kind of enemy of feminism really says more about you than her. I personally know radical feminists and none of those are anti-trans. Well, thanks for explaining feminism to me. I guess you dislike forth wave feminism even more?

Here from the article I posted
"My point in the recent book is to suggest that we rethink equality in terms of interdependency. We tend to say that one person should be treated the same as another, and we measure whether or not equality has been achieved by comparing individual cases. But what if the individual – and individualism – is part of the problem? It makes a difference to understand ourselves as living in a world in which we are fundamentally dependent on others, on institutions, on the Earth, and to see that this life depends on a sustaining organisation for various forms of life. If no one escapes that interdependency, then we are equal in a different sense. We are equally dependent, that is, equally social and ecological, and that means we cease to understand ourselves only as demarcated individuals."
Doesn't sound like neoliberal individualism to me.

Ok, now you got me going. Second wave was white and middle class and has justifiably been criticized for marginalizing black and lesbian voices. There is a reason why black feminism separated from second wave.

I will stop now but there is certainly more to say but I do not want to have a discussion about what wave of feminism is the real feminist wave.

@Jonathan
The Feminine Mystique was by Betty Friedan.

@ Troy G

"Out of courtesy, and in the moment, I may address a person as his preferred pronoun but this doesn’t mean I am obligated to accept it. For me it’s a difference of opinion."

Sounds like a reasonable take to me.

"Is the 16 year old daughter of a friend who binds her breasts, wears baggy clothes and her hair short, and calls herself “Isaac” really a boy? And if I disagree with what is presented before me am I a bigot?"

No you are not a bigot. I'd say that those who call you a bigot for this take are likely the true bigots and are far more likely to be the truly intolerant ones.

"Or could the “trans” person be a bigot for having a hardline rejection of my opinion of the matter?"

That's possible.

My own impression of Radical Feminism, back when I studied it in college, is basically that sexism/the patriarchy was fundamental to female inequality - that it could not be reduced down to something else. This stands in contrast to liberal feminism, which believed that including women within the liberal framework by breaking down explicit discrimination was sufficient, or Marxist feminism, which believed that female inequality was fundamentally rooted in class differences. Instead gender oppression sits out there on its own axis, and must be dealt with in ways that go beyond fixing more general societal problems.

@Troy G

The intolerance of an opinion is not the same thing as the intolerance of an identity. Your views are bigoted and throwing the accusation of bigotry back against the marginalised person you malign is childish.

Being courteous is…fine, but to whose benefit is your intransigence on this subject?

Finally catching up on S3. With a few of The Orville S3 under my belt and only one episode of SNW left, it's fair to say The Orville remains top tier Trek by a longshot.

Wonderful episode. I really, genuinely loved that.

It's bittersweet seeing this sort of story play out on a series that began as a "parody" of Star Trek, while not a single series from the half dozen Trek shows currently in production are interested in tackling similar subject matter with this degree of depth and care.

"The intolerance of an opinion is not the same thing as the intolerance of an identity." - the term 'identity' here is extremely ill-defined and again open to abuse for that reason. There's a huge gulf between "I identify as X" and "I am X". Rachel Dolezal identifies as black, Stefonknee Wolscht identifies as a 6-year-old girl.

"he identifies as a man, therefore he is a man"

So here's the thing - what about people who identify as neither male nor female? (cf. Adira in Discovery). If someone states that they identify thusly, does it mean that they are neither male nor female? Is someone who still insists on referring to them as "he" or "she" thus a bigot? If the person in question doesn't want to use "they" and instead prefers to go by neopronouns like "xir", is someone who refuses to go along with that a bigot? How far does this go?

I have a local gay friend a few years younger than me who's been with his partner for over a decade. A couple of years ago he told me that his boyfriend had come out as "agender". Fast-forward to the present and now my friend has come out as "non-binary". They're both hairy bearded gay men, and neither has changed anything about their appearance or body nor intends to. As long as I have known them they've both been vocally committed to gay rights, yet now neither even identifies as a man, let alone a gay man. How is this anything other than an internet-mediated mass social contagion? Am I a bigot if I don't refer to my friend, who I'm honestly concerned about for this and other reasons (I think his partner is gaslighting him and also pressured him into opening up their relationship), as "they"?

Elliot,

“Being courteous is…fine, but to whose benefit is your intransigence on this subject?”

Not intransigence, but resistance. Being told I must believe this and conform to that or else I’m a horrible close-minded person.

@Troy this isn't you being defiant because your mom told you to clean your room. This is the very basic standard of treating humans with respect. It's the very least you can do. Just acknowledge them as they wish to be acknowledged. Refusing to do that doesn't make you anything but a close minded bigot

@Rahul ah yes, those who point out bigotry are the ones who are the true bigots. Classic conservative knee-jerk response. "No u"

@N

Agender, NB and gender fluid are all possible gender identifiers. No person is so unreasonable as to expect you to necessarily guess their gender, especially if their gender expression doesn’t signal a clear binary—as an aside, many trans people elect for surgery specifically because they want the gender they are to be immediately assumed based on their appearance. WHY are you so damned busybodied about their lives?

@Troy G

You’re resisting people being who they are? How incredibly brave.

So, there’s no social contagion. If someone says to you, “please call me ‘X’,” what kind of fucked up mentality do you have to have to say “No!” I don’t know your friends or their relationship, but your discomfort with simply addressing the person as they ask to be is bigoted.

There’s a larger historical lesson here—“homosexual” as an identity is much more recent than “homosexual” as an activity. Sometimes, we lack the language to adequately describe who we are and/or what we want to be doing. It sounds to me like your friends identified as gay men because that was the known means of describing who they were. And now they have access to a larger vocabulary that more accurately describes them. Or it could be that their identities have changed over time. I have no idea. And it’s not my business to know, only to respect them.

John, you can sit here and call people bigots all day, but if you want these ideas to ever gain broad acceptance among the general public, you're going to have to start convincing them. Putting conservatives to one side, even just on the left there are a lot of people who have always been feminist and pro-LGBT but who consider a system based solely on "if you say you are a certain gender, then you are" an extremely hard sell. Transgender people have been around for a long time and as recently as a decade ago there was far less controversy around transgender issues, and a big part of the reason for that is that the trans people we typically encountered then were individuals who had fully medically transitioned, were well-integrated and who identified as either clearly male or clearly female. Now we have a situation where people are calling themselves trans based on indefinable in-between states like "genderfluid", "non-binary" etc., and who may not even have gender dysphoria or intend to have any medical interventions. And even many trans-identified people today who DO identify as clearly male or clearly female likewise change little about themselves and don't have surgery - their trans identification might simply be expressed by shorter/longer hair and different clothing. How do you sell to the general public that biological sex no longer has any meaning and all that defines someone's gender is how they feel at a given moment?

@N

Sex and gender aren’t the same thing, and gender confirmation surgery is incredibly expensive. We didn’t convince people—those who apparently had to be convinced—that gay marriage isn’t a threat to straight marriage. We instituted it, the sky didn’t fall, then people’s opinions changed. The onus is on you to explain what is so threatening about the existence of trans people or calling them by their preferred pronouns.

@Elliott

"WHY are you so damned busybodied about their lives?"
"And it’s not my business to know, only to respect them."

And that's your problem - well, not your problem, but what I mean is that in a system that is completely opt-in and based on self-declaration of feelings only, there are a hell of a lot of people who don't have the luxury of not knowing or caring WHY someone has chosen to identify as a particular gender identity, because this directly impacts their lives and rights and others' lives and rights.

There is a straight guy in his fifties who lives a 20-minute drive from my house who committed a number of sex offences, then immediately after being arrested (but before trial) he declared a female identity with the clear intent of being placed in a female prison. He made no effort to transition apart from a wig. Throughout his trial he was referred to as “she” and there were no indications in local newspaper coverage that he was anything but a woman (apart from the photo and people who actually knew him). Fortunately the judge saw through it and placed him in the male estate. But there are many, many cases like this in the U.S., Canada, Scotland etc. where straight male sex offenders with no history of gender dysphoria have gamed the system and indeed been placed in female prisons, where they have gone on to assault female prisoners. This is why I and many many others are "so damned busybodied about their lives" - because we can't afford to be so incurious as to never question the reasons a given individual might choose to identify as transgender, because it massively affects other people's lives on the level of basic safeguarding. If the judge had looked at that sex offender in a wig, who had announced their female gender identity just months earlier, and taken an approach of "it’s not my business to know, only to respect them", the judge would have placed him in the female estate. "If someone says to you, “please call me ‘X’,” what kind of fucked up mentality do you have to have to say “No!” is all very well in a utopia, but we don't live in a utopia.

@N

I am singularly touched by your concern for female prison inmates. I am completely certain you have spent many hours advocating for prison reform so that things like assault don’t happen.

But since yours is such a long struggle, it’s worth picking apart your transparent argument.

1. Should a gay man with a history of sexual assault be imprisoned in a women’s prison? If so, wouldn’t it be much easier for a straight male assaulter to simply pose as gay rather than trans?

2. What about bisexual men? What about lesbians?

Look—the prison system is heinous. But women and men are assaulted in them all the time and the solution to *that* problem isn’t stigmatising the millions of trans people who, you know, aren’t rapists.

@N
" But there are many, many cases like this in the U.S., Canada, Scotland etc. where straight male sex offenders with no history of gender dysphoria have gamed the system and indeed been placed in female prisons, where they have gone on to assault female prisoners."
Apart from the fact that in the USA alone every day more than a thousand women are raped by heterosexual cis men which I'm sure you spend the appropriate amount of time worrying about. So far you have mentioned one case were the system filtered the guy out. So your proof count for those many, many cases stands at zero. Provide either a statistic that proves your point or other verifiable proof.

Until then I only have to say one thing about your story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2XHQhNRGA4

This may help. https://youtu.be/DSx_RbfWUGk

Still no review from Jammer? Is this an ominous sign, or does he love the episode so much he wants to give it its proper due?

@Booming, here's a study on desistance:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841333/

"Adolescence is a crucial time for identity and psychosexual development in young people with gender identity concerns.25 The outcomes of GDC have been discussed in terms of its persistence and desistence. For most children with GDC, whether GD will persist or desist will probably be determined between the ages of 10 and 13 years,26 although some may need more time.27 Evidence from the 10 available prospective follow-up studies from childhood to adolescence (reviewed in the study by Ristori and Steensma28) indicates that for ~80% of children who meet the criteria for GDC, the GD recedes with puberty. Instead, many of these adolescents will identify as non-heterosexual.17,29 Steensma et al26 interviewed adolescents with different outcomes of GDC (persistence or desistance). The adolescents mentioned social environment, the anticipated results of bodily changes and first romantic and/or sexual experiences as central factors in the desistance or persistence of GD."

@N: You post some valid questions. I had to laugh on a recent season of Survivor when a contestant described himself as a gay man whose husband, a trans man, was pregnant with their child. I'm like "Dude, you're freaking Ozzie and Harriet!" 😝 I'm not proposing he be prohibited from describing his family that way, but neither should I be prohibited from raising my eyebrow and thinking it's all a bit silly. And I'm not going to start saying "menstruating people" or "people with vaginas" instead of "women and girls".

@John Harmon
"All these transphobes here like Slacker and Omicron thinking trans people existing is an abomination..."

Nope. I do not think that.

You know who I feel sorry for?

People who can't escape this kind of toxic aggressiveness due to their life circumstances. Those who are forced to endure this witch-hunt mentality at work or at school, day after day.

We're two years into this madness and there's no end in sight. It's sickening.

The episode needed something more. The last 25 minutes was just way too predictable. Clyden is far too boring and one note as well. Everyone knows what's going to happen in the last act and all that's left is to watch it tediously play out.

Lots of things could have happened here. There could have been unforeseen complications and the surgery didn't go exactly as planned. No one's expecting Isaac to fail, so why not? Or, after Clyden gets beaten back from the sick bay, he should have come back with a phaser or something. He could have shot Isaac. He could have missed, hitting the med bay, or somehow caused the surgery to fail, or the med bay could have malfunctioned and even hurt Topa. Topa could have died, or gotten some injury that could have slowed or even prevented the procedure until they're older. I don't know, but just watching the completely predictable events play out was pretty damn boring.

@N
"There is a straight guy in his fifties who lives a 20-minute drive from my house who committed a number of sex offences, then immediately after being arrested (but before trial) he declared a female identity with the clear intent of being placed in a female prison. He made no effort to transition apart from a wig. Throughout his trial he was referred to as “she” and there were no indications in local newspaper coverage that he was anything but a woman (apart from the photo and people who actually knew him). Fortunately the judge saw through it and placed him in the male estate. But there are many, many cases like this in the U.S., Canada, Scotland etc. where straight male sex offenders with no history of gender dysphoria have gamed the system and indeed been placed in female prisons, where they have gone on to assault female prisoners. This is why I and many many others are "so damned busybodied about their lives" - because we can't afford to be so incurious as to never question the reasons a given individual might choose to identify as transgender, because it massively affects other people's lives on the level of basic safeguarding. If the judge had looked at that sex offender in a wig, who had announced their female gender identity just months earlier, and taken an approach of "it’s not my business to know, only to respect them", the judge would have placed him in the female estate. "If someone says to you, “please call me ‘X’,” what kind of fucked up mentality do you have to have to say “No!” is all very well in a utopia, but we don't live in a utopia. "

I've never been to jail before and don't live in the US so a few basic questions:
-Why did the convicted believe women's prison would be better to live in?
-Are women's prisons known as better or easier than men's prisons? Why?
-Why did the judge and yourself see barring him from women's prison as safeguarding?

@anon those ideas would just make a "pure" story a convoluted and contrived mess. I went into the episode expecting a sci fi twist or something (like Topa separating into two people, one male and one female) but they didn't need to do that either. the story is the story, and adding jeopardy in would not make the STORY any better. Here is a story where everyone involved (even Klyden) had the best intentions.. that is where the drama comes from
Seth had enough confidence in the story that he didn't need to pander to those who have attention issues

I think some of the ideas @anon suggested could have worked if done well. But I certainly don't agree that they were needed, or that the episode was boring as is.

Aren't we all supposed to be nutrek hating, anti woke old grumpy people who would never appreciate an episode about trans issues? ;)

Here's the thing : do it *this* way and hand me all the episodes about this topic that you want. No lame trill metaphors imported from 80s TNG (where one could have still argued that something like this might have still been needed to "slip this through the machinery"). No half hearted analogies where you can feel that the writers are just virtue signaling and don't actually care all that much.

Go all in. Like this. With a sorry not sorry attitude, without taking any prisoners.

*then* you can have the entire trek crowd onboard, cause in case you didn't know, trek was always a progressive show - but please make it truly progressive, combine it with good storytelling and take us along. Instead of having some new character pop up out of nowhere and say things like "I want to be seen" just to cynically tick a checkbox.

The first three episodes (that supposedly aren't as good?) are still not avaiable where I live for some reason, but from episodes 4 5 and 6 I have seen, I must say: thank you, Orville, for proving that it is still possible to have an actual TNG esque, intelligent show in these times, and that those are still able to fully reach me like back in the day and I am not just chasing a sentimental memory of how a show was able to reach me when I was younger. Complex politics. Multiple factions that I know and understand. A threat on the horizon that makes sense and gives the story a more complex drive than just "22 hours until the destruction of earth" BS discovery style.

This is just excellent all around. Could it have been a little tighter? Sure. Those countless "rest on the last actor in the room looking concerned" beginner edit missteps were a but weird.

Do I care? Not in the slightest. If you have a story like this to tell, take all the time that you want and I am absolutely willing to put my inner movie nerd aside.

Nutrek has nothing on this. Not even SNW, unfortunately. But maybe they can take a look at this and become a bit bolder.

Also want to note that yes, "ye evil husband" was very well acted and thus I hope we will see him again. But good thing they didn't up-Disney this with a last second change of heart. This is, unfortunately, more realistic.

But that realism can include that it just takes a longer time for people to come around. I've seen it happen multiple times in my immediate surroundings.
So maybe we can have a Disney moment at some point.

Did this show get another season? At this point, Id be happy to trade in nutrek material with a 3 to 1 ratio for more of this. To put it mildly.

Oh yes, and put "how do we create a plot where we actually earn a character singing moment" on the "showing trek how it's done" list, too.

@SlackerInc
You do realize that gender dysphoria and transsexuality are not the same, don't you? Gender Dysphoria means that you could be trans. could. And the fact that 80% desist and most do so between the ages 10-13 is exactly the point. That's why puberty blockers are used between the ages 10-13 because during that time most adolescent figure out trans or not trans. You are actually proving my point.

That you skated around the issue that you want states to implement measures that go against the wishes of those children, their parents, their doctors, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics (also all their other western counterparts) is revealing. Of course you also ignored that not letting trans minors transition does lead to far higher suicide rates, among many other severe negative psychological effects. Finally, you ignored, as all the other who are in the anti trans camp did, that it really doesn't matter if you loooooove transsexuals like Omicron or if you hate them or think that society is craaaaaazy. The only thing that does matter is:" Are you against trans liberation or are you for trans liberation." You are against. You want to take trans rights away. The question why is secondary.

I agree with the Politico article, for the time being the anti trans movement is winning. That is not surprising. There were so many transphobic media products during the 80s, 90s and early 2000s that a strong counter wave to the preceding far stronger pro trans wave was predictable. As with racism, sexism or homophobia this will go on for a few years then recede and and a new pro trans wave will build. The young people, as always, are for more accepting. Oh and the fact that many republican states now want to ban any kind of treatment for trans minors and make it illegal to talk about it in school, as some already did, will send the suicide rates through the roof. As horrible as hundreds, maybe thousands of additional suicides by minors per year are, they will make the more reasonable, somewhat transphobic people switch over to the pro trans camp.

So enjoy your dark victory today.
Tomorrow will be different.

@Jammer, enjoyed your review, glad you loved the episode as much as most of us did.

Enjoy your vacation! Are you traveling internationally, or just taking a good old American family road trip?

Thanks Jammer for a hearfelt and thoughtful review.

I had completely forgotten that Klyden was born female. I don't think it was said in this episode, but if it was I missed it. I assume it came up earlier in the series. That factoid provides a mountain of understanding as to why he is so bigoted.

Good for the Orville, earning its first four-star Jammer review. The show had scored a few 3.5s in the past, but never the coveted full marks.

This is a big deal. A four star from Jammer is second only to a Hugo!

Just realized this episode, like Electric Sheep, is solely written and directed by Seth MacFarlane. Impressive.

OmicronThetaDeltaPhi- Totally agree with what you said. This show is reeking of a political agenda now. I am disappointed. It is not the same show as season one.

@Booming
"Finally, you ignored, as all the other who are in the anti trans camp did, that it really doesn't matter if you loooooove transsexuals like Omicron or if you hate them or think that society is craaaaaazy. The only thing that does matter is:" Are you against trans liberation or are you for trans liberation." You are against. You want to take trans rights away. The question why is secondary."

Using a loaded term like "trans liberation" does not magically make your stance the enlightened one.

I believe that *every* person should be able to pursue happiness and fulfill their personal identity. And I find the PC-crowd's obsession with gender and gender stereotypes to be unhealthy and obstructive to this goal.

Seriously, on this front, your lot is just as bad as the worst alt-right chauvinists. Is it any wonder that so many kids (and adults) feel trapped on this front?

See, this is the difference between the extremist PC crowd and people who *genuinely* care about human rights. You fight for lofty agendas and great ideals that look good on paper, without stopping for a minute to think abut the consequences. We fight for things that will actually make people happier and better-off.

> For some radical feminists. At the same time she is the one, if not the most influential feminist author of our times.

@Booming:

I never said Butler wasn't influential. I only said she wasn't a *radical feminist* and she's not a radical feminist. It's just inaccurate. This has nothing to do with my or your knowing a so-called radical feminist. This is about having read the literature and understanding how concepts differ. You're also making the classic fallacy of argumentum ad populum -- i.e., "I have friends whom I think of as radical feminists and they say 'xyz.'"

> Second wave was white and middle class and has justifiably been criticized for marginalizing black and lesbian voices

@Booming:

You're not correct here, either. Betty Friedan wrote about middle-class straight wives, but Simone de Beauvoir who wrote the foundational text of second wave feminism (_The Second Sex_) wrote about lesbians back in the 1940s and in the 1970s some radical feminists (whom I suspect were bisexual themselves) advocated choosing political lesbianism (as if non-bi people could "choose" for or against that).

One can point out the fact that most second wavers in the 1960s and 1970s neglected the experiences of black women, but that doesn't mean that the third wave did any better in addressing structural inequalities. Furthermore, black women had to go through more struggles, not merely different struggles.

Therefore, the *crux* of the radical feminist argument, that men oppress women on the basis of women's bodies (their sexual and reproductive functions) still applies to all women in society. Men of all races have used their physical strength and social power to oppress women of all races. The fact that many second wavers as individuals had neglected to examine the intersection of race and sex does not invalidate this.

My point isn't that Butler isn't a "real feminist." My point is that calling her a *radical feminist* is like saying that Nikola Tesla was a proponent of space-time relativity or calling Michel Foucault a Marxist (a statement that makes both Foucault and Marx spin in their graves). "Radical feminist" does not mean "extremist." It refers to a specific strand of feminism. Butler and radical feminists have sharply diverging views on several things.

I meant "who I suspect were."

@Jonathan

Betty Friedan herself admitted that she started off homophobic and actively worked to exclude lesbians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_Menace

The leadership of the NOW for a long time was almost exclusively white, wealthy and heterosexual. I'm not saying that the second wave didn't achieve lots of good things but they also had serious problems.

"Furthermore, black women had to go through more struggles, not merely different struggles."
That's why third wave introduced intersectionality to better understand exactly these struggles.

" My point is that calling her a *radical feminist* is like saying "
I just reread what you wrote. I never said that Butler is a radical feminist. What I did was mentioning that I have radical feminist friends who are pro trans. Then I quoted what Butler had to say about Terf's because she is still a very important feminist voice. You thought that I was implying that Butler is a radical feminist, I guess I should have corrected that sooner. My point was that neither are there only trans exclusionary radical feminists, nor are terf's the majority in the broader feminist movement. In fact they are probably more of a fringe movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism#Views_on_transgender_topics

One could also mention that feminists often include or combine believes from different waves.

To me this trans exclusion fight (and other issues) seems more like what is happening in the general society. Boomers and the silent generation fighting to remain relevant while slowly disappearing.

And while I'm talking about Boomers
@Omicron
Ok, thanks. Great that you are now supporting trans causes a 100%.
Here:
https://www.redbubble.com/i/t-shirt/Trans-LIberation-Now-by-LGBTQIAProud/70919911.FB110

Everyone, BLB: Be Like Bortus.

indeed.

also, truly impressive acting. after hundreds of trek episodes we probably all know that its not exactly easy to act with a face full of prostethics and alien makeup. yet, the bortus breakdown where he asked for help really really got to me.

also shows another storytelling lesson that i wish the nutrek writers would learn: tears become all the more powerful when you establish beforehand that this is not something that usually happens. meaning: invest two dozen episodes in bortus playing stone cold, and *then* have him break into tears. absolutely wonderful.

now compare that with the overemotionalized discovery tear flood. of the countless times that burnam started crying, maybe *one* reached me emotionally. and about 1/20 as much as that short bortus moment.

regarding the ongoing trans debate in the comments (where i am happy to see that its basically 95% appreciation of this heartfelt episode and only 2 people being angry about it) - may i just say this: the moment you try to approach the trans topic with an "ah, you PC crowd people!" attitude, you basically take yourself out of any serious debate. thats just too cheap.

i dont really have any personal stake in that matter, but heres the thing: the most obvious recommendation in this area is always to say, listen to what trans people say. we are not affected. they are. so it only makes sense to listen.

and rest assured that its not about "PC" for them. thats just absurd.

@John Harmon

"Ok Yanks. That makes you a bigot"

OK John, you are clearly identifying as an idiot.

@RobSolf why don't you think Discovery is good I'm curious? Toubdkdtnthink species tend tend were a cool and original alien as well as the arc of season 4 or at least the other aliens like the butterfly people?

@Jammer, ain't saying heart and feeling AND empathy redundant?

@Booming, you're clearly out of your depth debating feminism with @Jonathan. Your knowledge is basically like an undergraduate 200-level, better than your average schmoe but still pretty basic and superficial. Jonathan appears to have studied philosophy in grad school, or else is quite the autodidact.

@Yanks, sick burn!

It still amuses me to see how many social issue hating butt-hurt conservatives there are on this website. Did all these dinosaurs forget that Trek has always been about social issues… it’s always been progressive… hey morons, there’s probably another show for you. By it’s nature, watch Fox News or something - Star Trek isn’t aimed at your ilk.

This is the first 4 star review Jammer's given an "Orville" episode. I thought he gave 4 to "About a Girl" and "Lasting Impressions", but it seems I misremembered; he gave that a 3, and a 3 and a half star respectively.

Jammer said: "Klyden is determined to stop what he sees as an atrocity before it happens. Isaac physically overpowers and stops him. [...] there's a part of me that feels bad for him as a parent [...] It's powerful how the show demonstrates this crushing helplessness even as it makes Klyden and Moclan culture the villains of the piece."

Not many people here have discussed this scene. People have accused the episode of turning Klyden into a villain, but IMO this scene provoked much sympathy for him. There's something sad and sympathetic about him being effortlessly hobbled by Isaac. He's the villain of the piece, yes, but scenes like this do capture Klyden's love for Topas, albeit in a strange, arguably warped way.

This should be their "for your Emmy consideration" episode...

Great episode, love Bortus. Great actor and fascinating character.

@Leif "@RobSolf why don't you think Discovery is good I'm curious? Toubdkdtnthink species tend tend were a cool and original alien as well as the arc of season 4 or at least the other aliens like the butterfly people?"

I don't want to get too descriptive about something off topic. But season 3 killed it for me. It's emotionally exploitative at a level that daytime soaps rarely achieve. The writers want me to think Burnham would be/is a great captain when she's terrible and shouldn't even be a captain on a cereal box. She repeatedly abandons the crew for the sake of her own personal attachments. She has next to no control of her emotions, and again, the writers seem to want me to think she's a good captain BECAUSE of this.

Every 3rd scene is a pair of crew members, one telling the other how star spangled awesome they are and telling the audience how hard it must be to be in their given situation instead of just SHOWING us. The scene usually ends with one of them watery eyed, or in full weeping mode. This happens so often it has no impact. This show can never have a powerful"Picard breaks down in front of his brother" moment, because these people all but break down on a regular basis just doing their jobs.

If Discovery were a person analyzed by a therapist, it would be classified as narcissistic/bipolar. It spends a ridiculous amount of running time telling the audience that its characters are awesome by having the characters tell each other they are, when they should be SHOWING US. Instead of writing material that shows how stressful and difficult their situations are, they have the characters tell each other(and thus the audience) how stressful and difficult their situations are.

It's so distracting, I couldn't tell you if there's any good sci fi elements on the show. They're completely drowned out by character writing that makes the crew behave more like TicToc celebrities than the crew of a military vessel.

I realize I’m a bit late to this party but after reading this thread I just had to weigh in.

I enjoyed the episode very much. It took a real-life issue, presented both sides, and made me think about the issue without telling me what to think about it. A subtle distinction? Perhaps, but a good one. Far too often these days, the approach of many shows, including current Trek, is simply to pick one side of an issue, preach to that side, and demonize anyone who disagrees.

But this episode didn’t do that. I’m not trying to say the show was completely neutral on the issue, but it presented both sides and gave both sides a “fair hearing”. Even Klyden -Klyden comes across as very inlikeable in this episode, and his last words to Topa were unconscionable, but you still get a sense of where he is coming from and why. I completely disagree with his actions and statements but I can understand why he did so.

I think this episode was in the best tradition of Gene Roddenberry, and shows why The Orville is a better “keeper of the flame” of the core values of Star Trek than any of the current productions bearing its name.

IMO the single most powerful episode of the entire series to date, and one of the best episodes of television I've seen from any show. Never would have suspected the phrase "Engage quantum drive" could make me cry.

Well acted but mealy mouthed take on the trans issue. It was rather cleverly written to avoid offending either the gender critical or the gender woo woos. The child was born biologically female so there is no logical objection to restoring her body to what it always should have been. On the other hand the idea that the fate of worlds rests on one kid's sex change plays into the narcissism exhibited by many followers of the gender cult. I'm surprised that the Moclans didn't demand that Isaac be handed over for punishment. If they had the good sense to accept the ruse that the Union wasn't involved as sufficient face-saving to let the matter go they may be less moronic than they appear to be.

Groomers coming outta the woodworks for these comments lol. Mark my words... 10 years from now, there will be mountains of lawsuits from detransitioners, mainly female (see Keira Bell for starters, and Tullip R as a male example). If you can't make legal decisions before you're 18, how can you defend permanent sterilisation? MacFarlane himself isn't impartial on this issue, see a Family Guy scene that makes fun of trans-identified males.

@leel
Great post, lots of stuff in there. I don't know how grooming people factors into it. Isn't that mostly men manipulating people into having sex with them and make their victims lose their sense of self. Yes, Kira Bell she now retweets stuff from people who call themselves fascists and believe climate change isn't a real problem. Oh and she lost her case.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/17/appeal-court-overturns-uk-puberty-blockers-ruling-for-under-16s-tavistock-keira-bell

Furthermore, you can make medical decisions before you are 18, you often need consent of your parents and doctors. Finally, Macfarlane clearly stated that he didn't mean the episode as transphobic, but actually as pro trans. Are you calling him a liar?

As always great stuff, I'm always amazed at how much wrong and misinformation you people can put in so little text. Joseph G. would be proud.

That's unnecessarily provocative, even if I share some of your concerns in a less brazenly hostile way.

I do think Seth is more courageous on this issue than you are giving him credit for:

https://youtu.be/59kf86v_Cpc

"Do whatever you want, all the time." 😝

@ Slackerinc: assuming that Seth MacFarlane actually wrote that bit it's amazing that he can get away with a gender critical joke that would earn J. K. Rowling rape and death threats.

@Predditor
"You should be in prison."
Another free speech enthusiast, I see.

"yet you realise Lupron (a popular blocker) has extremely dangerous side effects"
Oh wow medication has side effects!!! Well, I guess you have to take your concerns to the American Pharmaceutical Association and the FDA because it is legal in the US and the EU.

"Of course he'll say it's pro-troon, it'd be suicide if he said it wasn't lol."
That is some airtight logic right there. There is really no group that has to suffer through more persecution than transphobes. You on the other hand are a confirmed transphobe. If you ever want to play "What do I have in common with Nazi Germany" you have found you first match. Now tell us what you think of Jews. All powerful or too influential?

@SlackerInc
Your open embrace of transphobes who use the most vile language will be remembered.

@Predditor
uh a dailymotion video. The best source for scientific facts. I also always go to file sharing sites where people can upload stuff anonymously if I want to learn the real truth.

Guy, i don't care what you think, what you say or if you are even alive.

You are a horrible human being. Why would I waste more time on you. Jammer will hopefully soon delete your hateful ramblings and anything else that relates to it.

@ PredditorPatrol: you're thinking of Godwin's Law, which is getting some validation on this thread.

Homophobe? Bigots? I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem unbalanced.

Nichelle Nichols passed away today.
Long live Uhura!!!

@Booming

Is this you: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/which-3-star-trek-lead-women-main-characters-did-you-find-most-attractive.310031/

"We’re not going to be ranking women like they’re objects.

Closing. " ?

Hello
So, i saw these in the main comments stream and this riverting commentary on trans people. I wanted to throw my hat in the ring here and offer up something to all of you.

First, there is a real war on trans in America right now and to a lesser extent Canada. Awful terms are becoming normalized again such a groomers, pedos, mentally ill, you name it. The religious right generally needs a boogeyman to go at and it has ranged from gay men to anyone gay to trans to people of color to immigrants and so on.

So, here is what I have to contribute:

I am currently dating a transgender woman GASP. She is 23 years old. She is a woman who happened to be born in the wrong body (yes that is real shit everyone) . She knew from the time she can have her earliest memories. She spent until age 15 trying to hide that and be a boy because of her pysical body; and thus was massively depressed, ashamed, suicidal, and if anything leaked out a bit subject to harassment.

When she hit 15 she told someone and was able to start accessing medical care. The type of care to allow her to move her physical apperance and hormones and body to match her gender. Fast forward 8 years and she has finished a masters degree and starts a PHD in the fall at age 23 (turns out she was a genious level and didn't know it), she has modelled professionally, she has learned 4 languages and now working on a 5th. She has friends, family, pays taxes, has a guy she is dating (me!), and so on.

If that medical care was not available, she would either be dead, or so fucking miserable she would be living in poverty somewhere hating her life and the world.

There are biological bodies that we are born with, there are genders which are a significant factor in your personality, brain function, and how you identify. They can be different. it's not super common, but a percentage of our species has this and it is tremedous we have the medical services to be able to align the body and the gender more closely.

Do you think this successful and smart PHD student should have to see herself called a pedo, a groomer, told she is a danger to kids, is a man, and so on and so forth?

We all marvel at the diversity of other species on our planet; from flowers to dogs to fish. Yet with the human species, we as a collective argue, hate , oppress, commit genocide, and go to war over diversity. Whether that be language, skin color, gender, you name it. Humans, especially those with religious dogma, hate diversity in humans. It is a really bizarre flaw in our species.

Finding rare and tiny negative outcomes to run smear campaigns on entire groups of people is bad stuff. If I find one trek fan who commits murder would it be cool to come here and call you all murderers? of course not. But find a tiny group of people who feel they made an error transitioning and suddenly out comes the anger.

Stop being angry at your fellow humans We are diverse. Really diverse. More diverse than is even documented. Why not find that wonderous and beautiful like we do with every other diverse species on the planet? Why continue to hate and be angry and mad and say terrible words about people who dont look like you or have sex like you or love like you or have a gender like you?

Well, there are my two cents.

@Eventual Zen
No.

Nichelle Nichols
One with the universe again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eokZwIiWQ2U

@Dave the "war" is not against trans people like your girlfriend who sounds great. Wishing you all the happiness with her in the world.

PredditorPatrol said: "To anyone sane, check out the LGB Alliance..."

LGB Alliance, which spends most of its time bashing gay marriage and gay sex, is a puppet organization funded by Heritage Foundation dark money. Heritage - whose whole shtick is whipping up "culture war" frenzies as a cover for corporate tax cuts - literally fund "intelligent design" websites arguing that dinosaurs are a hoax. Everything they touch is insane.

PredditorPatrol said: "This is a fun lil site too, please debunk the literal research journals cited: https://www.statsforgender.org/"

This is a site run by Genspect, a collection of activists caught on tape admitting that, quote,"trans people are a fetish that needs to be abolished in the public” and whose members push antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish billionaires funding the trans movement.

It's also part of a network of phony organizations...

https://i0.wp.com/healthliberationnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/stella-group-connections.png?w=657&ssl=1

... funded by the Christian evangelical Family Policy Alliance (who push Young Earth creationism) and the Heritage Foundation. You will also notice that their "research" doesn't cite The American Academy of Pediatrics, which is a real organization, but The American College of Pediatricians, recently started by religious conservatives to oppose things like gay rights, gay adoption and so on, and who believe you can "pray away homosexuality".

Note too how they hide their "anti trans scientific papers" amongst more banal papers which espouse fairly banal stats. The banal papers are by genuine, reputable journals, scientists and researchers, and they're used to convey the illusion that the "anti trans papers" are also coming from academia, rather than from a tiny handful of phony organizations (religious ones masquerading as scientific ones) or researchers (usually the widely debunked Lisa Littman, who again has ties to religious groups).

Even when they're pushing real research to make an anti-trans point, they're relying on their audience not being familiar with the research. For example they push genuine research that says that "90 percent of kids who have gender dysphoria grow out of it". Those statistics are from studies done from four clinics before 2013, which used DSM3 and 4 (old mental illness categorization methods), which lumped all kinds of gender non conformity together (ie the children never said they were ‘trans’, or that they were uncomfortable in their body- a boy merely saying that he liked to play with dolls, for example, would get categorized as being gender non-conforming). Since DSM5 was implemented, there have been no studies that recapture those early desistance rates.

The point is, sites like these are designed to take advantage of, and manipulate, a certain type of person.

Jason R: "@Dave the "war" is not against trans people..."

A few days ago Jordan Peterson - who is now on Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, one of the most shared news sources on Facebook - was ranting about trans people being, quote, "degenerates", and then "wondering" if it might not be "socially pragmatic" to ban all adult transgender folk from transitioning. Individual bodily autonomy, he said, was less important that stopping the perverting, corrupting and destabilizing influence - an apocalyptic and destructive influence - upon society, by transgender folk.

This is literal Mein Kampf-styled rhetoric: the Jew/trans/gay/black person as a parasite/pervert/corruptive force that must be excised to preserve social stability.

The Daily Wire (owned by a guy who doesn't believe "transgender identities are real") is now spending millions of dollars flooding social media and youtube with anti trans ads. They're also funding their own anti-trans documentaries. Many other similar organizations are doing the same.

People who think these folk are merely concerned about "protecting kids" are deluding themselves. The concern is a pretext used to legitimize the hate, as it was at every other similar point in history.

Polly, you're wise not to lose your cool like most others here, it's clear you haven't "drank the cool aid" or whatever the term is. The divide between homosexuals and trans stuff is undeniable, as a lesbian I've been approached by many transsexuals, none of whom "pass" and all are absolutely male, and I'm so terrified they will attack me if I reject them so outright. They focus so much on their "right" to have sex with women. And what exactly are "trans rights"? The right to use women's bathrooms even though they have a penis? If gender is a construct why can't you just say you're a woman, why does it need to be validated in these specific ways. Like what the hell lol. 5, 10 years ago this was unthinkable... There's something so fishy about all this progressing so quickly, and it scares me. There are people who can't define the word woman.

S said: "There are people who can't define the word woman."

But you yourself cannot define words.

For example: define the precise point, in the infinite number of transitional points separating them, that green becomes blue.

S said: "The right to use women's bathrooms even though they have a penis?"

You don't know if they have a penis, you don't know how they're presenting (someone presenting as a woman would feel out of place in a men's toilet), and you don't know if using the wrong toilet affects or induces their dysphoria. More crucially, it's safer for them to use women's bathrooms (the science shows that both trans men and women are at risk in men's toilets (assaulted and harassed by cis men), and that women are not at risk from trans women in women's spaces).

S said: "as a lesbian I've been approached by many transsexuals, none of whom "pass" and all are absolutely male, and I'm so terrified they will attack me if I reject them so outright."

I'd bet good money that this is a fake story (it's the old meme that lesbians are being raped by trans women). It's just statistically extremely unlikely that there are so many trans women "invading" lesbian spaces. The statistics just don't bear that out. I also find it rather unlikely that a population that's already at incredible risk for violence would purposefully put themselves in the position they are stereotyped to be in (ie, a man in women's clothes trying to sexually assault cis women).


S said: "...it scares me. "

FBI statistics show that hate crimes against transgender people rose by 20 percent in both 2020 and 2021, while crimes against lesbians fell. Over the same period, documented murders of transgender people have also doubled.

Your fear is irrational, and being fanned. In the space of the past few weeks, for example, you've had Tucker Carlson (the most watched news man in the US) declaring that the "existence and tolerance of transgender people threatens the perpetuation of the species.” Meanwhile, the Chief of Staff to Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota declared that transgender children are "like terrorists", while Fox News routinely accuses transgender folk of "grooming children" or likening them to a "contagion", "pedophiles" or "satanic cults", inhuman monsters who must all be purged from society. And Republicans like David French outright stated that "there can be no tolerance of transgender people in our society", and that, "the only option is for them to be crushed before they gain cultural acceptance like what happened with the gays."

Charlie Kirk, conservative radio host and founder of Turning Point USA, is also now promoting the conspiracy theory that transgender folk "are part of a transhumanist plot by billionaires (who just happen to be Jewish)". This guy, with tens of millions of viewers, is opening stating that, quote, “the transgender movement is an introductory phase to get you to strip yourself of your humanity to mesh with machines" (a twist on the old "they're subhuman!" meme).

Stuff like this is why you're scared. Assuming you're not trolling.

@S
"as a lesbian I've been approached by many transsexuals, none of whom "pass" and all are absolutely male, and I'm so terrified they will attack me if I reject them so outright"

Seriously? How many is many? So what do you do then, have sex with them because you're "terrified" they'll attack you if you say no?! Yeah, right. This is like that hetrosexual straight women scare story from the not to distant past that lesbians are out to 'convert' straight women and come on to all straight women and straight women and young girls aren't 'safe' around lesbians and that lesbians hang out in all women spaces to pounce on and 'convert' straight women and little girls. If you are of a generation that didn't experience this sort of crap then consider yourself fortunate and try and extend some understanding and compassion to Trans people who are actually a tiny % of the population that are trying to attain some of the rights that you as a lesbian can now take for granted that's if you really are a lesbian and not just a troll!

It is fairly revealing that none of the "I love transgender but I'm just concerned for the the children" people spoke out against the numerous openly transphobic posts here. No, they are very silent when people make those kind of posts. When Trump banned transsexuals from the military, I mentioned that several times just to see if any of them actually cared. No reaction whatsoever. The strategy of the transphobes to annihilate transsexuals is not a secret, they have written books about it:"limit access more and more and present it as dangerous." SlackerInc was the only who commented by saying that the main problem with the post is not the message but the tone. Haven't I heard that argument a million times before.

@Jammer
This site needs moderating. I get you don't have the time or the inclination to mod but seriously would you tolerate this sort of bilge about black people?

@ S: heh - 'Adult Human Female' may become a secret password. I sympathise with anyone who suffers from body dysmorphia but these days the genuine trans folk are outnumbered by fetishists, exhibitionists and the rent-a-protester types whose main motive for joining a cause it that it gives them the excuse to attack people who won't conform to their rules. The whole subject has become a maze full of rabbit holes.

Yes there is a divide between homosexuals and the trans stuff, but I don't think the general public see this. I think the mainstream view is that homosexuals were treated horribly in the past and we don't want to do that again so of course we have to be kind and compassionate to trans identifying people. When the subject comes up in fiction it is treated as it is in "A Tale of Two Topas" and boils down to 'how can you deny a helpless, innocent individual the right to be his/her authentic self?'

The difference is that homosexuals never wanted anything more than the same rights that adult consenting heterosexuals have to love who they love and not be persecuted for it. They don't cross boundaries or demand access to spaces where they don't belong. Trans activists do too often cross boundaries, as in your example of trans identifying men demanding that lesbians accept them as women and potential sex partners. Demanding inelegant changes to the language or trying to enact legislation that compels people to deny the evidence of their own eyes is also a violation of boundaries, in my opinion.

There is also an aspect of the trans movement that could be viewed as gay eradication - which is the only possible explanation for gender reassignment surgery being available in, of all places, Iran!

As I said - a maze full of rabbit holes - one could go on and on, but I won't.

Because this thread got out of hand and too much into personal bashing, I have closed it for the time being, and deleted a number of posts. Please note that me deleting -- or not deleting -- posts does not indicate my endorsement or rejection of any particular point of view. That's not what I do here.

That being said, my main rule here is the golden rule -- respect each other. And that wasn't happening.

Also, please note that my deleting of posts is not necessarily based on "fairness" or any sort of fact-checking of lies, and that some posts may have been swept away in the general cleanup, or left alone even if they are wrong-headed. I'm not trying to adjudicate points of view, stupid or otherwise. I'm just trying to keep the threads from devolving completely out of control.

[Edit: Comments have been reopened, assuming people can behave.]

“A Tale of Two Topas”

My favorite scene in “A Tale of Two Topas” occurs in the simulator room. In her prior episode appearances, Haveena had annoyed me to no end. But not here. Now her speechifying, cleverly inserted Forrest-Gump style from “About a Girl” so that Topa can have a front-row seat to the trial that affected his* life so much, resonates more than it ever has, because now it’s as if she’s speaking directly to Topa -- with the episode’s narrow focus on one person’s plight instead of broad societal whims, the Moclan political grandstanding now takes on a more poignant meaning. It means so much this time when Haveena declares, “I am happy!” And then the best moment occurs when Topa himself, watching Haveena up close, is absolutely moved to tears as Grayson looks on. Have you ever been fortunate/lucky enough as Grayson to see this in a kid? Or even just in another person? It’s a gift to witness the moment when someone is so touched that it’s like they had an epiphany about themselves.

When we first meet Topa in this episode, he is immersed in illusion. The battle he’s fighting in the simulator room is fake, the ship is fake, his orders can only lead to ends that are fake, all those around him are fake, and to top it all off, he’s living a frustrating life that he feels is fake.

Then, at the end of the show when Topa steps onto the Bridge, the ship is real. The order she gives is real. All those around her are real (including Bortus and Grayson whose looks of price had me on the verge of tears). And to top it all off, she’s now able to live a life that finally feels comfortable to her--and more importantly, real.

Listen, forget the political quibbling. Set the umbrella transgendered arguments aside. Only one thing matters in this “Tale of Two Topas,” and it’s embedded within that title. Like Charles Dickens’ novel “A Tale of Two Cities” was about how two different cities are affected by one event, “A Tale of Two Topas” is about how two senses of self in one person are struggling for dominance. Science fiction has dealt with dichotomy in people before--the memorable “Enemy Within” from Star Trek comes to mind--but here it’s quite literal and obviously topical. Unlike “Sanctuary,” which was busier, “A Tale of Two Topas” is taut and patient, allowing us to empathize with the plight of one character without passing too many verdicts. Even the Klyden judgments are reigned in--in the scene where Grayson argues with Klyden, it’s never about Klyden’s intrinsic beliefs but instead about what’s best for Topa.

Speaking as a father, I really like Topa. Whereas before Topa has only been a plot device, we first greet him in this episode as a fully rounded character. He’s smart and intense in the simulator scenes, and outside of it he’s gracious, courteous and particularly polite (especially to the women, which is a subtle hint). What a nice touch that he *always* refers to the officers on the ship by their full rank. It’s clear that he’s being influenced by Bortus--and he’s even developed Bortus’ speech patterns, which is really cute. He’s curious, studious and determined to become a Union officer when he’s ready. It’s endearing how he takes to Grayson and her offer of mentorship. But he carries an obvious sadness when he walks. To us (and the crew), it’s clear what his underlying issue *might* be. The genius of it, though, is that it can also be interpreted as typical teenage angst. There’s a throwaway line that reveals Topa has confided in Malloy, and Malloy had tried to cheer him up by saying that feeling moody is normal when you’re a kid (ah, but what does Malloy know--he fell in love with a simulation and ate that alien dessert fully knowing it would probably cause an allergic reaction).

We also get the sense that Topa has been walking alone for most of his life on the Orville. In this episode, we never see him with other kids or peers, as he’s probably too preoccupied, focused or neurotic to allow himself to attempt such relationships. It’s a subtle hint that his depression is all-encompassing. He’s exhausted with his situation and simply wants to escape it.

A character-based episode like this lives or dies on its performances. My verdict here is that IT LIVES! IT’S ALIVE!

First, I’ve got to talk about my man Chad L. Coleman. (Seriously, if you haven’t checked out his role as Cutty in “The Wire,” please do so when you get a chance.) I think @Jaxon said it best: “Playing an asshole is a thankless job, and Chad played him well.” Throughout the course of The Orville, Klyden went from being a sympathetic voice to an alternative argument (“About a Girl”), to the put-upon husband struggling with his spouse’s pornography addiction (“Primal Urges”), and then to the outspoken mouthpiece for inflexible cultural normalcy (“Deflectors,” “Sanctuary”). Often I stated that he was being judged unfairly, though the writers have been slowly stacking the cards against him more and more until it all comes to a head here. Up to his last scene, I still found Klyden to be a passionate if stubborn voice for Topa having the life of a socially-accepted Moclan. Unfortunately, the last scene makes it all too clear that ultimately he has a lot of inner conflict to work out and that Bortus’ delicate family dynamics have just basically been resolved completely with Klyden’s choice to walk away. His parting words to Topa were scathingly simplistic, but I’d imagine a lot of kids in similar situations may have heard the same thing from their inflexible parents. Coleman slays the role as always, especially in his memorable scene where he storms into Grayson’s office and she shows him the business.

This brings us to Adrianne Palicki. She delivers her best performance yet. She’s very effective at playing the mentoring sounding board, as we saw in episodes like “Lasting Impressions,” “Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow,” “A Happy Refrain” and even “New Dimensions” where she came off as meddling. The way Palicki presents Grayson’s patient and gentle interactions with Topa is so effective, and she matches Coleman’s passion in the key scene where Klyden confronts Grayson.

Next we come to Bortus. Throughout The Orville, Peter Macon has been reliably hilarious, especially with the deadpan way that he portrays Bortus (and you should see his role in Shameless as the hardass, long-suffering cynical cop who hates teenaged Carl but then ends up mentoring him after Carl does him a snitching-based favor). But he’s never been asked to really get down into Bortus’ soul until now. Not even “Primal Urges” came this close. Hardly anyone cries in genre shows--so when such a thing does happen, you’d best pay attention. Bortus’ breakdown in front of Grayson is devastating, and Macon nails his desperation and despair. Sometimes, your child’s emotional turmoil can come back on you just as acutely. We finally get to see Bortus sing as well -- believe me, it’s not shattering but it’s certainly passable. His final big line in the episode -- “You are perfect” -- was, well, perfect.

And then, of course, we have the heart of this piece in Imani Pullum, whose name is buried in the guest-star list while B.J. Tanner as Marcus Finn receives full billing for sitting around as an extra in the concert scene (nice work if you can get it)--but I kid. I was astounded. Pullum’s performance as Topa was flawless, as good as Leighton Meester’s in “Lasting Impressions.” It’s as if Seth MacFarlane was M. Night Shyamalan discovering Haley Joel Osment when Pullum was cast -- and Osment didn’t even have to portray two different gender expressions convincingly under mounds of latex makeup. Pullum can act with her eyes, and holds her own while opposite the more seasoned thespians like Macon, Coleman and especially Palicki. When Topa is still a male, Pullum is completely convincing and it’s almost as if we’re watching an older version of Blesson Yates (the original Topa actor who for obvious reasons did not return here). She slayed the role, and her interpretation of the female Topa is just as inspired and dynamic. When Topa becomes a girl, even Pullum’s walk is more self-assured.

“A Tale of Two Topas” was chiefly about Topa, but also a little about friendship and extended family. It’s admirable that the emphasis is placed on Topa even in the scenes where Topa doesn’t even appear (or even symbolically, as many have pointed out, in the archaeological scenes). Out of the box, it keeps the episode focused. In-universe, it’s wonderful to see all the officers coming together in debate, thinking creatively, risking their careers and even the possible withdrawal of a military ally, and finding inspired solutions for the sake of just one person aboard.

As Topa finds out, you may walk in the depths of despair, navigating through a storm. But when you walk aboard the Orville, you’ll never walk alone.


Speak Freely:

Klyden -- “All children are unhappy. He will outgrow it.”


My Grade: A+


And now for your listening and watching pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egcAHdxp6Pg


* = I decided to jump around in my use of pronouns in regards to Topa for clarity purposes, using the ones that were apparent in each different scene discussed

@PCP, nice writeup. My mind is blown, as I had no idea Cutty and Klyden were played by the same actor. 🤯

I just have two nitpicks:

1. "Hardly anyone cries in genre shows." I take it you haven't watched DISCO then?

2. It's "reined in", not "reigned in".

That is all.

Jammer, I'm puzzled by the rules. Intolerance is ok but personal fights are not?
Why are these post against me ok?
"Seth won't suck a girldick or fuck an amhole. Cope, seethe, dilate. Of course he'll say it's pro-troon, it'd be suicide if he said it wasn't lol.

You support puberty blockers, yet you realise Lupron (a popular blocker) has extremely dangerous side effects? So you're fine with kids being medical experiments? Kids can decide to be permanently sterile? The brain stops developing at 25, and you want 12 year olds to chop off their breasts. You should be in prison. "

or this
"You cannot censor the entire world, homophobe. The truth will always be set free.
And nice how you ignored the poor women suffering. Check out many other sources for the dangers of fucking with the body's natural function. Clearly you do care because you whine and call us bigots... Literally in the next sentence. Even in this science fiction where the surgery was perfect did the poor girl realise she was born the right way. I'm done discussing this with someone as brainwashed as you."

Furthermore, I know things a certain poster wrote on another forum. His opinion about transpeople (all mentally ill, delusional, all gender care clinics should be closed), muslims (should be forcibly deported), african americans (genetically inferior)

This person has not only made transphobic posts here but also had some curious opinions about blm, the police shooting black americans or how society (and NuTrek) treats straight white men.

Now when I just see a post by this person my pulse goes towards 200. What am I supposed to do now? Just act like I don't know what I do know? Ignore him?

@SlackerInc:

"My mind is blown, as I had no idea Cutty and Klyden were played by the same actor."

It's funny, when Coleman was first credited back in "Command Performance," I recognized his name right away as I'm a huge fan of The Wire. But if it hadn't been for the "as Klyden" as part of the credit, I probably would never have recognized him. Beyond the makeup, even Coleman's mannerisms and slouch as Klyden are much different from the way he portrayed Cutty. He's a true chameleonic actor.

1. "Hardly anyone cries in genre shows." I take it you haven't watched DISCO then?

Not yet! My sons have caught a couple of episodes I think but I told them not to spoil anything. I'm working my way through the series/movies by airdate order.


2. It's "reined in", not "reigned in".

So it is! I make lots of mistakes in my posts, for sure. I need my computer to scream, "INCORRECT!" at me like that magic lie detector in "Mudd's Women."


Thanks for your thoughts!

@Booming: "Jammer, I'm puzzled by the rules. Intolerance is ok but personal fights are not? Why are these post against me ok?"

I didn't say they were "okay." I deleted the most recent garbage that was causing the thread to spiral out of control with back-and-forth sniping. As I said when I deleted them, I didn't necessarily go back and delete everything that was wrong-headed or stupid. Maybe I should've deleted some more, but I didn't go back that far. Maybe I'll still go back and delete more. I reserve that right.

"Furthermore, I know things a certain poster wrote on another forum."

What happens on another forum is of zero concern to me. Absolutely zero. That is completely out of the scope of what I know or care about. Don't bring baggage from another forum onto this site.

"Now when I just see a post by this person my pulse goes towards 200. What am I supposed to do now? Just act like I don't know what I do know? Ignore him?"

YES. That's exactly what you should do. IGNORE THEM. Trolls should be ignored rather than fed. Right or wrong, a lot of posters here have this exact feeling about you, Booming. To them also, I say just IGNORE the people who you don't like. Don't make personal vendettas and set out to destroy your enemies. It's a waste of everyone's time and energy.

If you must respond because you disagree and need to get your side of the argument on the record, that's fine, but argue THE MERITS, and don't make it a personal slugfest, which just drags everything down.

This is exactly the problem: When people make it personal, and as you say, your pulse goes to 200 based solely on seeing someone's name, you have already lost. And when you come back in and try to start a fight with someone because you don't think they should be saying what they are saying, long after the dust has settled, that's not helpful. Everyone needs to learn to move on and not respond to everything they disagree with from posters they know they dislike.

I just wanted to put this out here to hopefully clarify some things. But I don't want to turn this thread into a lengthy discussion on the rules of this board either. The best we can do is to reset and start fresh. Trying to make everything fair and just and right retroactively is not going to be possible, if that's what you're looking for. Everyone needs to move on.

Soooooo how about the abortion? Is it like the holocaust? Discuss.

Great advice, @Jammer. (And FTR, I'm not just being a butt-kisser. If I disagreed with what he said I would say so, as I have in other cases.)

"your pulse goes to 200 based solely on seeing someone's name"


We WANT our pulses to hit 200 though. That's the problem. We have become addicted to rage. We watch tv and browse online constantly in search of something to be angry about. It's 1984's "two minute hate" running 24/7. I don't know what the future will bring, but I can't even begin to imagine what society will be like in twenty years if we don't find some way to break this addiction.


Translated into Trekkie: the internet is like TNG's The Game if it was designed by the Beta XII-A entity from TOS's Day of the Dove.

"We WANT our pulses to hit 200 though. That's the problem. We have become addicted to rage. We watch tv and browse online constantly in search of something to be angry about."

I don't know what % of the population "we" is here (I suspect it's small) -- it's definitely not the case for me. Although this board has had an overabundance of bickering and flaming of late, I just scroll past posts from trolls and try to find the occasional gem.

It was awesome to watch the reading of "Shuttlepod One", cool to read @Graham P's theory on "The Inner Light" and I'm currently reading "Children of Time".

If someone's pulse hits 200 just from seeing a name, then clearly something's not right with them and they're best ignored.

You're right. My bad. I guess there really aren't a lot of insanely angry people online. What the heck was I thinking?

And on that note, I've really got to stop coming here.

It's astounding that I could like Trek so much and still have absolutely zero in common with 99.99% of the fan base. Commenting here or at Trekbbs feels like I'm throwing a message in a bottle into the sea hoping that somebody like me will find it. Well, it used to. Now I just chuck the bottle as hard as I can and hope it hits some idiot in his dumb face.

Fuck that.

Thanks for the reviews, Jammer.

I'm putting my money in a psionic resonator startup. It'll go public next year at a 150 billion $ valuation.

@Marlboro
"We WANT our pulses to hit 200 though. That's the problem."
Since I have read that other stuff that this other poster wrote I'm actually not angry, just sad. Kind of confirmed all my suspicions about that guy. I'm someone who always tries to find something good about another person but this experience might have changed me a little. It was pretty shocking.

I guess you meant the political situation in the US which certainly moves from boiling point to boiling point. The ancient Greeks had a concept called Stasis, meaning civil strife. They did not see it as a state that could be overcome. It often occurred between the oligarchy and the poor, normally about wealth imbalance. The Gini coefficient for the USA is getting worse and worse for 50 years now. Stasis, or civil strife, is the consequence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

"I'm someone who always tries to find something good about another person"

Not a lot of evidence to support that claim on this forum. But maybe it is different in real life.

If anyone suggests the idea of permanently modifying a physically healthy body and committing to a lifetime of medication (hormones... and all I will say is please think of the pharma companies, and how the human body does not deliver a certain amount at regular intervals) is a superior alternative to therapy and non-permanent treatment (I believe this is "life as the other sex to see how it feels") and learning to accept "the hand you are dealt", beware.

And especially beware anyone who says "Don't ask questions./Don't question it."

@ultimecia: Cosigned. That last point is especially important.

No one is saying you can't ask questions. However I am definitely saying that you are ignorant of how puberty blockers work when you're talking about permanent modifying bodies, and you're also ignorant of "therapy" designed to "deal with the hand you're dealt" and the clear results of the vastly increased suicide rates of trans people until treatment became widely available.

Treatment that people like you want to roll back. Ignorant, incurious people who howl about how they're the real victims as they work tirelessly to throw trans kids back into the closet, to restore the status quo of spiked suicide, murder and familial abandonment rates from good Christian parents who love their religion more than their kids. Slinging the same accusations thrown at gay people back in the day without a hint of self-awareness.

Again: ignorant. Incurious. You don't know trans people, you don't interact with them, you don't understand them, but you do hate and fear them. You get your info from the teevee and the Harry Potter lady and that's that. It's so embarrassing to watch the frightened old people on this site reveal themselves, and to think they call themselves Trekkies!

That was a load of unwarranted assumptions based on crude stereotypes. As if Trekkies would be intellectually incurious religious fundamentalists. Really? Why do trans activists always seem to feel compelled to put people in these cartoonish boxes? Is it really so threatening to your worldview to see nuance and complexity in the people you interact with?

Personally, I have a cousin who is M-->F trans, as well as the former father (now "parent") of a good friend. Then there's my eldest daughter's stepsister, who declared herself a F-->M trans person, but desisted within a year or so. Now I think she's just a good old-fashioned lesbian, like my wife's best friend whose wedding I attended and whose wife I count as a friend.

I don't "hate and fear" any of these people, though I do feel bad for some of them (and I don't mean the lesbian couple, who have a very nice life together).

@Sen-Sors
Get it? You are the one who puts peoples into boxes. Sure, they are arguing for a trans conversion therapy for trans people but keep in mind that the first female to male sex change only happened over 110 years ago. That guy was imprisoned and tortured by the Nazis, then fled to Israel and lived the most normal of middle class lives. The first male to female happened only 90 years ago. She wasn't so lucky because she was beaten to death by the Nazis who then banned all gender reassignment surgery.

does anyone remember that episode where Trip convinces the "third gender" ayylien that it has to be male/female and then it kills itself
and also John Money's experiments on those brothers (both suicided)
Also why is it okay to "pause" puberty? Even a year of missed development is... missed. nature has worked for thousands of years, what kind of hubris do people have to interfere with nature. i am not dismissing every single transexual... but you are completely foolish to deny the massive boom in the recent years thanks to the internet

"nature has worked for thousands of years, what kind of hubris do people have to interfere with nature."
Yeah, next time you have a serious illness, just tell the doc that you want nature to run it's course.

"but you are completely foolish to deny the massive boom in the recent years thanks to the internet "
That would indeed be foolish, therefore nobody does that. You just think that society is tricking people into being trans (newest conspiracy theory ever). While others think that a considerable number might not be trans, even though they could be, but that is what the screening process is for. The numbers LGBT adults has doubled over the last decade, by the way. Are we worried about that too?

If you're going to argue that we shouldn't interfere with nature, then you also have to accept that means cancelling everything from chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments, all pharmaceutical use from aspirin to beta-blockers, all surgical interventions like putting broken bones in casts and removing tumors, wearing prescription eye-glasses, use of shampoos, soaps, toothpastes and teeth-brushing as well as filling tooth cavities, vaccinations, wearing sunscreen, insect repellents and clothes, as well as shaving and getting a haircut. I also don't believe that nature provided us with cars and houses, so we should get rid of those too. If you're able to do all these things I congratulate you for "playing the hand you're dealt", while the rest of us will just have to accept that nature isn't perfect makes mistakes and that we aren't separate from it, including our myriad solutions to unhappy situations.

Haha... are you saying that "altering a natural process" is the same as "curing a physical disease"? "Gender identity" is purely mental, is it not? It's in the brain. And, spoiler alert, human psychology is an extremely complex and unmeasurable thing. So if you think that "let's give everyone blockers RIGHT AWAY! It can be reversed easily!" is acceptable, that's not going to work for everyone and you sound suss. And yet I've seen people say that unironically. Scary.

You're equating people being more open about coming out (or lying about their sexuality, because the only way to actually test that is very unreliable anyway) to a huge uptake in children trying to be trendy, or parents saying their kid is trans when they are gay (homophobia).

I've found some links about bone density re: puberty blockers, but I doubt you'll read, so this is more for the rational discussers (Slacker, Jason):

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpem-2021-0180/html
Late puberty: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31397863/

A perhaps less controversial example of messing around with a natural process in a crude way that we don't really understand is the hormonal birth control pill. I have seen up close and personal the way that messes with women's minds (some would insist I should say "with the minds of people with uteruses"), and I would not recommend it to anyone.

Although I have heard that they have fine-tuned it somewhat and reduced the amount of hormones used. (My last experience with it was 20 years ago, but that was already 40 years after its original invention.) Maybe by the time of the Orville, they are no longer using a sledgehammer to adjust the workings of a fine Swiss watch.

"Haha... are you saying that "altering a natural process" is the same as "curing a physical disease"?"
Yes, curing a disease is altering a natural process.

" or parents saying their kid is trans when they are gay"
So you think that parents, who would accept a transsexual child, would not accept a homosexual child. You do realize that transsexuals can be homosexual?? ok... I'm really looking forward to meet this completely theoretical family.

"but I doubt you'll read, so this is more for the rational discussers"
I guess you meant that you hoped I wouldn't read it.

"https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpem-2021-0180/html"
This one is not a study whatsoever. It is a response to an article. To your credit the article was at least written by an absolute expert. Michael Biggs is an associate professor in Oxford, wow. Impressive. He is in the Sociology department... which is basically pediatrics.

"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31397863/
Ok this is at least a real study done by medical doctors. Still it has very little relevance considering that this has nothing to do with puberty blockers and the fact that puberty would in most cases only be stopped until 15 or 16 depending. I'm also not sure how they determined the pubertal age. This is a longitudinal study . It seems like you are arguing for inducing puberty if people have a higher pubertal age. In the end this, as all things in medicine, is about evaluating risks. A strong negative effect on mental health is generally seen as far more severe than the potential for a bone disease during old age.

Here a few quotes from the full text.
"Our study contributes to previous research by documenting a process of transient pubertal catch-up in BMD and BMC among those with older pubertal age that did not fully eliminate differences in BMD."
That does not sound to severe and considering and I have plucked this from wiki "For example, the average age of menarche in various populations surveyed has ranged from 12 to 18 years"

lmao @ slacker - gotta correct yourself, brother ;) -- oops , I mean, sibling :)

am I the only one who just sits back with popcorn and watches this unfold? I like to read "libs of tiktok" on twitter... I don't understand or have interest in, any american politics so i dont read the messages. but I look at the reshared stuff (from "q***r tiktok") and like, are these people really teaching kids in schools? to share private sexual stuff with them and not tell parents? And there was some stuff about illegally mailing out hormones too. i really hope this is a sick joke

I took a deeper look into Mr Higgs (the sociologist). He does research stuff like this "Did Local Civil Rights Protest Liberalize Whites’ Racial Attitudes?" or "Size Matters: Quantifying Protest by Counting Participants" That seems all very far from trans issues.

But he also sometimes writes about trans issues, even though he has no credentials in that area. Never have seen such a strange cv like this, so I typed his name into google and this came up...
"https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2018/10/26/transphobic-tweets-linked-to-oxford-sociology-professor/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NUhyCFbPL4

My only comment here is that I have a nose for what will end up in class action litigation, and these puberty blocking drug manufacturers, the doctors prescribing them and other related individuals had better have good liability insurance.

I fully agree with the statement Biggs released, although I don't endorse some of the vulgar things he tweeted. Much of the pearl-clutching in response to his other non-vulgar statements only underlines the truth of his saying "transactivists are used to safe spaces where their ideology is affirmed and never challenged".

This is only slightly inaccurate, as plenty of trans activists do encounter challenges to their ideology. But they try their best to make disagreement with them taboo, which is what that Oxford student newspaper did and what @Booming is up to here.

It takes the following form:

TRANS ACTIVIST: I believe X, Y, and Z.

GENDER CRITIC: Well, I disagree with you. I believe A, B, and C because of D and E.

TRANS ACTIVIST (in high dudgeon): Ermahgerd, did you hear that? This horrible person just said A, B, and C! That proves they are a transphobe and everything they say is automatically discredited!

It's a form of circular reasoning. Any disagreement with their trans activist ideology is, ipso facto, inherently disqualifying and eliminates such a person from being given a fair hearing. Therefore no debate is possible as it is taboo to even attempt debate or question any assumptions the trans activists have declared sacrosanct.

Pretty neat trick if you can get away with it. 😒

I'm not saying the trans activists don't have an argument to make. But they want to circumvent the need to make their case and make it taboo to even engage them in debate. And in many places they have gotten away with this to a shocking extent, which only fuels their ardor to stamp out any hint of dissent the moment it appears.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/camh-settlement-former-head-gender-identity-clinic-1.4854015

It also helps if you can get any expert who disagrees with you fired and drummed out of the profession. It means that a priori, all authorities either 1) Agree and tow the line or 2) Keep their mouths shut and tow the line.

Of course in Zuker's case he sued and got an apology along with an undisclosed settlement.

For all my pessimism I firmly believe that litigation is a big part of the solution to this problem. For all the grief we lawyers get and the stereotypes it is very hard to shut us down and shut us up, and believe me the woke crybullies have tried. The American tort system, in a very unique way, is incorruptible.

A question to you then, if you are a lawyer/involved in the legal industry. Who is to blame, who will answer for all this? The doctors and therapists are surely part of the problem, but big pharma has its fingers in all the pies and obviously knows what the products are being used for.

The Michael Higgs guy is a good example, if he had said anything comparable about Jews he would have been fired immediately and there is also a bitter irony in certain people constantly complaining about the trans community canceling people and then go on to discuss how to mass prosecute doctors and companies.

Doctors who engage in malpractice will be subject to civil liability. Give the system time. Tavistock is just the tip of this rotten iceberg.

"A question to you then, if you are a lawyer/involved in the legal industry. Who is to blame, who will answer for all this? The doctors and therapists are surely part of the problem, but big pharma has its fingers in all the pies and obviously knows what the products are being used for."

The answer is all of the above.

The issue here (and this alludes to the whole Zucker affair) is that the trans activists have attempted to characterize anything but total unquestioning affirmation as "conversion" which means that any doctor or person who raises the slightest objection or expresses skepticism that any young person experiencing dysphoria is trans is labelled a "transphobe". Individuals with symptoms may be getting pushed down the trans path when they may have other confounding psychological factors such as autism that complicate the picture.

What is more, while puberty blocking drugs may be '"safe" insofar as they have been used to treat precocious or early puberty the question is: what happens when people who aren't really trans use these drugs later and later into their normally timed puberty? Do these individuals just "pause" puberty or is this a gateway to more extreme treatments? And one further question: what if going through puberty is a necessary physical process for a person to reconcile with his / her birth sex and by delaying or halting the process, you end up worsening or prolonging whatever dysphoria you were experiencing?

I will bet my life savings that the usual guardrails that would short circuit or curtail this kind of thing are basically being chipped away in the name of "inclusion" and "safety" (the fake kind, not the real one).

Hence my conclusion that a litigation tsunami is going to build the more these activists get their way.

Grep said: ""I've found some links about bone density re: puberty blockers, but I doubt you'll read, so this is more for the rational discussers (Slacker, Jason)"

Your first link is from Michael Biggs, who got caught using sock puppets to rudely harass trans people on twitter ("i can almost picture your ladyd*ck", "choke on my ladyd*ck, c*ntwipe", "transitioning made you LESS attractive”). That's the "intellect" you're appealing to.

And beyond this, the paper is making a common error. Biggs is deliberately looking at mineral density 12 months to 24 months after therapy. Meanwhile, we have countless studies showing that years after cessation of therapy, bone mineral accrual conforms to population norms.


Grep said: "Gender identity" is purely mental, is it not? It's in the brain."

Nothing is "purely mental". Your conscious understanding of yourself is contingent upon biology, neurochemistry and chromosomes, and how this biological substrate intersects with society and culture (which is simultaneously "mental"/"metaphysical" and biological). You might want to read a book called "The Transgender Issue" by a trans person called Shon Faye. It's very readable, and may offer a better understanding of these things (see https://filebin.net/4md5cs6eeqikfj93/The_Transgender_Issue_Shon_Faye_.epub).


Jason said: "Of course in Zuker's case he sued and got an apology... "

As do religious organizations whose "pray the gay away" forms of conversion therapy echo the practices Zuker is criticized for.

Conversion therapy wrongly attempts to get folk to repress their sexuality. Zucker's methods are the same. Indeed, before he pivoted over to trans stuff, he was reknowned for "converting gays" himself (he wrote for the
National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuals, who believe it is possible to turn people into "ex gays"). He was heavily criticized for this (making gay kids watch pornography and guilting them into loving the "right sex" etc), until Canada made gay conversion therapy illegal and he had to stop.

Jason said: "For all the grief we lawyers get and the stereotypes it is very hard to shut us down and shut us up,

Lawyers were literally shut up in Canada from defending gay conversion clinics. In the future, imposing a normative anti-trans conception of what it means to be a well-adjusted human, instead of just letting kids be what they say they want to be, will similarly be something no lawyer will touch.

Jason said: "It also helps if you can get any expert who disagrees with you fired and drummed out of the profession. "

It's the other way around. Groups like National Catholic Bioethics Center pump millions into defending guys like Zucker. That's why these lone cases get famous, and get plastered everywhere. Meanwhile, most scientists and professionals (and trans people), don't believe in desistance. Zucker's methods will be looked at, by history, as those of his mentor (sexologist Richard Green, whose conversion therapy methods, aimed at preventing young children becoming gay or transgender, relied on pressuring kids/parents into adopting certain gendered practices in order to "squeeze out improper behavior").

Slacker said: "But they want to circumvent the need to make their case and make it taboo to even engage them in debate."

Because appeals to "debate" aren't some neutral thing. They have real negative effects. Imagine Big Oil making an appeal to listen to some Exxon scientist on "solar flares possibly causing climate change". Or imagine wanting to hold a debate on whether Jews are "real humans", or gay people "deserve to get married", or whether black kids should be allowed to "use white water fountains". Imagine asking for "scientific proof" that blacks are the same as humans, or linguistic proof that "the word marriage has traditionally not always been used for heterosexuals", or that "sharing fountains won't lead to civilizational collapse". To some people, this is all going to understandably sound dehumanizing.

Now you can argue that this little song and dance needs to be done to "bring everyone along", but I doubt that's how paradigms change. If people wanted debate, there are countless scientists, medical journals, experts and trans folk out there willing to patiently explain stuff. But that's often not what folk who make appeals to "debate", or who are "just asking questions", really want.

Jason said: "which means that any doctor or person who raises the slightest objection or expresses skepticism that any young person experiencing dysphoria is trans is labelled a "transphobe"."

You are about 15 years behind the times on this and using an old argument that ignores how most medical boards have developed new and very specific questioning, monitoring programs, and criteria for categorizing the different forms of dysphoria, experiences and gender disorders. Kids aren't "accidentally being categorized as trans", rather the opposite is happening; we are now able to more finely distinguish between genuinely trans kids, and those with a range of other experiences or disorders.

Doctors aren't being called "transphobe" for "doubting trans people", they're now actually able to better identify different conditions. ie - doctors have more protections, and can more readily justify their beliefs.

You will notice most papers or people using the arguments you make, use old Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals, and data using the new categories (the most recent one was done in March this year) are completely different to data derived from old manuals.

Interesting comment Jason. I read about Tavistock and how the workers there were concerned about "transing the gay away" but were scared of being called "transphobic" to speak out - frightening! I've known quite a few nonconforming homosexuals myself. As I don't live in the USA (but a fairly well-off first world one with medical liability lawsuits and such), has there ever been a "global" class action lawsuit? Obviously there are differences in laws, but more of a collective group of people seeking retribution? I would imagine this would have happened during the lobotomy phase. Sickening how that won a Nobel Prize. Makes you think what else is a procedure that's "celebrated" but is actually not the best solution ;)

"You are about 15 years behind the times on this and using an old argument that ignores how most medical boards have developed new and very specific questioning, monitoring programs, and criteria for categorizing the different forms of dysphoria, experiences and gender disorders. Kids aren't "accidentally being categorized as trans", rather the opposite is happening; we are now able to more finely distinguish between genuinely trans kids, and those with a range of other experiences or disorders."

I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong.

@TheRealTrent: "That's the 'intellect' you're appealing to."

I already said I don't like the uncouth way he talked online, but we also have to remember this is under a pseudonym. If we exhaustively dug up the real identities of every person who blows off steam online, we might find a lot of your allies saying some things you wouldn't want to defend.

As for his "intellect" in your scare quotes, I feel confident that Oxford doesn't employ professors who are not extremely bright.

"Lawyers were literally shut up in Canada from defending gay conversion clinics."

Yes, that's a terrible law that thankfully would never pass constitutional muster in the U.S. I would support outlawing forcibly "converting" people against their will, but if a consenting adult wants to go to his or her pastor to seek help to "pray the gay away", I think that's stupid (on two fronts: I'm an atheist and I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay), but I absolutely believe it's a person's right to do that if they want to. Just like it's their right to go pay a "shaman" to wave crystals over them and adjust their "shakras" or whatever woo nonsense those New Age "healers" are offering.

"Meanwhile, most scientists and professionals (and trans people), don't believe in desistance."

Wow. You're more radical than I realized. I have never before seen even trans activists claim that desistance doesn't exist. Usually it's a dispute over what percentage it represents. You seriously don't think it's even a thing? What happened, then, to my daughter's stepsister that I mentioned above, who claimed for a few months or a year to be a boy (including taking a new name) before going back to her old name and being a plain old lesbian? This is in a liberal family that was totally supportive of her transitioning (more than I would be, probably).

"Imagine Big Oil making an appeal to listen to some Exxon scientist on 'solar flares possibly causing climate change'. Or imagine wanting to hold a debate on whether Jews are 'real humans', or gay people 'deserve to get married', or whether black kids should be allowed to 'use white water fountains'. Imagine asking for 'scientific proof' that blacks are the same as humans, or linguistic proof that 'the word marriage has traditionally not always been used for heterosexuals', or that 'sharing fountains won't lead to civilizational collapse'."

You say all this as though you expect me to be like "Oh, well if it's a REALLY unreasonable position, you shouldn't be allowed to debate it." No, no, a thousand times NO. I absolutely believe ALL those things you listed, and more, should be open to debate and people should not be fired for debating them in their free time. (At least not from a job like university professor. If you work for a church, I think you can fairly be fired for espousing atheism; if you work for a gay rights organization, you should be expected to be sacked for opposing gay marriage in your leisure time.) I have faith that an open and free debate on any subject will ultimately work to the benefit of those who have facts, logic, and ethical principles on their side. ("To the benefit of", not meaning that every single person will be convinced.)

I VEHEMENTLY espouse the radical free speech philosophy of John Stuart Mill. I will close this comment with some choice quotes from him on that subject, but first I want to object also to "you can argue that this little song and dance needs to be done to 'bring everyone along'". Not necessarily. One side of the debate may indeed be trying to bring everyone along. The other side may be trying to hold everyone back. I'm not out to prejudge which is the better outcome. Let the debate happen, and the chips fall where they may.

Now, without further ado, here's John Stuart Mill, implicitly countering the thrust of your thought experiments about debating solar flares, gay marriage, civil rights, etc.:

"Every man who says frankly and fully what he thinks is so far doing a public service. We should be grateful to him for attacking most unsparingly our most cherished opinions."

"Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme;' not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side."

"Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent."

Slacker said: " I feel confident that Oxford doesn't employ professors who are not extremely bright."

Oxford has thousands of professors. Statistically, a good number of them must be relatively dumb or have prejudices. And remember, this guy openly says he doesn't believe trans folk are real. He thinks they're all faking it.

Slacker said: "woo nonsense those New Age "healers" are offering."

New Age healers don't try to "cure you of being a Jew" or "reverse your blackness" or "eradicate gayness". The underlying assumption and social effect of this is a kind of dehumanization.

Slacker said: " You seriously don't think it's even a thing? "

Our best current understanding is that we do not deal with actual desistance (in the sense of gender dysphoria going into remission), but with two clinically distinct populations, which we currently can't perfectly separate before puberty based on the data we have. The situation is different for adolescents. Here we have clinically validated tools for differentiating gender incongruence/dysphoria with high sensitivity and accuracy. ie - younger folk are going to "appear to desist" because they escape categorizations that our tools reliably pick up on older kids.

But when I said "it's not a thing", I didn't mean the above (I'm not willing to be that absolutist). I just meant it's not a "thing" in the sense that people are portraying it: a statistically meaningful phenomenon worthy of using to fearmonger. Note that you too quoted the Steensma paper to bolster the idea of desistance. This data is outdated and occurred long before the DSM updates. When we start making a distinction between trans folk with gender dysphoria, and folk with gender identity disorder, desistance rates drop right down. This tells us something methodological is going on, and that we're beginning to pick up on discrete phenomenon.

Slacker said: "What happened, then, to my daughter's stepsister that I mentioned above, who claimed for a few months or a year to be a boy (including taking a new name) before going back to her old name and being a plain old lesbian?"

If a doctor recently certified that she's trans and has dysphoria, then you can argue that the new screening methods are wrong or not foolproof. If no doctor ruled on her, or if she was diagnosed as trans before the DSM updates, then her experience is irrelevant.

My feeling is that these cases will keep going "down" as the screening methods become more granular (ie they won't be categorized as trans folk). In 2013, we said 80+ percent of kids desist (ie Steensma et al). About six years ago it went down to about 8 percent. The latest category updates were early this year. I bet the next round of studies on this topic will show an even further decline.

Slacker said: "I VEHEMENTLY espouse the radical free speech philosophy of John Stuart Mill."

Yeah, me too, but the point was, some free speech has billions of dollars behind it, and appeals to debate are often a lie.

Borgr said: "Makes you think what else is a procedure that's "celebrated" but is actually not the best solution ;) "

It's the other way around. If you don’t get blockers you need highly invasive processes to undo puberty. For your fearmongering to have legs, you'd have to prove doctors are routinely miscategorizing folk as trans, and show stats proving that most patients are unhappy with trans procedures.

Borgr said: " "transing the gay away" but were scared of being called "transphobic" to speak out - frightening! "

"Transing the gay away" is a fake meme. I can't find a single documented instance of a gay person reporting that they have undergone this practice outside of the nation of Iran (similar to this episode; Moclus is basically Iran or Saudi Arabia). Being frightened about "gays being forced to transition" is like thinking miscegenation was scary because it would "transition the white away". Or homosexuality was frightening because it was "erasing straight people". It's an imaginary fear.


Borgr said: "has there ever been a "global" class action lawsuit? Obviously there are differences in laws, but more of a collective group of people seeking retribution? "

Retribution for doctors being wrongly fired? That Zucker guy wasn't compensated for "being wrongly fired", he was compensated for his clinic making stuff public. The court ruling said nothing about the validity of the firing. Or are you talking about retribution for patients? Patients who feel they've been pressured into transitioning, or been "butchered by doctors", find it hard to get retribution because they typically consented to such "side-effects" being a possibility.

Beyond this, there are lawsuits going on all the time. You have conservative groups pumping millions of dollars into this stuff on a daily basis. They just need one victory in order to ram through the legislation they want.

The goal is two fold: criminalize all trans therapy/procedures or, failing this, try to win a negligence claim in the courts and use this to jack up standards for competence and consent (ie- make the entry standards for therapy so vague or high [ie taking decisions away from doctors and giving it to judges] that it's difficult for patients to consent to treatment). The end result: it becomes so financially dangerous to offer therapy, that doctors stop or decrease offering it. Millions of folk will be worse off, but the people pushing these lawsuits don't care. The goal is to erase the "sin" of being transgender.

The slew of new "don't say gay" laws passing in the US will be the playbook aimed at trans people in the coming years. Remember, the science tells us that teaching kids about sex and gender stuff (a simple, very basic lesson, lasting less than 5 minutes) at an early age dramatically lessens suicide, bullying, physical attacks, mental issues, and even child sexual abuse (because kids acquire the language to tell other adults that they are being abused by family members or others etc).

So the science tells us this is a good thing. But laws are now passed to pressure teachers into not doing this, with the wording deliberately vague and open-ended so as to tacitly influence/intimidate teachers to avoid teaching LGBT stuff.

This playbook is now being used to intimidate doctors offering trans therapy in a similar way (making puberty blockers/HRT illegal or harder to obtain, outlawing surgery, shutting down clinics, LGBT education, cloaking it all under "state's rights" etc).

Jason said: "And one further question: what if going through puberty is a necessary physical process for a person to reconcile with..."

Being trans is not a "phase" that you "grow out of". When you started treating trans dysphoria as its own subset - distinct from a sub-threshold that's now known as gender variant behaviour - the data shows persistence rates as being high. They don't grow out of it, and it solidifies after puberty.

All of this is besides the point, though. Even if one wants an approach to gender issues that isn't heavily pathologised and clinicised, and assuming one isn't out to ban all trans therapy, then one will want "more robust clinical checks", which will require more doctors, more testing, and more funding. But people who complain about trans folk oft advocate the complete opposite: the slashing of funding for clinics and/or health care.

I know for a fact, from two education professionals in two different non-neighboring states (and I only know this because they know I'm a Democrat and thus assume I'm totally sympathetic to what they are up to), that educators are engaging in subterfuge to conspire with their trans students against those students' parents.

In one case, the educator I know lamented that she had to repeatedly "deadname" multiple students in various official documents because the students' parents were using court orders to try to determine if their children were using different names at school (I guess their kids were denying it at home).

In another case hundreds of miles away (but near where I live), an educator took a trans student shopping for clothes that matched their preferred gender expression, and kept the clothes for them to wear each day at school (and then take off before going home).

I don't agree with this at all (and to tie back to the episode we have gotten adrift from, this would be like if everything regarding Topa were done by the Orville's crew and Isaac, but kept totally secret not only from Klyden but from Bortus as well). I know these educators think these kids' parents are backwards, benighted jerks who are hurting their children. But the way it ought to work is that if someone is genuinely hurtful to their kids to the degree that it qualifies as abuse or neglect, there should be an intervention from the state using police and social workers, and if it can't be sorted out they can go into the foster system. To leave them in the care of their parents while going against the parents' wishes behind their backs and pretending nothing of the sort is going on? Nuh-uh, no way. Not cool.

And even if you are sympathetic to what these educators are doing, you ought to consider the potential for backlash that these kinds of actions are brewing up. Because I promise you, it's not just the most ardent fundamentalists and FOX News viewers who won't like this. There are plenty of parents who would be fine with a family that openly embraces their trans children, but would not be fine with schools engaging in this kind of devious activity, conspiring with teenagers against their parents who have not been judged by any lawful authority to be unfit.

Ok, obviously Jammer won't let me make a reference to that other inet page, even though people constantly make references to other pages, but Trent just as a recommendation from me to you. This discussion is a good example on how SlackerInc discusses things. You go through many points, mention statistics and facts and he ignores everything you wrote and jumps to a seemingly unrelated topic. What has his personal story about two public educators to do with advances in pediatric research about identifying gender dysphoria? Nothing. Continue if you must but I guarantee you, this will lead to nothing but frustration for you.

My story was actually tied into the EPISODE, unlike anything you have posted in the thread lately, @Booming. 😼

But it did relate to what I was responding to. Social conservatives (like Klyden) have the sinking feeling that the more liberal society they live in gives lip service to the idea that they can raise their children with the traditional values they cherish, but are in reality sneaking around trying to turn their kids against those values while maintaining a superficial pose of innocent neutrality. They feel like they are being gaslighted, which is how you get “don't say gay” backlash legislation—since social conservatives have little to no representation in public schools but do have representation in the legislatures that provide the funding and set the rules for those schools.

I am decidedly NOT a social conservative. When my daughter was going into sex ed in health class, the school sent home permission forms. I checked the box asking that she be taken out of class, so during those three weeks she sat in the office with some kids whose parents were puritanically religious. But I took her out for dramatically different reasons: we lived in Missouri where it was required that sex ed be “abstinence only”. I said screw that, and found a really good sex-positive site that gave accurate information about contraception and answered every question she might have.

If I found out the school had instead peddled abstinence propaganda to her while swearing up and down to me that they were doing no such thing, I would have been INCENSED. We as parents have the right to raise our children with our values, as long as it does not cross the threshold to abuse or neglect. By protecting the rights of social conservatives not to be gaslighted about their children being given messages about sexuality and gender that conflict with the parents' deeply held beliefs, I am also protecting my right to be made aware of what kinds of messages they are imparting to my kids that I might find objectionable for other reasons.

Brilliant quote, Slacker. Let me share one of my own favourite ones:

“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.’” -St. Anthony the Great (4th Century)

The time is now it seems.

Nice one! I had not heard of St. Anthony (except as a place name). Sounds like a man with foresight.

Speaking of pertinent quotes -- here's one from Thomas Sowell:

"Ours may become the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an age of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity."

Ouch.

@SlackerInc
Mon, Aug 15, 2022, 1:29am (UTC -5)
My story was actually tied into the EPISODE, unlike anything you have posted in the thread lately, @Booming. 😼

But it did relate to what I was responding to. Social conservatives (like Klyden) have the sinking feeling that the more liberal society they live in gives lip service to the idea that they can raise their children with the traditional values they cherish, but are in reality sneaking around trying to turn their kids against those values while maintaining a superficial pose of innocent neutrality. They feel like they are being gaslighted, which is how you get “don't say gay” backlash legislation—since social conservatives have little to no representation in public schools but do have representation in the legislatures that provide the funding and set the rules for those schools.

I am decidedly NOT a social conservative. When my daughter was going into sex ed in health class, the school sent home permission forms. I checked the box asking that she be taken out of class, so during those three weeks she sat in the office with some kids whose parents were puritanically religious. But I took her out for dramatically different reasons: we lived in Missouri where it was required that sex ed be “abstinence only”. I said screw that, and found a really good sex-positive site that gave accurate information about contraception and answered every question she might have.

If I found out the school had instead peddled abstinence propaganda to her while swearing up and down to me that they were doing no such thing, I would have been INCENSED. We as parents have the right to raise our children with our values, as long as it does not cross the threshold to abuse or neglect. By protecting the rights of social conservatives not to be gaslighted about their children being given messages about sexuality and gender that conflict with the parents' deeply held beliefs, I am also protecting my right to be made aware of what kinds of messages they are imparting to my kids that I might find objectionable for other reasons."

I think the only thing the school could teach was abstinence. Any other "angle" would take sides. I'm closer to a conservative than anything and I think that would be "fair". Parents are going to teach them at home what ever they see fit anyways.

Teaching abstinence is taking sides. That's not the natural way humans behave after reaching adolescence.

@SlackerInc

"Teaching abstinence is taking sides. That's not the natural way humans behave after reaching adolescence."

Yeah, you're right. I meant don't teach the intercourse part at all. Let that be addressed how the family wants to address it. Just stick to the biology of reproduction.

People like to quote things in this thread. I can only provide one from a movie adaptation, nothing fancy.

"I remember when different became dangerous. I never understood it. Why they hate us so much?" Any LGBT+ person has gone through a version of this and many have probably fears like in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W0-z8EnaM

And that is something some here will never understand. Topa probably does, though.

dangerous as in the cultlike mentality of death threats trans activists send on twitter to anyone who dares to deviate from the ideology?
dangerous like the women, scared to speak out after their husbands 'become women'?
https://www.transwidowsvoices.org/

i am a homosexual male. no amount of surgery, on a female, reproduces male biology or personality. Yet if you look at this tweet
https://twitter.com/stilltish/status/1284443676144435202

And I have experienced this from trans-identified females. Being called a f*g/got, q***r, etc, all in the name of acceptance. You seem to be an "ally"? To whom? Same-sex, or same-gender? Those are not the same thing. I doubt you'll even look at the homophobia linked... as it doesn't comply with the cult, right?

@Bread
You may not know it but the greatest threat to LGBTQ were and still are and always will be non LGBTQ people. No country with homophobic legislation is ruled by trans activists. No country is ruled by trans activists period. Oh and can we stop with the trans activists bullshit. Just say transsexuals. That's what you have a problem with. The only reason people say trans activists is to pretend that they have no problem with transsexuals themselves while at the same time posting hurtful propaganda about transsexuals. By the way, apart from some extremists or trolls (russian or other) nobody thinks death threats, any threats of violence, are ok. There are some gays who have sex with children. Does that mean that all gays are a threat to children? No, because the gay pedophiles aren't representative. The same as heterosexual pedophiles aren't representative of heterosexual men or women. You just pick a few examples to vilify an entire group.

Personally I have sex with men and women, so I know quite a bit about homosexual intolerance (Bisexuals make up your minds) and we all know how much influence gay men have in the LGBTQ community, not always to it's benefit.

"I doubt you'll even look at the homophobia linked... as it doesn't comply with the cult, right? "
People who make that kind of statements aren't interested in dialogue.

I am not part of "LGBTQ". Q is a slur, kindly do not use it to refer to me. I am part of the "same-sex attracted community". There are no threats to me in the country I live in, I do not live in the Middle East, Asia, or Africa - where the mere mention of being gay could get you stoned to death. Marriage equality (in name), being in movies and stuff are a privilege and a luxury, not a right.

The "big bad cissie straights", being the majority in the world, are the ones passing the laws that allow equality, no? Very beautiful "us-vs-them". We are all human.

You bring up pedophilia yet again... irrelevant to what I am talking about... Another whataboutism.

The "activists" are referred to as "handmaidens" sometimes. Women who for some reason love the ideology. And the women who don't are filthy TERFs or whatever, so, yes, "activists" are the ones who help to elevate voices.

Now onto the real point:
You say you are not interested in dialogue. I provided you with hard evidence of homophobia. You did not even glance at the thousands of screencaps of trans-identified females exhibiting misandry. Or if you did... Where's your opinion? There is proof that a multitude of "transmen" are not interested in anything other than being bullies.

Makes you wonder... why does Twitter allow that kind of stuff to stay up? Yet removes anything that questions The Narrative. :)

Until you respond to the Boxer Ceiling album, I won't bother talking to you. You're clearly just... steadfast. Which is hilarious - I used to be all for "trans rights" until I saw what it really stood for in these last few years. My opinion was changed.

"I do not live in the Middle East, Asia, or Africa - where the mere mention of being gay could get you stoned to death."
Uh sorry Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Thailand, India, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, South Africa, Israel, Botswana, Georgia, Turkey and so on. Turkey actually legalized homosexuality before the US freed the slaves.

"Until you respond to the Boxer Ceiling album, I won't bother talking to you."
I will do you one better and stop talking to you right now.

@Bread

I think you raise some very important points -- and it's refreshing to hear a gay man point to the awful behavior of some of these "trans activists" who effectively undermine the general non-hetero crowd.

"I used to be all for "trans rights" until I saw what it really stood for in these last few years. My opinion was changed."

I think it's become pretty clear with the various kinds of activists that what they really stand for and where it would take society is definitely not pretty.

The whole notion of activists really turns me (and many others) off -- one can't take these people seriously given their disingenuous conduct. And trans activists appear to be among the most vile of all activists. There is never any justification for the kinds of personal insults you faced from them.

SAVAGE, Bread. Literally crashed the brainwashed NPC brain with that album, he won't even dare to comment on the homophobia!! It's hilarious, too - FTMs are still female-socialised and prefer an emotional, verbal attack, compared to MTFs male-aggression (not being sexist, just generalising the typical primal behaviours).

Now are we still doing quotes? Before that smug comment? I've got some from an amazing manual for current life - oops, I mean, fiction haha - 1984

On "men are women, women are men":

'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.

'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'

'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'

(The "all of them at once" part really hilariously encompasses "genderfluid" or whatever it is)

On "What the mainstream media/current social justice event/Twitter says is reality":

'We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation -- anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.'


This is a long one, but says to me: "Desistors and resistors cannot exist and must be converted."

'You are a flaw in the pattern, Winston. You are a stain that must be wiped out. Did I not tell you just now that we are different from the persecutors of the past? We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be. Even in the instant of death we cannot permit any deviation. In the old days the heretic walked to the stake still a heretic, proclaiming his heresy, exulting in it. Even the victim of the Russian purges could carry rebellion locked up in his skull as he walked down the passage waiting for the bullet. But we make the brain perfect before we blow it out. The command of the old despotisms was "Thou shalt not". The command of the totalitarians was "Thou shalt". Our command is "Thou art".'

And now, I got some links. YMCA banning a dangerous evil ... 80yo? For being concerned about a man in the women's changing rooms: https://nypost.com/2022/08/16/woman-heckled-at-rally-after-confronting-trans-ymca-worker/

The UK thoughtpolice (lol 1984 again I'm sorry) https://dennisnoelkavanagh.substack.com/p/stonewalls-thought-police-now-defiantly

In actual good news, I've read that some boxing association is banning men from beating up women (and definitely saving some female lives, boxers have died). Sanity is slowly coming back.

And to Rahul: The problem these activists is not that they want equality (as men and women are equal in most of these countries they whine in), it's that they want special treatment. Wanting that which is not fair to others, infringing on private spaces.

@Rahul

There's quite a lot of us, there were online communities on Reddit (yuck I know, but it got banned obviously) and Saidit called LGBDropTheT. Tons of lesbians, bisexuals, gays and allies agreeing. Of all backgrounds too! Liberal, conservative, atheist, religious.

@Truth

NPC... Like in a video game? I've never heard that one before - I suppose it fits! Unable to respond to evidence that doesn't "make sense" haha.
Nice 1984 quotes, Orwell was ahead of his time in the predictions... telescreens are like phones... we all rat each other out in this vile cancel culture. Sickening...


Those links made me sad... a woman harrassed in her own home? A rape victim not wanting to be around men. And the TRAs say "oh this never happens"... Again, hard evidence!
Sad to see the YMCA going from a gay icon (village people anyone?) to... this. Would never take any children there knowing that's allowed!

Same here Bread, the trans people I used to know in the 2000s were the HSTS type and I never had any problem with them, in fact I generally got on better with them than with my (fellow) gay friends. It used to infuriate me when someone would deliberately, maliciously misgender them as a way to bully them. But within the past decade or so the trans community has been massively colonised by straight male fetishists claiming to be "trans lesbians"/"transbians" - paraphilic men who have an autoerotic transformation fetish of turning into a woman. It's been detrimental to LGBT communities... the T always did used to belong with the LGB, because it essentially meant "gay men and lesbians are still welcome in our community if they decide to transition". But this unholy alliance of autogynephiles and the ROGD/non-binary cohort (90% of whom are girls in their teens and 20s) has completely changed the nature of the trans community, we're quite simply talking about an entirely different group of people than your classic transsexual (of the kind that has always existed and still comprises the overwhelming majority of the trans populace in non-Western countries, as it did in the West too until the AGP/ROGD influx).

Increasingly, the younger end of the autogynephile demographic is also made up of a lot of socially isolated straight male geeks and nerds who feel like they’re not masculine enough, have failed as men and can’t get a girlfriend so are transitioning to “lesbian” as a kind of last resort. It’s not insignificant that this demographic have grown up having it drummed into them (at least outside their families) that being a straight white male is the worst thing you can be. It’s a desperate attempt to gain social capital and not be a social outcast. Identity exit. It's also heavily influenced by porn addiction and anime - they typically pass really poorly and their female personas are more like some kind of caricatured anime girl than any real woman. They’re overwhelmingly white and from middle-class/upper-middle-class backgrounds, didn’t grow up as effeminate boys, and have stereotypically male interests, often working in areas like engineering, computer programming/IT, the military, sports, nerd culture etc. They're disproportionately likely to be autistic and have poor social skills. Some of them have a history of erotic cross-dressing/trying on female family members’ underwear. These MtFs fetishize womanhood and girliness and are disproportionately the ones driving much of the controversy; many are highly active online where they can pretend to be women and validate each other. They often form relationships with each other - two straight men role-playing as lesbians. These are the people with anime avatars who spend all day on Twitter talking about being trans and attacking women. Google the “incel to trans pipeline”.

“[Rowling] thinks trans women are a threat to women in women's only bathrooms” - we’re not necessarily talking about trans people. We’re talking about self-ID. When the legislative framework is such that all any man has to do is declare that he is a woman for him to be obligatorily treated as one by all (with dire consequences for anyone who dissents), it’s easy to see how this creates a situation that’s extremely open to abuse. This puts women (also including genuine trans women) at risk.

There’s been a lot of focus on “what is a woman” recently, but I think an even more interesting question is “what is a trans person”. There’s a definitional crisis at the heart of this debate, and people on opposing sides often have a completely different conception of what a “trans” person is. There is disagreement on this within trans communities too - some argue you have to have experienced gender dysphoria and/or medically transition in order to be “truly” trans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmedicalism) while others prefer an opt-in approach without these requirements. As recently as 10-15 years ago we had a very clear idea of what a transgender (then termed “transsexual”) person was - someone who had experienced gender dysphoria since childhood, who was living full time as the gender they’d transitioned to, and who had medically and surgically transitioned. Now we’ve essentially moved to a position of “if you say you’re trans, you are” without any requirement for people to provide any evidence or change anything about themselves, which opens up a huge can of worms. There is absolutely no way of telling a genuine trans person from a fake one now that the definition of trans is so loose and based solely on self-declaration of one’s feelings, which is unfalsifiable.

For similar reasons, “non-binary” is also unfalsifiable. Sam Smith and Demi Lovato now have the same gender identity. The cultural capital of being LGBTQ+ among young people is leading to huge swathes of straight people (mostly girls) identifying as “queer” or “non-binary”, but apart from the label and pronouns they’re no different to any other young straight person and have no same-sex attraction - their non-binary or queer identity may boil down to a short and/or dyed haircut and a few fashion choices. But their unfalsifiable status as TQ+ gives them power over others that can be weaponized in institutions and in the workplace. Gay men and lesbians (and old-school trans people) haven't come through the AIDS crisis and decades of trauma and fighting for their extremely hard-won rights so that some straight girl with blue hair can denounce them as transphobic and get them fired from their job for refusing to refer to her as "they". All this proliferation of labels, particularly among young people who want to have the perceived social status of being LGBTQ+ without being gay or lesbian or genuinely trans, speaks to a greater void… people are so desperate for a purpose, a meaning, a tribe in the spiritual vacuum of 21st century Western society that they're clutching at straws. It also has a lot to do with the amount of extreme pornography that young people are exposed to: of course girls don’t want to grow up to be women when they think that means being choked during sex etc., something that’s now become normalized in the porn that their male schoolmates watch on their smartphones. Much of the trans movement among young people is like an anti-sex movement and is striking for how asexual it is - adolescents are opting out of their gender and running away from what they think sex is, because the sex they’re exposed to online is terrifying, and “queerness” likewise has become completely divorced from same-sex attraction and actual sex. Young people in Anglophone countries are growing up in a discursive environment that tells them that to be a woman is to be a victim, to be a man is to be a perpetrator, but to be LGBTQIA+ is a special kind of exalted status deserving of protection and attention (and a way to escape the power imbalance of male-female relationships). Of course kids are opting out of their gender. In the words of one detransitioner, “It wasn’t so much that I wanted to be a man, I just knew that I didn’t want to be a woman”.

Hodor??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiazMhG7ZM8

N, you are of course, completely correct. Blanchard is accurate in his definitions of AGP and HSTS (I have no problem with these people - to me, they are gays who struggle with their sexuality and if they feel more comfortable presenting as a female, then so be it - most do not fly into a rage when 'misgendered' in my experiences).

Non-binary is a fashion sense. I saw one on the television the other day. My first thought - a short, fat lesbian, short sidecut hair in neon yellow suit and glasses. And then... "They" was mentioned. Ticked all the boxes. It's also "please give me attention for being special and unique! I am not like the others..."

This may prove a divisive opinion, but I believe radical feminism has played a part in this. Specifically anti-male propaganda that was flowing through the internet in the peak of Tumblr. I see TV ads about male-on-female violence, and while I agree it's a problem... There is barely anything discussed of female-on-male violence (let alone same-sex). Men are the big bad, women are fragile and protected. As you mentioned, autistic and socially-awkward men are particularly prone to transitioning, and (not exclusive to those categories is) herd mentality. Being the only "cis" male in a group of "transwomen" programmers is being an outcast.

I would be very interested in knowing just how many of these "allies" privately condemn this sort of behaviour, but do not wish to give up social clout or be cancelled. More need to "come out" as against the gender-cult, tbh.

When it comes to 'what is a woman', I believe that a good rebuttal is when it comes to gametes. Can't remember exactly what I read, but it was "female = immobile egg-style gamete" and "male = mobile inseminated gamete". Humans cannot ever produce both, no intersex conditions allow that, and in all of nature, this is what is observed. Hilariously I read some transexual saying that "clownfish can change sex"... We aren't clownfish!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV-Exeal17s

Just started watching Season 3 when it came onto the Disney + channel, which I already have. I am just cherry-picking the best reviewed episodes, and this one was incredible. Wow, just wow. As someone said upthread, not a four-star...a five-star episode. Probably the best episode The Orville has ever done.

I'm not really into the LBGTQ transgender stuff one way or the other--just think people should be free to be their true selves, whatever that may be--but loved this episode just for Topa's story.

@N: "Identity exit", interesting. Good post.

@lizzzi, I agree. Cool to read your belated reactions on these episodes. Hopefully it is emblematic of this Disney+ deal attracting new viewers.

Let's see. We have a Moclan who was gender altered at birth to fit in with the all male Moclan society. Who cares about the customs of another species?
The problem arises when humans interfere. If Kelly felt that the kid was troubled she should have told the parents and put the doctor on alert. But no. She had to play God. The doctor told her she did the right thing. No she didn't. She disrespected the traditions of an alien race just because she didn't agree with them.
As for the kid, sorry mate but that's the way of your world. None of my business. You're neither male nor female, you're Moclan.

@mephyve,

Interesting perspective. But wasn't it Bortus that indirectly told Topa?

I don't agree that it's none of their business. They were at the time all part of the Planetary Union. With the same president and everything.

@Boom

You sort of have to ignore some of the anti-gay gay people. It's just internalized homophobia. Whenever a gay person says anything remotely like, "I don't consider myself part of the lgbtq because ____" that's them trying to fit in with the oppressors not realizing they're just selling themselves short until one day they too are thrown into the trash pile.

Yeah they'll be heralded by the phobes, "look! there is one who knows his place! There is one who behaves!". And that's ok, they know deep inside them that they're still wrestling with accepting that they're just as queer as the guy dancing in a rainbow float during a parade.

Just remind yourself that you're also fighting for them, so that one day they can see they were just in a cave, looking at the light reflecting off the wall, thinking that was the outside.

Remember that we know why the caged bird still sings.

So don't engage, and ignore, they have enough of an argument inside themselves, they don't need us to add to it while they settle themselves out.

Loved the episode. It's a very heavy episode regarding transphobia, but wrapped up precisely enough to be a bridge in understanding because of some nuances.

It allows some people to go, "well, she was female to begin with! So this is different!" Sure, yes. *wink wink*.

But mirrors exactly how a trans child feels, being completely isolated and dealing with body issues while adults go around yelling about, "they're too young to decide!" "well I wanted to be an alligator at that age, they don't know what they're saying". And a whole bunch of weak words to give form to weaker sensibilities.

It's just like when we come out as gay. How many decades of people telling us we were too young to feel like we feel, while at the same time if a little boy kisses a girl? How cute! Oh but you don't know how you truly feel. This can be just a phase!

All in order to "protect children" from doing something permanent... they can't see yet how to even "protect" implies already a stance on what's bad or dangerous.

But alas the future is progressive. Whether they like it or not, or whether they want to or not, or whether everything will implode before. It is.

We're currently living in a world that lgbtq+ in the 1920s could only dream of. Even though it's not far enough or equal enough to even be able to kiss who I want, marry who I want. This was their dream, and we're living in it. We live in a time that blacks dreamed of, immigrants, women, gays, and so many mistreated groups dreamed of.

So when people try to tell me the future won't be like the Orville, or Star Trek, the future won't have everyone equal and religions respected but not the center of law, that the future won't be a place where regression is covered with labels such as "conservative", I just smile.

I smile because I know the truth. We already live in a world where dreams come true.

Above comment is so brainwashed lol.
https://pitt.substack.com/p/to-the-future-dr-freemans

When the desistors come in droves, when the suicides (actual suicides, not the fake "41%" statistic) skyrocket... The media will run a "oh well actually some trans people grow out of it" and then shuffle it to the side.

I am not part of any "q***r" community. In the middle east and african countries, "bash the q***r" is still spoken proudly. "Reclaiming" a slur is the choice of privileged westerners. If you force me to be part of this because I like men instead of women (and that is the only difference between me and a straight man), surely the straight people can have their own pride, right? Their own "Straight only" clubs and special groups. No? Then that's a double standard. PLEASE never have kids, for the love of God. Because if your little boy says he wants to be a girl and you put him on hormones and reinforce his delusions, he'll listen, because that's what kids do with figures of authority.

In the US there's a saying, "hit dogs will holler", and I can see there's still a lot of hit dogs hollering in this thread.

You guys know science fiction has a long history of using allegory to point out man's inhumanity to man, to highlight intolerance, ignorance, and all the harm it brings?

Well, you know that in this case, the science fiction writers are writing about you, right?

You are Klyden. You are the ones who love cultural orthodoxy more than your own children. You are the ones who need to be taught a lesson about recognizing the humanity of others. This isn't unusual or unprecedented; it's a position conservatives always seem to find themselves in.

So by all means, carry on with your ignorant screeds. But keep in mind that in those science fiction shows you like, you have been correctly identified for what you are: a bigot.

It's you! They're writing about you!

I didn't really believe when the series started that MacFarlane would have this kind of episode in him. I think this'll be the series' crown jewel. Anyway -- some things I might change if 'twere me, but, sure, 4 stars.

But klyden supported the damaging of his child lol
I love how lefties force people who have same sex attraction to be in the same group as straight men who fetishise women and women who fetishise gay men
Like are all straight people the same? The pope must support the Taliban because they are all straight people yeah? Sexual attraction is a defining trait above all else? If not then homosexuals do not "HAVE TO" support the "poor transsexuals" many of whom are not even gay people themselves (agps,not hsts)m

And in western media, mainstream media practically places them on pedestals. Hardly oppressed if one transsexual can get tons of news articles written, and death threats sent to a woman who would not wax his male genitalia.
Though I'm pleased to read the sane comments earlier
Bread and N - very interesting stuff!!

you explained it perfectly

---
Present-day society is way too trigger-happy in this regard. The mainstream narrative completely ignores the complexity of the human psyche and the fact the people (especially young people) can get all kinds of crazy ideas in their heads for a variety of reasons. In short: Just because a gender transition could help in *some* cases, does not mean that it is the right solution for any person who longs for such a transition.

The transphobic Star Trek fan is truly a fascinating specimen, though not worthy of much studying.

But "present-day society" isn't in charge of gender transitioning, trained medical professionals are. Who should, if they're doing their jobs, be able to distinguish between crazy ideas in a kid's head and gender dysmorphia resulting from many years of utter conviction. As well as a range of other ethical considerations. The rest is the responsibility of the parents, as with a whole bunch of other medical and non-medical choices, some irreversible.

I'm not "phobic' because I'm not a lesbian scared of "women with penises" lol
I like old trek which has no gender nonsense or theythem shit
I don't have to agree with your nonsense politics because I like a piece of consumer media. I don't like all aspects of trek's outcomes anyway. Nothing is ever black and white despite how much the mainstream media loves to say it is

Tom, doctors are scared to say no. If a child says it's transsexual and the parents agree but the doctors do not... They will go to another doctor. Or make a big fuss and cancel the doctor. See: TAVISTOCK. lawsuits incoming brother

[Note: This comment was moved by Jammer after being posted in a different thread.]

Because comments are closed on A Tale of Two Topas I just wanted to respond to Omicron (and others) that that episode and the show does NOT appear to support the *medical* transition of children.

Here are quotes from A Tale of Two Topas and About A Girl.

Dr. Claire Finn: “Under normal circumstances, I couldn't do what's being asked until the child reached *adulthood*, but, to be blunt, Topa's history makes it all a wash. So, in my professional opinion, the tipping factor should be the wishes of Topa herself. And there's a very reasonable argument that we'd simply be restoring what was taken from her.” ~ A Tale of Two Topas

Dr. Claire Finn: I am a union doctor serving on a union ship,
and I will not perform a sex change on a newborn infant.” ~ About A Girl

Captain Ed Mercer: You want to perform
a transgender operation on a baby?
Bortus, that is completely unethical.
All right, look, even if I was not against this,
we are on a union ship.
And, for that matter, your planet is a member of the union.
For me to order Claire to do something like this
would be in violation of a hundred laws.” ~ About A Girl


So the Planetary Union doesn’t medically transition children until they become adults. Topa was getting detransition surgery because she wanted to “restore what was taken from her”, not a sex change.

With that being said, there's nothing wrong/ immoral with being transgender and medically transitioning as an adult. I respect transpeople (and am trans myself) . There's nothing wrong with children "socially transitioning" (clothes, hair style, pronouns etc) just leave the medical treatments out.
Thank you.

Ignore the very last paragraph. It's true but not relevant to the argument. Just wanted to point out that one can be against the *medical* transition of children and not be bigoted against transpeople. Which is also true of The Orville.

[Note: This comment was moved by Jammer after being posted in a different thread.]

Before I get to this episode, let me say a word on “A Tale of Two Topas,” as it seems the comment box for it has been closed. To review the season, I have to comment on every episode in context, or it won’t make sense.

One star for me: “Topas” interrupts the flow of the season with yet another dreary, logically inconsistent Moclan gender episode. At this point, the Moclans are a race of gay men who are so chauvinistic and sexist that they have obliterated the entire female sex. Topas wants to reverse a gender reassignment procedure that was performed at birth.

I’ve made it pretty clear that I think the Moclans are this show’s worst conceived element. Essentially, they are gay Klingons who hate women, and now we’re being asked to see in them a thinly veiled commentary on current debates about parental rights and transgender medical procedures? I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t work.

Dramatically, the main problem with this turgid soap opera is that it’s so one dimensional and one sided. Mercer’s people are enlightened, Klyden is bad, and there’s no complexity or reason in how things develop. It’s just another blight on an otherwise middling series, reminding us of why it was cancelled after this third season.