Racist “Star Trek Discovery” Detractors Give Up, Anti-Gay Bigotry Begins

Anthony Rapp and Wilson Cruz will play gay lovers in Star Trek Discovery (courtesy Broadway World)

Discovery Gets Gay Doctor

Last week, Star Trek Discovery actors, showrunners, and writers filled a panel at San Diego Comic-Con, hosted by Rainn Wilson.  They were there promoting the upcoming television series, airing this September.

Plenty of previously unannounced details were given to the public about the series, including that the love interest of Lt. Stamets will be played by Wilson Cruz.  You may remember Cruz from My So-Called Life along side Claire Danes.

Cruz will be playing Dr. Hugh Culber, a medical doctor aboard the USS Discovery.

In the summer of 2016, Bryan Fuller, creator of Star Trek Discovery, went on record stating that the television series would get its first openly-gay character.  Fuller, an openly gay man himself, made mention to the fact that it was time for the show to do a better job at representing those within the LGBTQ2 community.  Especially since Star Trek, at its core, is about inclusiveness.  Most critics praised the move.

Racist Detractors Attack

Then earlier this year, Discovery came under attack upon the release of it’s first trailer.  Not because the series doesn’t look good – many fans agree that it does.  Rather, because the two main protagonists, both women of color, weren’t white enough or male enough.  “White genocide” it was called by some.  Others, claiming to be long-time fans, swore to never watch the new show.  How one can claim to be a long-time fan and not see beneath the thinly-veiled disguise that Star Trek is about equality and inclusiveness isn’t clear.

Since then the dust has somewhat settled, until now.

With the public finally learning that Lt. Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp) and Dr. Hugh Culber (Wilson Cruz) are openly-gay lovers, there appears to be another backlash starting against the show.  Perhaps not yet as vocal as the racist detractors last month, but present none-the-less.

Gays in Space
Gays in Space
Gays in Space
Gays in Space

Cruz Writes Back

Unsurprisingly, Wilson Cruz has take time to reply to a number of the attacks lobbied his way.  He is known for being somewhat of an activist for gay rights.

Backing him up are a number of Star Trek fans who have also taken to Twitter to let Cruz know they’re happy about his appearance on Discovery – and what he represents and means to them personally.

In 50 years of Star Trek on television, no main character has been openly gay.  In 2016, Star Trek: Beyond did introduce Sulu as being gay in the movie series, but his character was never openly gay in the tv series.

Star Trek Discovery airs this September 24th on CBS All Access in the USA, CraveTV/Space in Canada, and on Netflix around the world.

← Share this with your friends now!

leave a comment or question below

About Enrico Pastellio

Rico became a Star Trek fan after being introduced to it during Star Trek Enterprise's run. After finishing that series, he went back watching TNG, DS9, VOY, and most of the movies. He's a big fan of Star Trek (2009) for its action, but favors the cerebral nature of each tv series. When Rico first heard about the new Star Trek Discovery series (then just know as 'Star Trek'), he immediately wanted to start up a new site about the show. You can email him at enrico@ncc-1031.com.

  • GA

    Sexuality does not belong in a show like Star Trek. For it to be is only an attempt for one group to push their message upon everyone else. Star Trek is about inclusion, but that is not the central theme. It is about Space and a better tomorrow. Extensive use of sexuality does not help the show but will likely detract from it making it uncomfortable to watch.
    Several years ago when Battlestar Galactica was rebooted, I had high hopes. I watched every episode of the show, but was very uncomfortable in many episodes because of over emphasis on sexuality. That was not gay, but strait sexuality. I loved the original Battlestar Galactica and looked forward to the reboot. The new show had great special effects and story line, but the over the top sexuality caused me to struggle to sit through some of the episodes.
    Star Trek is much the same for me. OK, an occasional reference to a gay relationship is fine, but I saw some of the fan fiction Star Trek shows where a gay relationship was way over done. We don’t need to see two men in bed or cuddling any more than we need to see a man and woman doing the same in a show like this. Either scenario detracts from why I want to watch a SciFi show like Star Trek. So if there is a gay relationship in the show, I’m fine with that as long as it isn’t more than a behind the scenes thing. That goes for heterosexual relationships as well. Don’t ruin a family friendly SciFi franchise by forcing sexuality into it. That is not what most of us want to see when we watch these shows.

    • cass ada

      I think you just need to look back to Captain Kirk to see that indeed sexuality does occur in Star Trek, just as it does in the real world. The show wasn’t *about* sexuality, and neither is Star Trek Discovery. Nobody wants the show to be about nothing but sexuality.

      Contrary to your comment, inclusion actually is the central theme of the series. Always has been. Perhaps not in the movies, but Star Trek lives in television episodes. As Gene Roddenberry expressed on many occasion, it was his opinion the better future he envisions (and that you mentioned) is only achieved through inclusion and diversity. And he presented that as truth in Star Trek. They are core tenants of the shows and his worldview.

      If you’re uncomfortable with the sexuality that was in Battlestar Galactica, I think you need to evaluate *why* you’re so uncomfortable with it. Sounds like there may be some in-grained guilt around it. Fair enough that if the entire show was about nothing but sex, that may be a bit uncomfortable. But it’s not.

      Sex happens. Sexuality is real. Without it, our species ceases to exist. Doesn’t mean it’s in your face, but it shouldn’t be ignored either… that leads to some messed-up things.

      • THETRUTH

        BSG was overtly Sexualized.

        ST can have a hint of Normal Sex but Homosexuality has no place.

        The fact that only 3% of the populas engage in this aberrant conduct should make that clear!

        Normal Sex is an innate drive to perpetuate the species.

        Homosexual sex….. well you figure it out!

        • cass ada

          Science has already figured it out. I don’t need.

          If they’re only 3% of the population, that’s all the more reason to have them represented in Star Trek, not ignored.

          • THETRUTH

            What a ridiculous conclusion!

          • THETRUTH

            By what logic do you jump to that conclusion?

            Oh and science figured out what?

          • cass ada

            Has figured out that homosexuality is a part of nature and exists naturally within the gene pool.

          • THETRUTH

            Please, enlighten the class, what Studies have brought us to that conclusion?

          • Eric Johnson

            To have a story arc about their relationship’s development is not going to add much to the show, unless both are assigned to the same ship and living together. But then Can you say Tom & B’Elana? Or Trip and T’pal? (Trip has been pregnant, BTW.) I believe that it was the Oh so straight-n-horny Ryker who had to face the issue directly, albeit in a somewhat couched manner due to the times, and Dr. Crusher had to deal with a lover and boyfriend who, all of a sudden, changed genders. Remember that first Trill?

            Thus flashing from time-to-time to a gay character’s San Francisco pad and portraying what goes on there will, as I said, add little to the show, just like it added little to Star Trek 4, as the exchange of glasses could have happened anywhere, like ’round the fire at Yosemite, as in ST5…which was also a largely wasted scene.

        • Eric Johnson

          The have already dealt with it on 3 shows.

        • Thabo

          It’s normal for me. You know, I remember when the ST episode Plato’s Stepchildren was aired back in ’68 it was hugely controversial [ ” it was the first interracial kiss on television, and despite the initial idea of censoring the kiss from the South, the episode aired to great fanfare  —  as well as letters of outrage ” Business Insider: Tech News ] Well, forget the letters . . we now have the net. The Kirk-Uhura kiss was also declared by many as ‘aberrant conduct’ and that it might kick-start that ‘innate drive to perpetuate’ the species. Ugh! White-Black babies!

          • THETRUTH

            I know, sad isn’t it?

  • NikolaiG

    What Discovery needs to do is fix those Klingons and get the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 insignia removed from those uniforms.


    Then let me explain it to you…

    We are tired of 3% of the populas being depicted in our favorite shows!

    Being gay is NOT a wonderful thing and it is certainly NOT the NORM!


    • dbattle

      Blacks only make up about 10% of the “populas”, should they be excluded also? Asians make up even less ( of the US “populas” at least) should they be excluded? Exactly what metric are you using to determine which demographic should or should not be included on Star Trek? I find it hard to imagine that Star Trek is one of your favorite shows when it has championed inclusion and progressive themes since 1966. Being gay is not a wonderful thing? Neither is being a serial womanizer, which Kirk certainly was, or an unapologetic swindler, which Quark certainly was. If you expected to see “Perfect Heterosexual White People in Space” then you definitely chose the wrong program. Try Big Bang Theory…lots of White people on that show. The one gay guy is pretending to be straight and the Indian guy is played for laughs. That should be right up your alley.

      • THETRUTH

        So being Gay is now a Race??
        You Liberals really are screwballs!!

        • dbattle

          Where did I say being gay is a race? You were talking about demographics and percent of the “populas.” So now your metric, whatever it is, discounts race but includes sexual orientation (but I’m the screwball).

      • Eric Johnson

        Actually TOS does qualify as “Perfect Heterosexual White People in Space,” except for Guinan who is both extraterrestrial and not portrayed sexually. Data is “fully functional and programmed in multiple techniques.” And he was the one to tap ‘Tasha Yar


    You have to LOVE the rhetoric!
    You’re a bigot if you don’t want to see gay characters on Star Trek!

    Yes, Star Trek is about inclusivity but who’s to say that the future dosen’t eradicate this abnormality from the human race?

    Oh that’s right you’re born that way.

    Count me as one of those who stands on principles and won’t be looking forward to this Incarnation!

    By the way, I wrote off the Movie franchise with the unnecessary “Gay Sulu” nonsense too!

    • cass ada

      Eradicate this “abnormality”? If that’s your bar for abnormality, there’s a lot of things that can be considered abnormalities. Albino. Blue eyes. These things are seen abundantly in nature, as is homosexuality.

      Not sure why you bring up the born that way thing. But maybe you’re saying gay people are not born gay (or with genes with propensities towards a homosexual persuasion)? Neither are people of religion.

      I also stand on principles. My principles and my morals are telling me to not only accept (that should be the default position) these differences but to defend them from immoral people like yourself.

      “Gay Sulu” is nonsense? More like your opinion is nonsense. Actually, I’m glad to hear you wrote it off. Wouldn’t want people like yourself influencing what Star Trek is about, has always been about, and will continue doing. IDIC.

      • THETRUTH

        So you’re saying gay people are born gay (or with genes with propensities towards a homosexual persuasion)?
        Please elucidate us…

        • THETRUTH

          He jumped all over everything else but couldn’t back this one up….

          Hmmmm, wonder why?

      • THETRUTH

        Oh and I’m handling your attack as a secondary issue, on what basis do you presume to occupy the moral high ground?
        From whence do you justify your Moral Superiority?
        Yes, I’m offended, how terribly Intolerant of you to call me Immoral simply because I disagree with you that not only is Homosexuality MORALY wrong but that it has no place in a family friendly show!

        I do understand that unless the rest of us buy into whatever the Left is currently peddling, we’re Immoral!

        I was going to go on but I’ll await your response instead.

        • cass ada

          I occupy the moral high ground by acceptance of things people can’t and shouldn’t change, and by offering them love and understanding instead of hate.

          Morality is a human trait – a construct we’ve made up. Do you think that gay animals in nature are also morally wrong?

          • THETRUTH

            At least you admit your arrogance, thank you for that!
            Hate is your word.
            You see Hate in anyone who has a different opinion than you.

            Human Sexuality is infinitly more complex than any animal’s behavior!

            By the way, I’d be equally as appalled if they cast a serial adulterist too.
            But I suppose you’d cite the non-monogamous Animals of the Animal kingdom!

          • Eric Johnson

            No,but there relationship development is also not appropriate for star trek, unless they are from another planet.

  • Eric Johnson

    I simply don’t know what a gay relationship will add to a show about science fiction. It seems rather unnecessary and contrived to please. Unless there are multiple scripts where other as-yet-to-be-discovered civilizations have problem with it, such as Poland with EU pro-gay laws. But how many of those stories can we handle? It is kind of like “Wesley Crusher saves the day,” scripts, or one too many of the Voyager Dr. against his ego scripts. At the point of 2255, should this even be worth noting, given what we know about Earth and Federation law?