Star Trek: Discovery (2017)

How are you watching Star Trek: Discovery?

  • Signed up for CBS All Access before watching the premiere

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Signed up for CBS All Access after watching the premiere

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Not signing up, but will watch if it's available for free

    Votes: 82 57.3%
  • On Netflix (Non-US viewer)

    Votes: 35 24.5%

  • Total voters
    143
jlee562
The CDC has no interest in spinning numbers for or against any particular demo. And they publish their method, so you know exactly how they got the numbers and how they use them.

That disclaimer is only saying if you conduct your survey different you could get different results. Which is truthful. In fact, it reinforces that GLAAD is doing something highly different.

Also, as stated before, the CDC reports the methodology. The questions they asked, etc. You can't find anything like that on the GLAAD report. They want you to give contact information and deal with a middle-man. If you know anything about peer-review then you know that is suspicious. It would take no more effort than publishing a couple digital pages.

You're the one going on about "demographically accurate show" meaning more diversity. I'm just showing you far more accurate data that fall short of the numbers you claim. Data you cannot really counter without either peer-reviewing it yourself or producing the GLAAD methodology and showing it to be somehow superior despite a much smaller survey size.

No spin, no politics. Just numbers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So what's your point, exactly? What does that mean in relation to Discovery?

Say your take on the numbers is correct. Does that mean a Discovery, part of a franchise known to push social boundaries in terms of race/gender/orientation, shouldn't be showing us gay people? What is the harm in being socially progressive and doing so?

Is the argument that it's jarring and it takes you out of the story or makes you feel like there's an agenda, and the math of majority is possibly on your side, so they shouldn't do it?

Even if it was an agenda-- I say so what-- what is the harm? If I ran my own TV show I'd push as many social agenda buttons as possible if the point of the show was a society that preaches equality in all.

Here's a fun game-- replace "gay" with "black."

If somebody said "This new Star Trek show has too many black people. I feel like there's an agenda being shoved down my throat to..." what? Acknowledge black people exist? Cause when the original TOS ran, that could have been a reaction-- one we would totally shame now even if math was on its side.

I'm not calling you homophobic, I'm, not saying you can't dislike the show, lord knows I struggle with it.

But what exactly is the argument? Why is it a problem if there's gay people as primary characters who kiss on the show?
 
@jlee562
The CDC has no interest in spinning numbers for or against any particular demo. And they publish their method, so you know exactly how they got the numbers and how they use them.

That disclaimer is only saying if you conduct your survey different you could get different results. Which is truthful. In fact, it reinforces that GLAAD is doing something highly different.

Also, as stated before, the CDC reports the methodology. The questions they asked, etc. You can't find anything like that on the GLAAD report. They want you to give contact information and deal with a middle-man. If you know anything about peer-review then you know that is suspicious. It would take no more effort than publishing a couple digital pages.

You're the one going on about "demographically accurate show" meaning more diversity. I'm just showing you far more accurate data that fall short of the numbers you claim. Data you cannot really counter without either peer-reviewing it yourself or producing the GLAAD methodology and showing it to be somehow superior despite a much smaller survey size.

No spin, no politics. Just numbers.

Although my certification has lapsed, I have been trained in human subjects protocol for institutional review. So yes, I am familiar with survey methodology. It's one of those things one picks up in the process of earning a master's degree in a social science.

Implying that GLAAD has an interest in spinning numbers is not actually the same as demonstrating that they have. Moreover, the CDC could have any number of reasons for skewing demographics. But that's not the significant issue here.

Showing slight disparities in two surveys which ask different questions (and btw, the margin of error is probably larger than the discrepancies we're talking about here), does not demonstrate that the GLAAD study is flawed. Moreover, the point I was making was that younger folks are embracing a wider spectrum of gender and sexuality. The GLAAD survey numbers actually validate this hypothesis because the cohort start date moves from 1995 to 1998.

Seth beat me to the punch though what's your actual argument? Gay fans of Trek have watched their favorite heterosexual characters fall in and out of love and lust. It's easy for a heterosexual person to not be aware that their stories are assumed to have a universality by default.

And let's just get to the bottom line. Has the Stamets/Culbert relationship really taken up waaaay more than 1.6% of Discovery's screen time or narrative?

P.S. I went looking for the margin of error in the CDC report...and well, I'll just let the researchers speak for their dataset:
However, even with a sample size of 34,557 adults, the number of adults who identified as either gay or lesbian, or bisexual in NHIS is relatively small, and for certain health indicators, this small sample size results in unreliable estimates. Multiple years of NHIS data may need to be used before reliable estimates can be generated for select health indicators by sexual orientation.

The findings presented here provide an initial examination of health differences by sexual orientation using NHIS data and are not intended to be comprehensive.

You are either deliberately misrepresenting what the data represents, or misunderstanding what is being presented. The researchers are not attempting to establish a definitive estimate of sexual orientation. The main goal of the research is to identify health indicators (drinking/smoking/psychological distress/access to healthcare) between demographic groups.

P.P.S. http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx
 
Last edited:
Ignoring the whole debate here, I think the relationship in Discovery has been way under-utilized and downplayed given how much they could/should have used it. The most vital person to the entire mission of the ship is risking their life every time they jump, and they're in a relationship with the main doctor. That's only barely been touched upon, even in the mid season finale when Stamets collapsed.
I'd rather have seen more of that relationship dynamic than see the forced arguments between the entire crew they've been passing off as "drama" so far. It's weak.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how concerned some people are over who likes to bed down with who and the lengths people go to to express their dissatisfaction over seeing it on TV or in the movies or in life. The first time I saw 2 men holding hands it freaked me out but 25 years later I could care less and it actually makes me happy to see it on TV, especially on a TV show that was DESIGNED to break the status quo. Its about time gay people can see a representation of their flavor of love more often. And in case anyone thinks I have some kind of self driven agenda, I am a straight man. I have to admit that it still makes me uncomfortable when I see 2 men kiss. I wonder if gay people feel that way when they see straight folks kiss? Anyway....back to this poorly written show!!
Agreed. Except for the last part.

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
 
@SethS Asking me a bunch of assumption filled questions, slanted to suggest I'm some kind of hater, is hardly worthy. Especially since I've proudly defended the notion that DS9 beat STD to the punch with Jadzia Dax kissing another female. Mirror universe Kira and Ezri while we're at it.

Unless you think merely using a scientific survey to show proof is someone acting anti-anything. In which case you have unfair standards.

Although my certification has lapsed, I have been trained in human subjects protocol for institutional review. So yes, I am familiar with survey methodology. It's one of those things one picks up in the process of earning a master's degree in a social science.

Implying that GLAAD has an interest in spinning numbers is not actually the same as demonstrating that they have. Moreover, the CDC could have any number of reasons for skewing demographics. But that's not the significant issue here.

Showing slight disparities in two surveys which ask different questions (and btw, the margin of error is probably larger than the discrepancies we're talking about here), does not demonstrate that the GLAAD study is flawed. Moreover, the point I was making was that younger folks are embracing a wider spectrum of gender and sexuality. The GLAAD survey numbers actually validate this hypothesis because the cohort start date moves from 1995 to 1998.

Seth beat me to the punch though what's your actual argument? Gay fans of Trek have watched their favorite heterosexual characters fall in and out of love and lust. It's easy for a heterosexual person to not be aware that their stories are assumed to have a universality by default.

And let's just get to the bottom line. Has the Stamets/Culbert relationship really taken up waaaay more than 1.6% of Discovery's screen time or narrative?

P.S. I went looking for the margin of error in the CDC report...and well, I'll just let the researchers speak for their dataset:


You are either deliberately misrepresenting what the data represents, or misunderstanding what is being presented. The researchers are not attempting to establish a definitive estimate of sexual orientation. The main goal of the research is to identify health indicators (drinking/smoking/psychological distress/access to healthcare) between demographic groups.

P.P.S. http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx

Explain a 5%+ disparity between CDC and GLAAD's "bisexual" percentage. Where did GLAAD get that extra 5%+? That's not a "slight disparity". They've also nearly doubled the gay population from 1.6% to 3%. Nearly doubling a figure is also not a "slight disparity".

GLAAD has basically over-represented every demographic favorable to their interests. Funny how all those "disparities" just so happen to favor their totals. It's also very telling that you refuse to address the fact that GLAAD is hiding their method, while CDC shares freely.

That warning about unreliable figures pertains to "health indicators". Not the actual demographic itself.

As for misunderstanding demographics, you apparently think they pertain to screen time.

That gallup poll is LGBT combined. So you are basically now admitting that only 4.1% of total people are LGBT, which totally destroys GLAAD numbers and shows them to be inflated. Since only 4.1% are LGBT, then we really need to know where GLAAD got 6% "bisexual".
 
Last edited:
@SethS Asking me a bunch of assumption filled questions, slanted to suggest I'm some kind of hater, is hardly worthy. Especially since I've proudly defended the notion that DS9 beat STD to the punch with Jadzia Dax kissing another female. Mirror universe Kira and Ezri while we're at it.

I clearly said I didn't think you were a homophobe. You just seemed so dead set to make a point about the gay representation on the show and I lost track of what it was.

I was legit asking what your argument was in relation to Discovery because I think the lede got buried somewhere.
 
I clearly said I didn't think you were a homophobe. You just seemed so dead set to make a point about the gay representation on the show and I lost track of what it was.

I was legit asking what your argument was in relation to Discovery because I think the lede got buried somewhere.

You asked me why there is a problem with gay people kissing on screen, among other highly-loaded questions. That's pretty much an accusation all by itself. Especially since I haven't said anything anti-gay kissing on screen.

Anyways, here is the point for point.

jlee claims with a GLAAD survey that there is a roughly 9% alternative-demo population. Then says if Trek were 'demographically accurate" there would actually be more diversity.

I countered with a CDC survey that says the number is far smaller. And claimed that his survey was suspect due to the source.

He has yet to address the suspicious points raised. The lack of methodology, how they don't share it. The fact that the "slight disparities" as he calls them are not slight and all favor GLAAD.

And now, he has posted a gallup poll that pretty much undercut all the GLAAD numbers and show them to be very inflated. Let's see how he responds to that.
 
@SethS Asking me a bunch of assumption filled questions, slanted to suggest I'm some kind of hater, is hardly worthy. Especially since I've proudly defended the notion that DS9 beat STD to the punch with Jadzia Dax kissing another female. Mirror universe Kira and Ezri while we're at it.

Unless you think merely using a scientific survey to show proof is someone acting anti-anything. In which case you have unfair standards.



Explain a 5%+ disparity between CDC and GLAAD's "bisexual" percentage. Where did GLAAD get that extra 5%+? That's not a "slight disparity". They've also nearly doubled the gay population from 1.6% to 3%. Nearly doubling a figure is also not a "slight disparity".

GLAAD has basically over-represented every demographic favorable to their interests. Funny how all those "disparities" just so happen to favor their totals. It's also very telling that you refuse to address the fact that GLAAD is hiding their method, while CDC shares freely.

That warning about unreliable figures pertains to "health indicators". Not the actual demographic itself.

As for misunderstanding demographics, you apparently think they pertain to screen time.

That gallup poll is LGBT combined. So you are basically now admitting that only 4.1% of total people are LGBT, which totally destroys GLAAD numbers and shows them to be inflated. Since only 4.1% are LGBT, then we really need to know where GLAAD got 6% "bisexual".

So again, implying that GLAAD has a slant and demonstrating that they have one are two different things.

There's a fairly simple, non-nefarious reason why ESTIMATES of LGBT populations and self-reporting surveys differ. Social acceptance.

Is it possible that there GLAAD survey oversampled LGBTQ respondents? Absolutely.

But the CDC survey you keep holding up EXPLICITLY SAYS IT UNDERREPRESENTS the LGBTQ population.

No, nowhere did I claim demographics should be related to screen time. Cephus brought up the percentages to argue that gay and trans characters are "disproportionate" to "the real world." You're the one who keeps arguing that there is "adequate" representation of LGBTQ characters while trying to cherry pick the smallest number possible to represent the LGBTQ population.

For the sake of argument let's say I'm wrong on the statistics of gay people. Pick whatever number you want.

Now what the hell does that number have to do with Star Trek?
 
You asked me why there is a problem with gay people kissing on screen, among other highly-loaded questions. That's pretty much an accusation all by itself. Especially since I haven't said anything anti-gay kissing on screen.

Anyways, here is the point for point.

jlee claims with a GLAAD survey that there is a roughly 9% alternative-demo population. Then says if Trek were 'demographically accurate" there would actually be more diversity.

I countered with a CDC survey that says the number is far smaller. And claimed that his survey was suspect due to the source.

He has yet to address the suspicious points raised. The lack of methodology, how they don't share it. The fact that the "slight disparities" as he calls them are not slight and all favor GLAAD.

And now, he has posted a gallup poll that pretty much undercut all the GLAAD numbers and show them to be very inflated. Let's see how he responds to that.

Again, reading comprehension.

What I said was: Also, millennials are much more fluid in their definitions of gender. It's true that 1% of folks 35+ identify as trans. Under 35, there's 2% trans, 3% genderfluid, and a further 2% agender, 1% bigender, and 1% genderqueer. Likewise, over 35 you have 91% identifying as heterosexual, under 35 that number drops to 84%.

So first of all, let's be clear this is a claim about millennials specifically. Of which the Gallup poll finds 7.3% of millennials identify as LGBTQ. This is compared to 9% combined bi and gay in the GLAAD survey.

Secondly, you're not drawing data driven conclusions. You see an increase in people who identify as bi as a flawed poll or biased survey. Rather than actually reading that both the Gallup Poll, GLAAD Survey, and the most widely cited study on the U.S. LGBTQ population (done by the author in the previously linked Daily Beast article), point out that changing social acceptance has shifted the numbers, and that statistics might vary because not everyone is comfortable sharing their private lives with government data collectors.

While you're not wrong to question methodology per se, your questions don't form a cogent rebuttal.

So pick whatever number you want, and tell us how it relates to Trek.

P.S. I should also point out even though you wanted to mock my math earlier, you actually mucked everything up in your initial reply, grouping the 9% "alt demos" and claiming that meant that there was still "91% hetero. " Except you're conflating data from two separate questions, gender identity, and sexual orientation, which is why I simply replied with the charts, which should have been the end of it.
 
Last edited:
So again, implying that GLAAD has a slant and demonstrating that they have one are two different things.

There's a fairly simple, non-nefarious reason why ESTIMATES of LGBT populations and self-reporting surveys differ. Social acceptance.

Is it possible that there GLAAD survey oversampled LGBTQ respondents? Absolutely.

But the CDC survey you keep holding up EXPLICITLY SAYS IT UNDERREPRESENTS the LGBTQ population.

No, nowhere did I claim demographics should be related to screen time. Cephus brought up the percentages to argue that gay and trans characters are "disproportionate" to "the real world." You're the one who keeps arguing that there is "adequate" representation of LGBTQ characters while trying to cherry pick the smallest number possible to represent the LGBTQ population.

For the sake of argument let's say I'm wrong on the statistics of gay people. Pick whatever number you want.

Now what the hell does that number have to do with Star Trek?

The numbers wildly favoring GLAAD demonstrate their slant.

What estimates? I haven't brought up any estimates. Only survey numbers.

And you'll have to quote that claim the CDC explicitly says it under-represents LGBTQ.

You questioned whether the gay relationship on STD took up less than 1.6% of time. When that number has only been offered as a demographic. So, yes. You apparently think there is a time component to these numbers.

You're the one making the claim that the show would more diverse were it to be "demographically accurate". So don't try and backpedal claiming it's not relevant.

Also, since you refuse to address the fact that your own gallup poll link undercuts and destroys your GLAAD survey. I can only conclude you don't want to or cannot debate anymore.
 
jlee562
You said.....
"A 'demographically accurate' show would be more diverse."

Your Gallup poll says only 4.1% of surveyed ID as LGBT.

What percentage of the main cast is LGBT? What percentage would it be if the cast were "demographically accurate"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The numbers wildly favoring GLAAD demonstrate their slant.

What estimates? I haven't brought up any estimates. Only survey numbers.

And you'll have to quote that claim the CDC explicitly says it under-represents LGBTQ.

You questioned whether the gay relationship on STD took up less than 1.6% of time. When that number has only been offered as a demographic. So, yes. You apparently think there is a time component to these numbers.

You're the one making the claim that the show would more diverse were it to be "demographically accurate". So don't try and backpedal claiming it's not relevant.

Also, since you refuse to address the fact that your own gallup poll link undercuts and destroys your GLAAD survey. I can only conclude you don't want to or cannot debate anymore.

Dunning Kruger all over the place.

You can't argue both that the methodology isn't transparent enough and that they have a demonstrable bias.

The numbers being higher could be a sampling error, the result of the wording of the question, the means by which the survey was conducted, and the year in which it was done. Pretending there is a bias only highlights your own personal biases.

Quoted the CDC report on an edit to post 1923.

As for the rest, I really don't think you're understanding my comments as a response to Cephus' post. He was the one that introduced the demographics. What does it mean to be overrepresented?

You think LGBT representation is "adequate." How do you quantify that?

Yes, the show would be more diverse if it were cast to reflect "the real world." This is not an argument that screen time in star trek should be set to reflect each demographic.

But if it were, does the Stamets/Culbert relationship actually take up a "disproportionate" amount of time on Trek?

Do you not get that some questions are rhetorical?

Addressed your survey nonsense already, but I'll add: Dunning-Kruger

And you still haven't addressed what all your quibbling over the statistics has to do with Trek.
 
Last edited:
You understand DK about as well as you understand Bell Hooks. And since you are ignoring answers and mostly rambling, I see no reason to continue here.

And "show" actually does kind of mean the main cast. Maybe not in a literal 1:1 sense, but they are basically the largest component.
 
mathburns.jpg
 
You understand DK about as well as you understand Bell Hooks. And since you are ignoring answers and mostly rambling, I see no reason to continue here.

And "show" actually does kind of mean the main cast. Maybe not in a literal 1:1 sense, but they are basically the largest component.

Dude you made up a term that literally did not appear in that hooks text at all. And now you're demonstrating how little you actually retained by writing her name as Bell Hooks.

So you think 4% of the 6 or 7 main cast members should be LGBT? How does that work?
 
It was a good kiss, the kind anyone would give their other half if they thought it might be the last time they could.

Sent from my BLU LIFE MARK using Tapatalk
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top