You "made up" the claim feminism is only for females and cited Hooks, when Hooks teaches the exact opposite. I would think that's a bigger error than not all-lower casing her pen name. Especially since it readily demonstrated that you never read her work and only cited it out of ignorance. Then you sent me an attack PM calling me a "snowflake", which is the kind of behavior that Hooks ascribes to "The patriarchy" as she puts it.
Anyways, you're the one who "thinks" the show would be more diverse were it more "demographically accurate". So you can explain how that works. An easy start would be answering the questions in post #1932 instead of demurring with semantic arguments.
Your recollection of that exchange is as faulty as your recollection of hook's pen name.
I offered a
link from Women At Warp which discussed feminist analysis of ST. You replied with something to the effect of "a feminist site offering to teach a method of feminist analysis...no bias there." I responded to you by saying "yes, feminists get to define feminism." This does not =/= "feminism is only for females." And as I said at the time, that would be totally nonsensical considering that I'm a male advocating for feminism. hooks was invoked when you claimed that the Women at Warp link did not offer a definition for feminism, despite the link to hook's work being embedded in the article.
You then went on to explain your opinion that the background incidences of LGBT characters in ST are functionally the same to LGBT folks as Seven of Nine's consciously added sex-appeal. To this I replied that you were "man-splaining" gay male gaze. You got upset, saying that you would not continue a discussion without the use of "neutral language," because "man-splaining" was "sexist." I challenged you to cite where in hooks' text she defines the supposed "core concept of self" which you allege I misunderstand. She does not actually use that phrase anywhere in the text. Demanding "neutral language" from "man-splaining" is pretty, pretty, pretty hilarious in the context of any number of non-neutral comments made about "SJWs" in this thread and others.
I'm the one that thinks that the main cast of Star Trek has always been
deliberately chosen to display certain archetypes and not by demography. As I said, it was not random that Chekhov was Russian. They didn't just pick a random European. Discovery's inclusion of Stamets and Culbert is very much in the Trek tradition of envisioning a future free of the kinds of social conflicts of the present.
As far as your question in post 1932, that's a strawman argument. "Show" =/= "main cast." Especially since we implicitly understand that the main cast are part of a larger crew and therefore not meant to be the sole representatives of what the ST universe looks like, but also because the context of the previous discussion was not limited to the main cast.
Do note that when I initially made the comment about a "demographically accurate show" showing more diversity, the first thing I referenced was the global population of Asians. Firefly very smartly incorporated a lot of Chinese influence into their future world. Although we did get Michelle Yeoh for the premiere she's also named "Phillipa Georgiou" which might be interpreted as a not so subtle way to erase her Asian identity. Does that mean 60% of the "main cast" should be Asian? No. Why would it? The main cast is not a sample size large enough the breadth of human diversity (or human and alien diversity in the case of Trek) and we shouldn't expect the main cast to be the prefect demographic example because there's only a handful of them.
Cephus is the one who brought up demography in the first place, so you might want to ask him what the relevance of bringing up the LGBT population is.