view the rest of the comments
Daystrom Institute
Welcome to Daystrom Institute!
Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.
Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.
Rules
1. Explain your reasoning
All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.
2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.
This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.
3. Be diplomatic.
Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.
4. Assume good faith.
Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”
5. Tag spoilers.
Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.
6. Stay on-topic.
Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.
Episode Guides
The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:
- Kraetos’ guide to Star Trek (the original series)
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: The Animated Series
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: The Next Generation
- Algernon_Asimov’s guide to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
- Darth_Rasputin32898’s guide to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
- OpticalData’s guide to Star Trek: Voyager
- petrus4’s guide to Star Trek: Voyager
Yeah, I agree that Vulcans would probably be naturally accepting of varied gender identification and presentation, and of varied sexual orientations. Probably similar to how the majority of the neurodiverse (especially autistic) communities among humans are accepting of gender and sexuality variations.
It strikes me as highly illogical to insist that anyone else has a better sense of what a person's sexual orientation or gender identity is than the individual themselves. If they say "I identify with X pronouns" then obviously it is illogical to use Y pronouns when referring to that person. If they say, "I'm attracted to people like this" then it's illogical to insist that they should instead be attracted to a different subset of people. If they express a preference for Z gender presentation, it's illogical to insist they should prefer otherwise.
Gendered expectations are illogical relics of ancient human social structure anyway, so Vulcan society probably wouldn't have as many of those to begin with, if any at all. Even our emotionally encumbered human cultures in the 21st century are beginning to wonder at how pointlessly gendered things have been for us.
I don't see why it would be logical to posit that the potential for creating offspring is a necessary component of relationships. There are all manner of motivations for intimate bonding that have nothing to do with whether biological reproduction occurs. Also, adoption exists.
Arguably, the very concept of romance being a core component of relationships would be viewed by Vulcans as an illogical and unnecessary condition. I imagine the vast majority of Vulcan society would be aromantic by default.