(Remembering LGBT+ refugees whose voice is often silenced)
Why May 17th?
Today’s date is not arbitrary. On 17 May 1990, the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), formally ending its designation as a mental disorder. It was a landmark moment: a recognition that queer people are not sick, not deviant, not in need of cure or correction. Yet thirty-six years later, that hard-won ground is being eroded. Conversion practices remain legal in many countries and are experiencing a quiet resurgence, including the USA which currently has many anti-LGBTIQ bills and anti-trans bills in progress. Transgender identities are increasingly framed in political and legal discourse as a pathology requiring intervention. IDAHOBIT Day exists to mark how far we have come, and to remind us that the battle the WHO helped settle in 1990 is not lost.
Today is the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, or IDAHOBIT. It is a day to mark, to remember, and to refuse to look away.
Across the world, being queer can still cost you your home, your safety, your life.
In more than 60 countries, homosexuality remains criminalised. In some, it carries the death penalty. In Uganda, the Anti-Homosexuality Act has driven thousands of people from their homes, their families, their communities, fleeing not just prejudice but imprisonment, torture, and murder. It is the same in Tanzania, Rwanda, and many other nations across Africa and the Middle East and the Commonwealth. People run for their lives, often with nothing, heading for the nearest border and whatever uncertain safety lies beyond it.
This is not only an African story. Across Asia, the Middle East and beyond, 64 countries criminalise same-sex relations, with the death penalty legally prescribed in at least twelve of them.
None of this happened by accident. The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, and laws like it across Africa, did not emerge fully formed from local politics. US evangelical activists — among them Scott Lively, who travelled to Kampala in 2009 to meet with politicians, pastors and community leaders — helped provide the ideological framework and the legislative language. Organisations like Family Watch International have spent years and significant funding exporting their culture war to countries where the consequences are not protests or political setbacks, but imprisonment, torture, and flight. The people in Kakuma are not only victims of African homophobia. Some of them are there because of US politics pursued abroad.
Nor is this only a story about distant governments. In April 2025, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court ruled that the word “woman” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex — a ruling with immediate practical consequences for trans people’s access to services, shelters, and legal protections. Many of the countries that criminalise homosexuality are Commonwealth nations, shaped by British colonial law. The line between the countries that imprison queer people and the countries that legislate them out of public life is less clear than it is comfortable to believe.
Some of them end up in Kakuma, or in Gorom.
Kenya Police tear gas LGBT+ refugees in Kakuma Refugee Camp.
Kakuma is a refugee camp in the remote north-west of Kenya. Gorom is a refugee settlement in South Sudan. Both are harsh, remote, under-resourced places at the edges of the world, the kind of places that exist precisely because the rest of the world has decided it doesn’t need to look too closely.
Both are home to LGBTQI+ refugees who fled persecution in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Somalia and beyond, people who ran for their lives because of who they are, and arrived hoping for safety. What many found was more of the same.
Machetes in Kakuma refugee camp
In Kakuma, LGBTQI+ refugees face homophobic and transphobic attacks from other refugees and from locals. They are beaten, stabbed, burned out of their shelters. They are denied medical care. They cannot work. Their food rations from the World Food Programme — already meagre — now last less than a week, because the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to foreign aid have gutted the humanitarian system that kept them alive.
They wait for resettlement that may never come. They await a world that will acknowledge they exist.
IDAHOBIT exists because the world keeps forgetting.
It needs reminding that homophobia and transphobia are not distant abstractions; they are policies, laws, and fists. They are people sleeping in shifts, taking turns to stand guard through the night against attack. They are mothers separated from children. They are people surviving on hot water and grass soup.
They are human beings who asked for nothing more than to live honestly and safely, and were told that was too much to ask.
IDAHOBIT is not a celebration of what has been won, but a reminder of what remains unfinished.
Days like this matter only if they change something for the people who cannot wait for the world to catch up. If you want to make that change real, support the organisations that keep them alive.
If you would like to support LGBTQI+ refugees in Kakuma, Gorom and beyond:
MAREPA — emergency shelter for LGBTQI+ refugees in Nairobi, Kenya
Rainbow Railroad — helping LGBTQI+ people escape persecution worldwide
I am also happy to advise people on how to assist individuals or extended families and communities across Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and other African problem areas.
She didn’t choose to gather her children in the dark and run: from war, from persecution, from a government that wanted her family dead, from militias that burned villages, from bombs that fell on schools, from the kind of danger that makes a leaking boat in open water seem like the safer option.
She didn’t choose to have her children ostracised, attacked and forced to flee home and family because of their sexuality.
She didn’t choose years of living in limbo… in camps, in temporary shelters, in bureaucratic purgatory… while the UNHCR processes and defers, while her children grow up without permanence, without a future they can count on, without a place to call home, or a community to call village or family.
She didn’t choose to have her case ignored, delayed, or denied by nations that speak of compassion and practise indifference.
She didn’t choose to flee to countries in Europe or Australia, only to be met with suspicion, hostility, and hatred… told she is a burden, a threat, an inconvenience… by people who have never had to choose between danger and dignity.
She didn’t choose to live under the shadow of forced deportation: to watch governments like the current United States administration tear families apart and send people back to the very dangers they escaped, caring nothing for what awaits them there.
She didn’t choose to watch her children go hungry in refugee camps stripped of funding, camps where foreign aid was cancelled, where food ran out, where clean water became unavailable, where medicines disappeared, because powerful men in powerful countries decided her children’s lives were unimportant.
She didn’t choose any of this.
She chose only to fight against all odds to keep her children alive; to keep going when everything said stop.
She chose to love fiercely in conditions designed to break her.
On Mother’s Day, we celebrate the mothers we know and love. But let’s also hold space for the mothers we never see: the ones at the edges of our world, carrying the unbearable with grace we will never be asked to find.
“Everything needs to change and it has to start today.”
– Greta Thunberg, 2018.
I am writing as a concerned Australian citizen to oppose this project. I respectfully call upon you to reject the project for the following reasons:
It does not enjoy support from the local community. Democracy requires that people should have representation in administrative and community matters, and there are many local people who oppose the project for many of the following reasons, and because it will not greatly add to local employment, nor otherwise benefit their community and the world around them.
The expansion will reportedly destroy 55 irreplaceable Aboriginal cultural artefacts, and potentially impact dozens of others. Such damage to our national and cultural legacy – for such short-term gain – must surely border upon the unethical and criminal.
The proposed expansion is located alongside a nature reserve and environmental damage will be extensive. This includes groundwater and creeks where pollution or other effects could create wide and long-term damage. It is our responsibility to protect our environment, and this project adds to damage and endangerment while adding very little overall benefit.
The project would destroy extensive areas for flora and fauna. I understand that this includes habitat for koalas, Regent Honeyeaters, and up to 401 hectares of the nationally endangered Box Gum Woodland ecosystem. It is our legacy to protect these areas for the sake of the biosphere and for the future of the world.
The proposed expansion will contribute to climate damage that contradicts NSW climate goals and endangers the future of the world. I work with young Australians, many of whom are concerned with the inadequacy of actions by Australian authorities to address and redress climate damage concerns. It is incumbent upon your Commission to ensure that their concerns are acknowledged and that action is taken to create a better world for these generations who follow.
The proposed expansion ignores world trends to wind back coal and fossil fuels. It entrenches redundant economic and ethical policies that the world is leaving behind. Australia needs to move forward instead of repeating the mistakes of our past.
I ask you to consider the legacy this proposed expansion would leave for future generations, and I submit that this legacy would not be positive for Australia or the world.
I respectfully urge the Independent Planning Commission to recommend that the Moolarben OC3 Coal Mining Extension Project be refused. Thank you for considering my submission.
‘Star Trek’ was an attempt to say humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in lifeforms.”
– Gene Roddenberry
When Star Trek VI came out in 1991, its background story echoed the contemporaneous collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of Glasnost. Fans and critics alike praised the movie for its courage to be edgy and unafraid to explore contemporary social issues. A generation later, a small faction of fan critics for the newest Star Trek series (Starfleet Academy) complain about its wokeness, and they demonstrate a fear of the social evolution and change to which it appears to allude.
What I want to explore here is this attitudinal change as an example of populist cultural collapse that is currently underway in the United States of America and some other parts of the western world.
Star Trek – Back to School
I will be honest: for all the obvious reasons, I have not yet seen the three episodes of Starfleet Academy that have been shown publicly. I am unable to comment on the show itself, nor provide a valid critique. I do believe that much of Star Trek since the reboot films (2009 – 2016) has been somewhat deficient because it often comes across as poor science and poor fiction – just generally sub-par writing (I am glad to say that many Star Trek fans disagree with me – and each other – and have energetic debates about this material). In all fairness, I will withhold airing my personal opinion of the new Starfleet Academy series until after I actually get to watch it.
The problem is that some fans appear to reject the new material outright – not primarily because of anything related to the perceived quality of the writing, but because these fans appear unwilling or unable to cope with new characterisations of sexuality, gender or gender identity, race and social evolution. I saw the same thing happen in 2017, when Doctor Who was recast as a woman; then again when a queer Rwandan-Scottish actor played the part. Many fans went hysterical. Straight white men proclaimed that they were suddenly being victimised and excluded; as though their previous fifty years of privilege had mysteriously disappeared. Similarly, when Star Trek Discovery first appeared on television that same year (2017), some fans bewailed the appearance of strong, non-white women; and a mixed-race gay male couple. Once again these armchair warriors wailed, “Why are straight white men being excluded”? Overall, they came across as a bunch of Sad Puppies.
Most recently, the idea of a new Star Trek series featuring a young cast in Starfleet Academy – possibly analogous to young people entering college (university) and for the first time leaving home, becoming independent adults, exploring their new surroundings and friendships and a mix of strange, new cultures – seems inspiring and fresh and potentially exciting. They live in a world 1000 years from now, where alien cultures (formerly enemies) have evidently reconciled and interbred; where new societal norms have swept aside old prejudices and bigotries. What could possibly go wrong?
“Star Trek” has always touted its desire to explore strange new worlds; what “Starfleet Academy” supposes is, what if college is the strangest world of all?”
– Clint Worthington
Recontextualising material to suit the romance literature market or the youth/teen market is not necessarily problematic. How many people complained back in the 12th century, when Arthurian stories were rebooted as medieval romance literature, changing Camelot forever from Dark Age “fall of the Roman Empire” mythology to romantic medieval chivalric code? How many Shakespeare fans have ever complained that the Bard himself rewrote earlier story versions of Romeo and Juliet, plagiarising it as fan fiction and adding extra depth of teen romance angst? Star Trek itself was rescued from being a failed television series in the late 1960s, recast as a multi-billion dollar franchise, in no small part because predominantly female fans (many of them being teens or post-teens) rewrote the material into thousands of fan fiction stories featuring “slash” material (same sex romance between Kirk and Spock).
Literature evolves to fit changing cultural norms and consumer demand. Star Trek will undoubtedly remain a science fiction franchise, but its stories must continue to follow the code of social evolution: adapt or die. In fitting with its long-time policy of incorporating “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”, it will continue to fulfil the vision of creator Gene Roddenberry that diversity should not just be tolerated – it should be celebrated. Bring on Starfleet Academy, youth culture and all.
Accordingly, I heartily recommend you seek out mainstream reviews of the series – most of which are balanced, rational, fair, and celebratory of diversity.
There are also reviews on social media, some of them extremely critical, such as this one, who complains at 17:30 that men apparently aren’t getting a fair representation (really, after nearly 60 years of male-dominated franchise?); and this one (who tries to rationally debate the criticisms of others about “wokeness”); and this one (who also complains about male representation) – perhaps no surprise that all of these reviews are created by men. But they do make an effort to analyse the material critically and fairly, and their comments align with fan comments I have heard about the soap opera nature of this program: a Dawson’s Creek or CW in space, with a ship that should be labelled NCC-90210.
I do not have a problem with fan reviews that express dislike of obsessive youth culture or other story elements – please wait until I see the material for myself and we can have a wonderful debate about the undoubted strengths and weaknesses of the script material – but my problem is with those fan critics who barely touch upon literary criticism and instead bewail the wrongs (real or imagined) inflicted upon them by woke warriors.
Stories can be freely criticised as being weak or garbage – but characters, and the existence of the minority groups they represent, should not.
Gay Klingons And Other Catastrophes To Befall Humanity
One British fan critic begins his review, “Window Lickers in Spaaaaaaaace!! ” with an attempt to analyse what he sees as the shortcomings of the material, although his references to the show as a “bowel movement” (0:03) and “science retardation” (4:03) suggest that his analysis is an emotional as much as a literary response. He continues to refer to “retards” (eg. 18:20) even makes a vague reference that appears to invoke (or it is to satirise?) Trump racism: “Immigrants going to Earth to steal. Wait, is this 2020?” (5:04). He adds a dismissively homophobic comment about characters: “Also, they’re gay. Probably… it’s Kurtsman Trek.” (11: 20).
He later discusses a scene in which a young black man defeats some armed guards (a trope in media science fiction since forever) but suggests that it is an example of inverse racism because the guards are all white (13:02). He even makes a comment mocking gender equality:
“Ladies and gentlemen, I bring to you the flaw in that logic that will stay here until the day everybody dies: Heavy lifting. Where’s the women? Oh, it’s the men. It’s the men doing the heavy lifting. The sexes are equal right up to heavy lifting.” (47:44)
He continues this vein in another review, within which he mocks female body image as portrayed by the show’s “robust women” (3:58 and 8:34), and summarises his criticism of the new series – not with literary analysis of its perceived script weaknesses, but with the following complaint:
“As expected, it has got nothing to do with Star Trek. It is just another far-left ideological spurge that takes a brand, a franchise name, and just puts its own messaging and inclusion and diversity into it.”(0:14)
The Vulcan “IDIC” symbol from Star Trek, representing Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
He chooses to forget that Star Trek has always aspired towards (but did not always achieve) inclusion, and the promotion of, “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”. Instead, this critic denies any historic wokeness in the franchise, dismissing such claims as, “absolute, utter bullshit” (7:17). His perspective can be further seen in his tendency to dismiss those with whom he disagrees as simply having Trump Derangement Syndrome, or to disparage the physique of men on the show (conveniently forgetting that Star Trek used to shamelessly demean women as sex objects): “Is it rules for thee, but not for me?” (4:30).
His extremist conservative nature can be intuited when he complains that people from the planet Cheron should be extinct (because the original Star Trek series revealed that last two survivors from that planet had both been male) and yet descendants have apparently been shown in this newest series, set a thousand years later. The reappearance of such people – once shown to lead to their own potential extinction because of racist hatred – could fictionally and metaphorically demonstrate that even the most doomed of intolerant characters might somehow survive and grow. Appearing to overlook this symbolism, and ignoring obvious scientific and scientifictional possibilities surrounding this situation – including time travel to rescue other inhabitants, genetic engineering, alternative universes or timelines, or just simply more survivors later being found somewhere across the galaxy (any of these possibilities providing the possible basis for a background story in any episode) – this critic chooses a homophobic rant instead:
“So unless the show is insinuating that the only last two remaining Cheron males managed to bum themselves a whole new population, then this race should be extinct. But actually thinking about what I just said and the people that are running Star Trek nowadays, I probably think that they feel that that’s a viable thing that they could do. “(3:30)
Viewers might be forgiven for wondering whether this gentleman is really simply whingeing that conservative, straight white guys – for most of the last fifty years having enjoyed privileged status in the franchise – are now finding the portrayal of equality with others to somehow threaten their privilege? (see for example 9:26) Ironically, he projects his own narrow perspective onto those people whom he criticises:
“[This new Star Trek] represents a broken bubble, a broken shell of comic Californian wankers who think the world revolves around them… it doesn’t represent Star Trek and it certainly doesn’t represent humanity and people…” (16:47)
Really? So a series that portrays diversity and new forms of inclusion – new species, new characters descended from a mix of races previously portrayed as enemies, characters who break out of stereotypes and boldly explore a strange new world that they are creating… these people don’t represent the highest aspirations of a utopian future?
Lesbians with Cats?
Jones and Ripley in Alien (Wikipedia image)
Another male fan critic spends very little time actually analysing the story and most of his time complaining about the “woke chain” (4:35) and a “lesbian relationship” (4:58) and “the gay Klingon” (5:02) and “the woke degenerate crazy thing” (5:07) and “the feminism” (7:02) and “a bunch of retards just running around” (10:43) and bewailing the possibility that viewers might (shock! Horror!) be forced to watch “the lesbians going at it… full tilt” (10:58), He complains about the injustice of a changing room scene where the men are somewhat unclothed while the women are not – implying that the men are victims of exploitation by Hollywood and suggesting that sexual harassment lawsuits may be on the way (conveniently forgetting Star Trek’s long tradition of sexually exploiting female bodies over the last half century). He even manages to refer to polyamory as “degenerate stuff” (13:00) and praise one episode ever-so-slightly because “at least it wasn’t gay” (15:32) while expressing relief that he wasn’t forced to endure a lesbian romance scene (15:55).
He repeatedly refers to Star Trek writers as 40 year-old women who sip wine and have cats, blaming them for both promoting lesbianism and for the gratuitous male nudity (without seeing any irony in the paradox of allegedly promoting both at the same time); thereby managing to mix his misogyny and homophobia together while also insinuating that the franchise needs straight white guys like him to mansplain non-degenerate perspectives to delusional woke lefties.
Queer Cringe
You get the idea: instead of attempting a balanced, rational review like this one or this one, varied reviews are homophobic, reactionary, or otherwise bigoted, like this one or this one (reviewed by a right-wing woman of colour who appears to promote white supremacist racism by blaming immigrants and their children for crime – see 5:00). Even this one, which attempts to present rational analysis, still manages to disparage the gay and lesbian characters, while this one attempts some analysis under the heading of “Star Woke” as though wokeness is itself a negative. Such unbalanced reviews may, ultimately, still be statistically insignificant, but their rise and empowerment is a cause for concern.
Perhaps the ultimate criticism has come from Stephen Miller, Trump’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff; and Nazi sympathiser Elon Musk; who have both criticised Starfleet Academy for being woke. In response, former Star Trek actor Whoopi Goldberg has criticised their comments as deliberate attempts to distract audiences from the state of the world that these men are actively creating:
“Why are you concentrating on a television show when people are being shot and killed, when people are going hungry, when farmers are losing their farms, kids can’t get meals at school? Why are you paying attention to this?”
This is probably Star Trek’s greatest message, as explored by generations of fan fiction writers exploring same sex relationships (known as “slash”) and other progressive concepts, and other fan activists promoting charity and change: taking Star Trek ideals and “making it so”. Detractors want to return to earlier times and use it as a distraction rather than as inspiration.
Loving the poorly educated
As people who allegedly align themselves with an ongoing franchise (that must, like all literature, adapt to the times or die), they seem remarkably devoid of understanding or empathy regarding inclusion and diversity, or of understanding disadvantage and disempowerment; instead inverting the Star Trek trope of “The needs of the one [themselves] outweigh the needs of the few… or the many [others, especially disempowered or disadvantaged groups]”. They resist the impulse towards self-education through asking questions and accommodating change; they instead prefer past times or privilege and inequality, yearning for past attitudes within which they feel most comfortable.
In doing this, they display the perspectives of extremists such as white Christian nationalists, who perceive the world and culture through a narrow fish-eyed lens:
“Rooted in a long history of American exceptionalism, it fuses white identity politics with a specific brand of fundamentalist Protestant Christianity to create a racist form of a national identity.”
Similarly, these so-called fans, who deny (or disparage as “woke”) the inadequate but sincere attempts at historic progressive inclusion within this franchise, are happy to rewrite or reinterpret the franchise in order to exclude those whom they hate. Some demonstrate a celebratory mood at news that the series may be cancelled early due to their efforts; one fan comment suggests that they would rather see the franchise die than be woke. Thus they take a franchise that seeks to promote utopian ideals, and drag it – and our world – backwards to more regressive values.
Trump and Tradition
While some may see the USA’s cultural and political turmoil as being caused by Trump and his regime, I see Trump as a symptom of a larger malaise. Swathes of US citizens actively deny and oppose their nation’s advances in vaccine and epidemiology, and scientific advances such as the 1960s space program that triggered history’s greatest technological peacetime advances. Moon landings – and their fictional counterparts, Starfleet Academy – are rejected by those who seek to deny the potential greatness and aspirations of their own country and culture; they seek to rewrite history and culture to suit their personal perspectives – as maybe so do we all. The difference is that their view of knowledge is that ignorance is equivalent to world-class expertise; their cosmos is a metaphoric flat earth instead of a rich tapestry of galactic stars and diverse cultures. Unlike them, I look forward to living long enough to having my values and perspectives challenged and educated by those who follow – that’s the value of being woke rather than asleep.
From cardassians to crucifixion, we see the same call for cultural compliance in populist fundamentalist religion having been hijacked by fascism, just as these Star Trek fans seek to rewrite and reboot their favourite quasi-religious franchise in their own image. They revel in creating division and dissent rather than social cohesion.
They are symptomatic of the potential cultural, scientific, social, educational and economic collapse of an empire:
The Archaeologist lists the decline of social cohesion as one factor creating the fall of empires:
“Social Cohesion: A strong sense of shared identity and purpose is essential for a society to thrive. If social divisions deepen and trust breaks down, a society can become vulnerable to internal conflict.”
Instead, we should view literature as an attempt to unite and contribute to our society and our world, in line with humanist values that include an appreciation and involvement in literature and culture:
“We value great works of art, music, literature and architecture regardless of their origin, and respect culturally significant landscapes, geological formations and artifacts. We support their preservation and believe in fair, equitable and culturally sensitive access for all.”
“Leave any bigotry in your quarters. There’s no room for it on the Bridge.
Do I make myself clear?” – Kirk, Balance of Terror (1969)
I grew up watching and loving the original series of Star Trek, which boasted a progressive attitude in its portrayal of African-Americans during the US Civil Rights era. I recall reading a quote from one African-American actor, who later recalled how powerful was the impact of his character, a visiting Black Starfleet Commodore, to whom the white hero James Kirk deferred and called “sir” in an an era where civil rights activists were being murdered in real life. In one episode, racial hatred was even shown as potentially destroying a planetary civilisation (the aforementioned Cheron). Star Trek tried its best within the limits of its commercial constraints for the time, even (wrongly) boasting of featuring television’s first interracial kiss (that kiss is problematic for many reasons) – although the appearance of an African-American woman on the Bridge was certainly groundbreaking for this same era.
Star Trek didn’t get everything right, particularly its early portrayals of women, and its exclusion of LGBT+ characters, but encouraged by its largely female fandom (fully inclusive of LGBT+ and neurodivergent fans) Star Trek evolved with the times, always implying the equality it frequently failed to show. So although I understand why some modern fans bewail the appearance of sexualities or racial realities that previously were never shown – only implied – I do think they need to understand the spirit of the series as much as its stories. Was Star Trek ever woke? Hell yes, ever since 1964.
Whether or not Starfleet Academy is great literature or a great disappointment, it deserves in-depth analysis and appreciation of its values, aspirations and its potential to inspire. Straight white men have enjoyed more than their fair share of representation in the franchise for sixty years; it is time for us all to explore strange new worlds and seek out new life – learning about these others and glimpsing who we ourselves might become as an inclusive species in the future. Gay Klingons, married lesbians, and strong women should be celebrated, not dismissed as evil or deviant or disgusting because some timid people fear what is outside of their traditional life experiences. Those fans who disparage this series because of personality politics have themselves failed the Starfleet Academy entrance exam. They are free to ignore the series and enjoy other literature – or to quote Bob Dylan:
“Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times, they are a-changin’.”
– Bob Dylan
Inclusion is for Everyone
This does not mean we should reject these problematic fans outright: one cure for White Christian Nationalism or other forms of cognitively dissonant extremism is providing a safe space for such people after they face their own disillusionment, disengagement and deradicalisation:
“Hospitality communicates ‘You are welcome here.’ When a person is ready to leave American Christian nationalism, they need a place to land, a genuine community of safe, loving people.”
Starfleet Academy is a victim of its times: an exploration of the future being opposed by luddites and reactionaries. If it has offended those who resist change, and enables them to ultimately question and grow, then it will have done its job. Otherwise, the fan critics who disparage the material are guilty of seeking to revisit and enshrine old times and old attitudes, to divide and destroy our social fabric, and to destroy our opportunities to grow as individuals and as a collective. They are the opposite of traditional fandom, where fans used slash and other diversity to promote a healthy culture of life and growth; these people today promote cultural stagnation and death. Such is symptomatic of a country and a culture that seeks to drag humanity backwards; to “make great again” a mythical concept marrying white elitism, heterosexism, misogyny, racism, authoritarianism and social regression – and even fascism. Star Trek and the future of humanity demand more. It is up to the rest of us to bring these people back from the edge.
