It's also ironic when fans of a world in which gender and race don't matter are quick to make them the most significant matter during arguments. Apparently, people who weren't fans of Janeway are sexist and people who aren't fans of Burnham are sexist and racist. You might as well be saying that there can be no legitimate criticisms of either. That's not constructive or progressive. If we want a society like Star Trek's, in which gender and race don't matter, we need to stop making them the issue at every opportunity and accept that treating people equally doesn't mean sparing them from criticism.
The "gender and race don't matter" thing is a misdirection. Nobody wants a society where gender and race don't matter. We want a society where all genders and all races are treated equally and have equal opportunities. It's the whole thing where "I don't see color" is not a positive. You want to acknowledge people's identities and backgrounds as being equal to anyone else's, not ignore it. Race and gender DO matter in Star Trek. They just don't hold people back from reaching their full potentials. In other words, in-world, it matters to the character of Janeway that she's a woman but her being a woman didn't present a challenge to her becoming a captain nor does anyone treat her differently because of it. Or an even more perfect example: Sisko's race didn't hold him back from advancing in Starfleet and no one treats him differently because he's Black, but it's also pretty clearly a deep-rooted part of his identity that he's proud of.
Most importantly, we don't live in a society where all genders and races are treated equally and have equal opportunities. And while we don't, these conversations are important to have. It's not hard at all to tell when someone's dislike of a character is rooted in legitimate critique and not racism of sexism, and they should be challenged on it.
Medicine and psychology were not "normal gender roles" for women in the 80s. Women didn't really start going into those fields until the 70s. There's a reason why the doctor in TOS was a man. In fact, the doctor in every other Star Trek series is man, as well, so it's not even a normal gender role for the franchise. Doctor, Counselor and Chief of Security were are all somewhat progressive roles for women in 1987 and two of them were heads of their departments.
I wasn't really referring to profession when I wrote that. I was more talking about their behavior and attitudes, how those conform to ideas of masculinity and femininity, and the way those interplay with the dynamics of the rest of the crew. In those ways, both Troi and Crusher conformed to traditional feminine gender roles pretty strongly. Pulaski didn't, and in some ways she was a much better character for the show. There's nothing wrong with a woman who conforms strongly to those kinds of gender roles. It's more that having a counterpoint was good. Yar was a good counterpoint in the same way, though she wasn't like Pulaski at all.
tvline.com
