You repeat the same claims that others have. I see no logical reason that gender is the only aspect that is off the table. If sex is a part of identity, then it should be as much fair game as being ginger, or black, or angry, or Scottish, or having terrible dress sense.
This is the core question that no-one seems to have answered - why is sex supposed to be some sacrosanct boundary that cannot be crossed? Appeals to tradition aren't going to cut it with me.
Again, I don't doubt that it's a problem for a lot of people, but no-one's been able to explain to me why, aside from the aforementioned tradition.
Gender is a fundemental part of identity, far more than simply skin or hair colour or nationality or accent.
As for tradition, rather call it the history and continuity of the show. It simply wouldn't be credible for the Doctor to have remained a man through 14 incarnations and 2000 years if, as you say, sex isn't a sacrosanct boundary and is no more important than a change of hair colour.
That's why, all things considered, no show-runner will take the risk of changing the Doctor's gender to female.
You repeat the same claims that others have. I see no logical reason that gender is the only aspect that is off the table. If sex is a part of identity, then it should be as much fair game as being ginger, or black, or angry, or Scottish, or having terrible dress sense.
This is the core question that no-one seems to have answered - why is sex supposed to be some sacrosanct boundary that cannot be crossed? Appeals to tradition aren't going to cut it with me.
Again, I don't doubt that it's a problem for a lot of people, but no-one's been able to explain to me why, aside from the aforementioned tradition.
No, because James Bond is a male human. He has no means of changing his biological form. Not only is he male, but his character is entirely driven by male stereotype.
Was there the same outcry when Peter Cushing was cast as - *gasp* - a human Doctor? The Doctor is a mysterious alien! Outrage!
I was there and I can categorically state that Peter Cushing was as much the Doctor as William Hartnell at the time and for some of us, deserved at least a nod in the 50th year.
I know people have become precious about "classic" DW but when those films actually came out, none of us kids had any problem with it being a different actor or any "back story". Most of us were just loving Daleks and a box that was bigger on the inside - it didn't NEED to make "sense".
The ONLY thing that anyone said was odd was his moustache.
Seriously - for a lot of kids my age, those films were more memorable than the first episodes from TV - TV episodes in 1963 were entirely transient and there was absolutely no sense of them being "important" - they may as well been last Wednesday's breakfast - but a trip to the cinema was an EVENT - and it was in colour. If you weren't born then, there was no colour TV so the films films were our first (and for years, only) glimpse of tha show in (incredibly vibrant) colour - it was like today's audience suddenly getting holograms and smellyvision.
I know it's heard but some "adult" DW fans need to take a step back and let today's kids have their moment of wonder - it's the best way to ensure that DW is still around 50 years from now.
Because the Doctor's personality seems quite fluid anyway, if you have a female Doctor, it would alienate people further.
Just create some good programmes with female leads! We don't need to ride on the coat-tails of men or be ridiculously important special people (not a lot of good men around apart from the Doctor).
Because the Doctor's personality seems quite fluid anyway, if you have a female Doctor, it would alienate people further.
Just create some good programmes with female leads! We don't need to ride on the coat-tails of men or be ridiculously important special people (not a lot of good men around apart from the Doctor).
What "people"?
Are today's six year old REALLY feeling "alienated" by this show?
Can we ask the six year members of DS what they have to say?
Apparently not - cos a forum like this is incredibly unrepresentative of the audience of a show of this type.
Your average kid wants whizz, boom, bang and the occasional fart joke - maybe a snoggy scene for giggle factor - they have no "agenda". They are also far less rigid in their thinking - the classic line about the patient and the surgeon who isn't his father doesn't apply to most kids - say "teacher" or "doctor" and they don't automatically think of an old man.
Ask a kid who started watching in 2009 and I'll bet you they thought the Doctor's silly dancing at the wedding was the highlight of the entire show.
To answer the original question, I'd love to see what Anna Chancellor could do with the part. It won't happen, so I'll never know, but I think she could do it.
But this writing team couldn't write a female Doctor in a million years, so I'm not in any hurry for it to happen. It would just be River 2 and it wouldn't work. To be fair, I think it would be very difficult - the audience would be very resistant, as this thread shows, and the media would insist on seeing it as tokenist.
Personally, for now, I would rather the BBC got RTD, Debbie Moon and/or all the other great writers out there I don't know enough about to know, to write a Saturday night family series with a female lead, that was new, for this generation to have their Buffy, if you like (I don't really mean remaking Buffy itself but what it meant to its audience, male and female, at the time). After DW, Merlin and Atlantis, I think it would be something fresh and about due. But all these things have to start with the writing and who gets to write for TV. Focussing on the casting is not really the point.
Gender is a fundemental part of identity, far more than simply skin or hair colour or nationality or accent.
Is it? In what way? Gender re-assignment surgery is a difficult process - but the fact that it happens at all shows that identity does not match exactly to biology.
And more specifically - in what way is sex a fundamental part of the Doctor's personality?
In what way would she be a different person, other than which inny and outy bits she has? If humans can bridge the sex divide, and retain their identities, why can't the Doctor?
Does your acceptance of the idea of the Doctor changing sex correlate at all with the reaction you'd have if a member of your family wanted to change sex? If not, why not?
Is it? In what way? Gender re-assignment surgery is a difficult process - but the fact that it happens at all shows that identity does not match exactly to biology.
Actually, your example proves the point. Just the fact that somebody is willing to take a bunch of pills for the rest of their life (and/or have hormone shots) and have major genitalia reconstructive surgery which costs a lot of money and go through the (potentially awkward) social and legal maneuverings in order to be considered the other gender goes to show exactly how important one's gender is to one's identity. If somebody is willing to go through that much just to be considered and treated as a member of the other gender, then it is a HUGE part of one's identity. There is nothing else quite like it.
Actually, your example proves the point. Just the fact that somebody is willing to take a bunch of pills for the rest of their life (and/or have hormone shots) and have major genitalia reconstructive surgery which costs a lot of money and go through the (potentially awkward) social and legal maneuverings in order to be considered the other gender goes to show exactly how important one's gender is to one's identity. If somebody is willing to go through that much just to be considered and treated as a member of the other gender, then it is a HUGE part of one's identity. There is nothing else quite like it.
That's biology following identity, not the other way round. Being born (or regenerated) in a male body isn't necessarily what imbues you with a masculine identity. Besides, if any species is going to be naturally resistant to the feeling of 'being born in the wrong body', it's the Time Lords.
But that wasn't what I was getting at, anyway. Regardless of how the Doctor feels about his identity, why does it matter to us? Why does it matter to you if your cousin calls themselves Bob or Emily? Does it matter at all?
This is the point. The character would not care one bit if he developed a female body. I don't believe for one second that the Doctor would think it a challenge to his identity.
The point is that the viewership would. And I find that kind of sad - that people, even after decades of progress, see women as something 'other' to themselves.
You wrongly assume that those who object to a female doctor see women as something 'other' to themselves. (Your words.) I do not have that in-thought one little bit. I don't like women being portrayed unrealistically for one thing. For instance, why must the female bosses on Casualty or Holby always be portrayed as bitches? Are we to assume that all women in the NHS are bitches? Of course not. I want strong, real female characters on television as much as I want my male heroes too. To make the Doctor female, in my view, is not progress. It is political correctness. It is an experiment because there is a plot device to do that. The sex of a character isn't just about gender, it is about the perception of a character. The perception of the Doctor is that of male, whether or not he is officially male in Gallifreyan terminolgy is another issue. But to me, to millions of others, he is male. Should we re-write the Bible and make God a female and refer to her as mother just because, theoretically we could? No. Because the millions of believers would hate it. It would destroy Christianity. This is the same principle for Doctor Who. Just because, theoretically he could be female, doesn't mean he should. Is it really worth experimenting with such a well loved character and potentially damaging the future of the show just because a few think it would be fun?
Female characters are as worthy and as valued as male characters. I want writers to come up with real, strong female creations so that they can be idolised in the same way as men. The way viewers see female characters isn't the fault of the viewer. It's the fault of the writers.
You can only speak for yourself on that - it's called solipsism.
I can tell for a matter of fact that I do NOT "perceive" the Doctor as "male" any more than I "perceive" him as "Scottish" just because of the accent he's currently spouting.
You can only speak for yourself on that - it's called solipsism.
I can tell for a matter of fact that I do NOT "perceive" the Doctor as "male" any more than I "perceive" him as "Scottish" just because of the accent he's currently spouting.
What do you perceive the Doctor to be? If he isn't male, how would you describe him? I also don't perceive him as Scottish because ultimately he's Gallifreyan.
You wrongly assume that those who object to a female doctor see women as something 'other' to themselves. (Your words.) I do not have that in-thought one little bit.
That's fair enough. My questions were aimed at those in the thread who had expressed the opinion that the boundary between male and female psychology was an identifiable one. I fully accept that does not account for everyone with objections.
To make the Doctor female, in my view, is not progress. It is political correctness. It is an experiment because there is a plot device to do that. The sex of a character isn't just about gender, it is about the perception of a character. The perception of the Doctor is that of male, whether or not he is officially male in Gallifreyan terminolgy is another issue. But to me, to millions of others, he is male.
Oh. That sounds like the same objections after all.
In what way is gender important to the perception of a character? You perceive him as male, fine. But what makes that indelible? You say you can't change your perception. Why not?
You pre-judge it and dismiss it as 'political correctness', but what if I tell you it's not? I'm not sitting here suggesting it's somehow unfair that a female actress hasn't had a go in the role. (Although I acknowledge that some people have.) I'm not proposing that the formula is stale, or that we need a gimmick to get the audiences talking. I'm saying that a female Doctor would be an interesting angle, in exactly the same way as casting a older Doctor has been. While I've argued that gender isn't an immutable part of the notion of identity, there's no doubt that gender issues are, and I think there's a wealth of plot points that could be explored there.
I get that a change like that would generate considerable prurient interest and backslapping and self-congratulation of how progressive we are. I think that's a terrible attitude just as much as angry denunciation of the change.
Should we re-write the Bible and make God a female and refer to her as mother just because, theoretically we could? No. Because the millions of believers would hate it. It would destroy Christianity.
Some people would object more to the re-writing of the Bible than the switch of pronouns. I get your point though - I'm just saying that it's a silly attitude.
I want writers to come up with real, strong female creations so that they can be idolised in the same way as men. The way viewers see female characters isn't the fault of the viewer. It's the fault of the writers.
I want that too. But that doesn't mean the Doctor can't also be a strong female character. In the same way that he's been a strong older character and a strong younger one and a strong Scottish one. The way viewers see female characters is a result of cultural conditioning and inertia - the product of many, many writers and politicians and individuals over a long time. Doesn't mean we can't change it.
What do you perceive the Doctor to be? If he isn't male, how would you describe him? I also don't perceive him as Scottish because ultimately he's Gallifreyan.
Define MALE.
The only definitions of that word apply to flora and fauna ON THIS PLANET.
Do you KNOW if Gallifreyans produce gametes - cos that's part of the definition in terms of the higher order of animal life as we know it.
I'll give you an analogy...
If you went to another planet, you might see rain and lakes and rivers flowing - the lakes and rivers may even be teeming with plant and animal life. Can you drink from that lake? It may LOOK like water but even without considering undiscovered molecules and compounds, it could be liquid helium or something massively corrosive. It's a proven fact that planets and satellites in our own solar system have rivers of liquid gas or molten metal - so it's not even a "fantasy".
The Doctor may LOOK "male" but that's just a trick of the light. There are moths that look like owls and insects that look like flowers. He has two hearts - do you even KNOW that's all he has two of?
That's fair enough. My questions were aimed at those in the thread who had expressed the opinion that the boundary between male and female psychology was an identifiable one. I fully accept that does not account for everyone with objections.
Oh. That sounds like the same objections after all.
In what way is gender important to the perception of a character? You perceive him as male, fine. But what makes that indelible? You say you can't change your perception. Why not?
You pre-judge it and dismiss it as 'political correctness', but what if I tell you it's not? I'm not sitting here suggesting it's somehow unfair that a female actress hasn't had a go in the role. (Although I acknowledge that some people have.) I'm not proposing that the formula is stale, or that we need a gimmick to get the audiences talking. I'm saying that a female Doctor would be an interesting angle, in exactly the same way as casting a older Doctor has been. While I've argued that gender isn't an immutable part of the notion of identity, there's no doubt that gender issues are, and I think there's a wealth of plot points that could be explored there.
I get that a change like that would generate considerable prurient interest and backslapping and self-congratulation of how progressive we are. I think that's a terrible attitude just as much as angry denunciation of the change.
Some people would object more to the re-writing of the Bible than the switch of pronouns. I get your point though - I'm just saying that it's a silly attitude.
I want that too. But that doesn't mean the Doctor can't also be a strong female character. In the same way that he's been a strong older character and a strong younger one and a strong Scottish one. The way viewers see female characters is a result of cultural conditioning and inertia - the product of many, many writers and politicians and individuals over a long time. Doesn't mean we can't change it.
Very reasoned reply, - thank you. I do get where you are coming from, technically, there is no reason why the Doctor can't be female, but the framework of the show has always indicated to a male persona - right up until The Doctor's Wife funnily enough! For instance when you consider his grandadughter, his mentioning of his family, the time he was a boy, his marriage to River song (a woman), you would need to have a very broad imagination to suddenly dismiss all that as a form of convenient flippancy in order to accept the role of the Doctor as female. It's because of the virtual placement of the Doctor's male traits throughout the entire 50 year history that would somehow diminish the credibility of the show if the Doctor had suddenly become female. I am not disputing the possibilities of a female Doctor, I personally don't think it would be fun unless it was a temporary blip for an episode where disguising himself as a woman was a credible means of escape or hiding. I do like Minkythedogs suggestion where he said that after X amount of years (say 5000), the Doctor can then choose to become female if he desired. This would be a canonised piece of scripture so the viewer would be more accepting. To just do it, for the sake of it, is not only doing an injustice to the show but also to actors and actresses who may not have got the part because they weren't right sort of woman.
The only definitions of that word apply to flora and fauna ON THIS PLANET.
Do you KNOW if Gallifreyans produce gametes - cos that's part of the definition in terms of the higher order of animal life as we know it.
I'll give you an analogy...
If you went to another planet, you might see rain and lakes and rivers flowing - the lakes and rivers may even be teeming with plant and animal life. Can you drink from that lake? It may LOOK like water but even without considering undiscovered molecules and compounds, it could be liquid helium or something massively corrosive. It's a proven fact that planets and satellites in our own solar system have rivers of liquid gas or molten metal - so it's not even a "fantasy".
The Doctor may LOOK "male" but that's just a trick of the light. There are moths that look like owls and insects that look like flowers. He has two hearts - do you even KNOW that's all he has two of?
I think you are over complicating things. DW was made for an earthling audience, with earthling perceptions and prejudices. If we even start to consider how people, rivers and plants on other planets look and behave then we would be over loading our inferior earthling brains!
Whilst I think Moffat overcompensates, there is no reason why the show can't have strong female characters. They don't have to be the lead in order to be strong or admirable. I don't think the female audience are hung up on the Doctor not being female, as long as there are good female characters to balance it out.
I also think that with a female character, people are going to imagine that female issues will be explored, whereas people don't assume this so much with male characters.
It's funny that things the TVM was criticised for have appeared in NuWho. For example, there they mention that the Doctor is British once, whereas we've had lots of Scottish references and we're only two episodes in. Then there's the companion fancying the Doctor- was there really no chemistry in the classic series, even if it was never stated? I wouldn't have said that the past Doctors were particularly good-looking but it would surprise me if there were never any 'vibes'.
I think you are over complicating things. DW was made for an earthling audience, with earthling perceptions and prejudices. If we even start to consider how people, rivers and plants on other planets look and behave then we would be over loading our inferior earthling brains!
Doctor Who was not made for the same people to watch 50 years later. If the second Doctor had been female, no-one would be questioning a cross-gender regeneration today.
Fact is that simply changing the actor was radical in 1963 - enough to frighten TV execs and have some saying that now show could survive such and event - and it's turned out to be one of the all-time greatest moments in the entire history of television - not just of Doctor Who.
We don't own this show. The young viewers watching today will accept a male>female change with the same sense of wonder and excitement as we accepted the change from Hartnell to Troughton.
Whilst I think Moffat overcompensates, there is no reason why the show can't have strong female characters. They don't have to be the lead in order to be strong or admirable. I don't think the female audience are hung up on the Doctor not being female, as long as there are good female characters to balance it out.
I also think that with a female character, people are going to imagine that female issues will be explored, whereas people don't assume this so much with male characters.
It's funny that things the TVM was criticised for have appeared in NuWho. For example, there they mention that the Doctor is British once, whereas we've had lots of Scottish references and we're only two episodes in. Then there's the companion fancying the Doctor- was there really no chemistry in the classic series, even if it was never stated? I wouldn't have said that the past Doctors were particularly good-looking but it would surprise me if there were never any 'vibes'.
Yes, all good points well made. Madame Vastra for instance, is a formidable character. Could she out manouvre the Doctor if she so desired? Very probably, yes.
I think the simplest way to determine the sex of the Doctor, is to go back to 1963. When the BBC launched DW, the lead character was male, created as male, was categorically male. It matters not whether he's alien, on earth humans perceive people to be male or female. We also generally like our sci-fi shows to be relatable in this format too. Until sci-fi shows actually feature real aliens with two hearts and four penis's, I'm happy to spend my 45 minutes each week enjoying DW - a show created by earthlings for earthlings!
Doctor Who was not made for the same people to watch 50 years later. If the second Doctor had been female, no-one would be questioning a cross-gender regeneration today.
Fact is that simply changing the actor was radical in 1963 - enough to frighten TV execs and have some saying that now show could survive such and event - and it's turned out to be one of the all-time greatest moments in the entire history of television - not just of Doctor Who.
We don't own this show. The young viewers watching today will accept a male>female change with the same sense of wonder and excitement as we accepted the change from Hartnell to Troughton.
I realise it's anecdotal, but there were three girls in the shop where I work last week. The Tuesday after Deep Breath aired. They were choosing sweets and one said "Did you watch DW on Saturday?" They raved about it for a few minutes. I asked them whether they minded an older Doctor. All of them said they liked the new Doctor, with only saying they wished he'd talk slower. I then asked them, "what would you think about a female doctor?" They looked horrified and said no way! Yuk!
I'm not sure that your belief that the young viewers watching today would be as accepting as a female doctor as you would like them to be. Our mindsets are what our mindsets are. That doesn't make us prejudiced, or sexist. It makes us human.
Very reasoned reply, - thank you. I do get where you are coming from, technically, there is no reason why the Doctor can't be female, but the framework of the show has always indicated to a male persona - right up until The Doctor's Wife funnily enough! For instance when you consider his grandadughter, his mentioning of his family, the time he was a boy, his marriage to River song (a woman), you would need to have a very broad imagination to suddenly dismiss all that as a form of convenient flippancy in order to accept the role of the Doctor as female.
[...]
I do like Minkythedogs suggestion where he said that after X amount of years (say 5000), the Doctor can then choose to become female if he desired. This would be a canonised piece of scripture so the viewer would be more accepting.
I think we're certainly on the same page here. You couldn't just give him a female body, shrug, and never mention it again. You would definitely have explain how this change went differently (Simple choice? Sisters of Karn? Radiation leak? For a bet?) deal with his surprise, explore how the companion handles it, see how people react to the character differently. It would be really difficult not to play it for laughs, though. "Whoops, falling over in heels again!" I'm not sure Moffat is the best man for that particular job.
To just do it, for the sake of it, is not only doing an injustice to the show but also to actors and actresses who may not have got the part because they weren't right sort of woman.
Well, you could say the same about each time they cast a male Doctor anyway.
I also think that with a female character, people are going to imagine that female issues will be explored, whereas people don't assume this so much with male characters.
I do think that this is something worth challenging. I'm not sure what female issues the Doctor would have, other than people perceiving 'him' as less capable or the like. You couldn't run a whole series on what it means to be a woman, much as Capaldi's first series won't focus on what it's like to be old.
It would be really difficult not to play it for laughs, though. "Whoops, falling over in heels again!" I'm not sure Moffat is the best man for that job.
Well, you could say the same about each time they cast a male Doctor anyway.
That's a genuine concern and I'd draw a comparison with Matt being cast as the Doctor - there was no way that some floppy-haired boyband wannabe was going to do justice to the role and it was all going Buffy on us...
...but it worked - DESPITE him being given some "youngster" elements and plotlines (blushing at his "first" kiss or mention of his girlfriend).
Besides, don't you think that the 2005+ regen jokes - checking the body and highlighting the ears, hair, chin, eyebrows - are all just there to get us ready for the "I az boobies" line for the next Doctor ;-)
Only half-joking - a show with a kids plus dad audience can do a few "bum fart willy" jokes in the right spirit and it's healthy.
My nightmare would be for them to try TOO hard to avoid making any play on the change and end-up with a "man in a woman's body" character. The only thing that matters is that he/she is still the Doctor - intelligent, brave, slight dotty and potentially dangerous (so, Emma Thompson it is then)
Because the Doctor's personality seems quite fluid anyway, if you have a female Doctor, it would alienate people further.
Just create some good programmes with female leads! We don't need to ride on the coat-tails of men or be ridiculously important special people (not a lot of good men around apart from the Doctor).
Exactly.
Instead of rewriting a male character as a female character, why not concentrate on writing better female characters? Surely that would be the more logical thing to do?
Doctor Who was not made for the same people to watch 50 years later. If the second Doctor had been female, no-one would be questioning a cross-gender regeneration today.
True- but it wasn't a female and has never been a female.
Fact is that simply changing the actor was radical in 1963 - enough to frighten TV execs and have some saying that now show could survive such and event - and it's turned out to be one of the all-time greatest moments in the entire history of television - not just of Doctor Who.
I really agree with the BIB. It's one of my favourite generations because it's really simple and yet you can feel how the viewers back then would have been surprised.
We don't own this show. The young viewers watching today will accept a male>female change with the same sense of wonder and excitement as we accepted the change from Hartnell to Troughton.
Only if they've started with Capaldi and even then, they know there's a tradition of fifty years of men. The casual/new viewer is less accepting than a fan, I think.
For example, back to my favourite comparison James Bond. When they cast Daniel Craig, I remember thinking 'He doesn't look like Bond; he's blonde!'. Of course the complaint was silly and based on my ignorance but the papers ran with it as well. And some people still don't accept Dalton's version as being like Bond, even though he's dark in the books and he's dark now, because they're familiar with lighter portrayals.
The more limited their exposure, the more limited their conception is.
Comments
Gender is a fundemental part of identity, far more than simply skin or hair colour or nationality or accent.
As for tradition, rather call it the history and continuity of the show. It simply wouldn't be credible for the Doctor to have remained a man through 14 incarnations and 2000 years if, as you say, sex isn't a sacrosanct boundary and is no more important than a change of hair colour.
That's why, all things considered, no show-runner will take the risk of changing the Doctor's gender to female.
I was there and I can categorically state that Peter Cushing was as much the Doctor as William Hartnell at the time and for some of us, deserved at least a nod in the 50th year.
I know people have become precious about "classic" DW but when those films actually came out, none of us kids had any problem with it being a different actor or any "back story". Most of us were just loving Daleks and a box that was bigger on the inside - it didn't NEED to make "sense".
The ONLY thing that anyone said was odd was his moustache.
Seriously - for a lot of kids my age, those films were more memorable than the first episodes from TV - TV episodes in 1963 were entirely transient and there was absolutely no sense of them being "important" - they may as well been last Wednesday's breakfast - but a trip to the cinema was an EVENT - and it was in colour. If you weren't born then, there was no colour TV so the films films were our first (and for years, only) glimpse of tha show in (incredibly vibrant) colour - it was like today's audience suddenly getting holograms and smellyvision.
I know it's heard but some "adult" DW fans need to take a step back and let today's kids have their moment of wonder - it's the best way to ensure that DW is still around 50 years from now.
Just create some good programmes with female leads! We don't need to ride on the coat-tails of men or be ridiculously important special people (not a lot of good men around apart from the Doctor).
What "people"?
Are today's six year old REALLY feeling "alienated" by this show?
Can we ask the six year members of DS what they have to say?
Apparently not - cos a forum like this is incredibly unrepresentative of the audience of a show of this type.
Your average kid wants whizz, boom, bang and the occasional fart joke - maybe a snoggy scene for giggle factor - they have no "agenda". They are also far less rigid in their thinking - the classic line about the patient and the surgeon who isn't his father doesn't apply to most kids - say "teacher" or "doctor" and they don't automatically think of an old man.
Ask a kid who started watching in 2009 and I'll bet you they thought the Doctor's silly dancing at the wedding was the highlight of the entire show.
But this writing team couldn't write a female Doctor in a million years, so I'm not in any hurry for it to happen. It would just be River 2 and it wouldn't work. To be fair, I think it would be very difficult - the audience would be very resistant, as this thread shows, and the media would insist on seeing it as tokenist.
Personally, for now, I would rather the BBC got RTD, Debbie Moon and/or all the other great writers out there I don't know enough about to know, to write a Saturday night family series with a female lead, that was new, for this generation to have their Buffy, if you like (I don't really mean remaking Buffy itself but what it meant to its audience, male and female, at the time). After DW, Merlin and Atlantis, I think it would be something fresh and about due. But all these things have to start with the writing and who gets to write for TV. Focussing on the casting is not really the point.
Is it? In what way? Gender re-assignment surgery is a difficult process - but the fact that it happens at all shows that identity does not match exactly to biology.
And more specifically - in what way is sex a fundamental part of the Doctor's personality?
In what way would she be a different person, other than which inny and outy bits she has? If humans can bridge the sex divide, and retain their identities, why can't the Doctor?
Does your acceptance of the idea of the Doctor changing sex correlate at all with the reaction you'd have if a member of your family wanted to change sex? If not, why not?
Actually, your example proves the point. Just the fact that somebody is willing to take a bunch of pills for the rest of their life (and/or have hormone shots) and have major genitalia reconstructive surgery which costs a lot of money and go through the (potentially awkward) social and legal maneuverings in order to be considered the other gender goes to show exactly how important one's gender is to one's identity. If somebody is willing to go through that much just to be considered and treated as a member of the other gender, then it is a HUGE part of one's identity. There is nothing else quite like it.
But that wasn't what I was getting at, anyway. Regardless of how the Doctor feels about his identity, why does it matter to us? Why does it matter to you if your cousin calls themselves Bob or Emily? Does it matter at all?
You wrongly assume that those who object to a female doctor see women as something 'other' to themselves. (Your words.) I do not have that in-thought one little bit. I don't like women being portrayed unrealistically for one thing. For instance, why must the female bosses on Casualty or Holby always be portrayed as bitches? Are we to assume that all women in the NHS are bitches? Of course not. I want strong, real female characters on television as much as I want my male heroes too. To make the Doctor female, in my view, is not progress. It is political correctness. It is an experiment because there is a plot device to do that. The sex of a character isn't just about gender, it is about the perception of a character. The perception of the Doctor is that of male, whether or not he is officially male in Gallifreyan terminolgy is another issue. But to me, to millions of others, he is male. Should we re-write the Bible and make God a female and refer to her as mother just because, theoretically we could? No. Because the millions of believers would hate it. It would destroy Christianity. This is the same principle for Doctor Who. Just because, theoretically he could be female, doesn't mean he should. Is it really worth experimenting with such a well loved character and potentially damaging the future of the show just because a few think it would be fun?
Female characters are as worthy and as valued as male characters. I want writers to come up with real, strong female creations so that they can be idolised in the same way as men. The way viewers see female characters isn't the fault of the viewer. It's the fault of the writers.
You can only speak for yourself on that - it's called solipsism.
I can tell for a matter of fact that I do NOT "perceive" the Doctor as "male" any more than I "perceive" him as "Scottish" just because of the accent he's currently spouting.
What do you perceive the Doctor to be? If he isn't male, how would you describe him? I also don't perceive him as Scottish because ultimately he's Gallifreyan.
Oh. That sounds like the same objections after all.
In what way is gender important to the perception of a character? You perceive him as male, fine. But what makes that indelible? You say you can't change your perception. Why not?
You pre-judge it and dismiss it as 'political correctness', but what if I tell you it's not? I'm not sitting here suggesting it's somehow unfair that a female actress hasn't had a go in the role. (Although I acknowledge that some people have.) I'm not proposing that the formula is stale, or that we need a gimmick to get the audiences talking. I'm saying that a female Doctor would be an interesting angle, in exactly the same way as casting a older Doctor has been. While I've argued that gender isn't an immutable part of the notion of identity, there's no doubt that gender issues are, and I think there's a wealth of plot points that could be explored there.
I get that a change like that would generate considerable prurient interest and backslapping and self-congratulation of how progressive we are. I think that's a terrible attitude just as much as angry denunciation of the change.
Some people would object more to the re-writing of the Bible than the switch of pronouns. I get your point though - I'm just saying that it's a silly attitude.
I want that too. But that doesn't mean the Doctor can't also be a strong female character. In the same way that he's been a strong older character and a strong younger one and a strong Scottish one. The way viewers see female characters is a result of cultural conditioning and inertia - the product of many, many writers and politicians and individuals over a long time. Doesn't mean we can't change it.
Define MALE.
The only definitions of that word apply to flora and fauna ON THIS PLANET.
Do you KNOW if Gallifreyans produce gametes - cos that's part of the definition in terms of the higher order of animal life as we know it.
I'll give you an analogy...
If you went to another planet, you might see rain and lakes and rivers flowing - the lakes and rivers may even be teeming with plant and animal life. Can you drink from that lake? It may LOOK like water but even without considering undiscovered molecules and compounds, it could be liquid helium or something massively corrosive. It's a proven fact that planets and satellites in our own solar system have rivers of liquid gas or molten metal - so it's not even a "fantasy".
The Doctor may LOOK "male" but that's just a trick of the light. There are moths that look like owls and insects that look like flowers. He has two hearts - do you even KNOW that's all he has two of?
Very reasoned reply, - thank you. I do get where you are coming from, technically, there is no reason why the Doctor can't be female, but the framework of the show has always indicated to a male persona - right up until The Doctor's Wife funnily enough! For instance when you consider his grandadughter, his mentioning of his family, the time he was a boy, his marriage to River song (a woman), you would need to have a very broad imagination to suddenly dismiss all that as a form of convenient flippancy in order to accept the role of the Doctor as female. It's because of the virtual placement of the Doctor's male traits throughout the entire 50 year history that would somehow diminish the credibility of the show if the Doctor had suddenly become female. I am not disputing the possibilities of a female Doctor, I personally don't think it would be fun unless it was a temporary blip for an episode where disguising himself as a woman was a credible means of escape or hiding. I do like Minkythedogs suggestion where he said that after X amount of years (say 5000), the Doctor can then choose to become female if he desired. This would be a canonised piece of scripture so the viewer would be more accepting. To just do it, for the sake of it, is not only doing an injustice to the show but also to actors and actresses who may not have got the part because they weren't right sort of woman.
I think you are over complicating things. DW was made for an earthling audience, with earthling perceptions and prejudices. If we even start to consider how people, rivers and plants on other planets look and behave then we would be over loading our inferior earthling brains!
I also think that with a female character, people are going to imagine that female issues will be explored, whereas people don't assume this so much with male characters.
It's funny that things the TVM was criticised for have appeared in NuWho. For example, there they mention that the Doctor is British once, whereas we've had lots of Scottish references and we're only two episodes in. Then there's the companion fancying the Doctor- was there really no chemistry in the classic series, even if it was never stated? I wouldn't have said that the past Doctors were particularly good-looking but it would surprise me if there were never any 'vibes'.
Doctor Who was not made for the same people to watch 50 years later. If the second Doctor had been female, no-one would be questioning a cross-gender regeneration today.
Fact is that simply changing the actor was radical in 1963 - enough to frighten TV execs and have some saying that now show could survive such and event - and it's turned out to be one of the all-time greatest moments in the entire history of television - not just of Doctor Who.
We don't own this show. The young viewers watching today will accept a male>female change with the same sense of wonder and excitement as we accepted the change from Hartnell to Troughton.
Yes, all good points well made. Madame Vastra for instance, is a formidable character. Could she out manouvre the Doctor if she so desired? Very probably, yes.
I think the simplest way to determine the sex of the Doctor, is to go back to 1963. When the BBC launched DW, the lead character was male, created as male, was categorically male. It matters not whether he's alien, on earth humans perceive people to be male or female. We also generally like our sci-fi shows to be relatable in this format too. Until sci-fi shows actually feature real aliens with two hearts and four penis's, I'm happy to spend my 45 minutes each week enjoying DW - a show created by earthlings for earthlings!
I realise it's anecdotal, but there were three girls in the shop where I work last week. The Tuesday after Deep Breath aired. They were choosing sweets and one said "Did you watch DW on Saturday?" They raved about it for a few minutes. I asked them whether they minded an older Doctor. All of them said they liked the new Doctor, with only saying they wished he'd talk slower. I then asked them, "what would you think about a female doctor?" They looked horrified and said no way! Yuk!
I'm not sure that your belief that the young viewers watching today would be as accepting as a female doctor as you would like them to be. Our mindsets are what our mindsets are. That doesn't make us prejudiced, or sexist. It makes us human.
That's a genuine concern and I'd draw a comparison with Matt being cast as the Doctor - there was no way that some floppy-haired boyband wannabe was going to do justice to the role and it was all going Buffy on us...
...but it worked - DESPITE him being given some "youngster" elements and plotlines (blushing at his "first" kiss or mention of his girlfriend).
Besides, don't you think that the 2005+ regen jokes - checking the body and highlighting the ears, hair, chin, eyebrows - are all just there to get us ready for the "I az boobies" line for the next Doctor ;-)
Only half-joking - a show with a kids plus dad audience can do a few "bum fart willy" jokes in the right spirit and it's healthy.
My nightmare would be for them to try TOO hard to avoid making any play on the change and end-up with a "man in a woman's body" character. The only thing that matters is that he/she is still the Doctor - intelligent, brave, slight dotty and potentially dangerous (so, Emma Thompson it is then)
Exactly.
Instead of rewriting a male character as a female character, why not concentrate on writing better female characters? Surely that would be the more logical thing to do?
True- but it wasn't a female and has never been a female.
I really agree with the BIB. It's one of my favourite generations because it's really simple and yet you can feel how the viewers back then would have been surprised.
Only if they've started with Capaldi and even then, they know there's a tradition of fifty years of men. The casual/new viewer is less accepting than a fan, I think.
For example, back to my favourite comparison James Bond. When they cast Daniel Craig, I remember thinking 'He doesn't look like Bond; he's blonde!'. Of course the complaint was silly and based on my ignorance but the papers ran with it as well. And some people still don't accept Dalton's version as being like Bond, even though he's dark in the books and he's dark now, because they're familiar with lighter portrayals.
The more limited their exposure, the more limited their conception is.