Or it could be like the two times Moffat made out a major character was going to die in the season finale with major foreshadowing in many episodes leading up to said finale even going so far as to have one of the characters out right state it was the story of how they died only for him to pull a bait and switch and basically sneak his way out of killing anyone off. That was a lousy tease.
Oh. Wait. That wasn't Moffat. Which I'm assuming means it was fine because everything Moffat does is wrong wrong wrong but when anyone else does it? Genius. For further evidence of this please also refer to 'Making companions the focus of the show'. It's what I like to call The RTD Zealot Hypochrisy Paradox.
Or it could be like the two times Moffat made out a major character was going to die in the season finale with major foreshadowing in many episodes leading up to said finale even going so far as to have one of the characters out right state it was the story of how they died only for him to pull a bait and switch and basically sneak his way out of killing anyone off. That was a lousy tease.
Oh. Wait. That wasn't Moffat. Which I'm assuming means it was fine because everything Moffat does is wrong wrong wrong but when anyone else does it? Genius. For further evidence of this please also refer to 'Making companions the focus of the show'. It's what I like to call The RTD Zealot Hypochrisy Paradox.
RTD doing things better hasn't even been mentioned. In fact I even mentioned the Moffat penned library episode as an example of an episode done well. My complaint was based on the the pointless trickery of a character stating they were something they were not, which only seemed to function to waste time and allure the viewer with seemingly concrete information seeing as it was being said as fact by a character we are supposed to trust.
Plus in the two examples you mentioned, one was true in the sense of official records, with RTD going so far as to make the doctor say 'your dead, back home officially' and the other was that Donna, the companion who had traveled with the doctor was dead, as that part of her no longer existed. They both worked because they were written in a way where at the end you had to admit they were both technically true, whereas with Clara's Im the doctor moment, we just get 'it was just a lie'.
Don't expect peoples mind to be changed who don't already see my point (although as you'll see earlier in the thread some do and have agreed) but I still feel that I have a right to state my opinion that I felt cheated on that occasion.
Your example of a red herring is entirely different though, as the quote you have posted even says 'a red herring may be intentionally used by the writer to plant a false clue', which would be fine, and even makes things more interesting at times. Clara stating she was the doctor was no false clue, it was a character stating something point of fact, then running with it even further just after the credits and not mentioning for sure it was all a lie until much later.
It was, by definition, a false clue.
It led the viewers down the wrong path, and it led the characters down the wrong path. It hinted at something significant, that turned out to be nothing but a lie on the part of our hero. No difference at all.
No different to death prophecies that turn out to be not what they purported to be, no different to telling us that the Doctor is regenerating and he can't stop the process (although I admit that did turn out to be a plot point, it was a completely different one to what we were expecting.)
It led the viewers down the wrong path, and it led the characters down the wrong path. It hinted at something significant, that turned out to be nothing but a lie on the part of our hero. No difference at all.
No different to death prophecies that turn out to be not what they purported to be, no different to telling us that the Doctor is regenerating and he can't stop the process (although I admit that did turn out to be a plot point, it was a completely different one to what we were expecting.)
It didn't just lead viewers down the wrong path though with a hint or a look or a suspicion or even a suggestion or a prophecy of what was to come. It was a character that we were supposed to trust stating information as fact.
Anyway, I think its obvious at this point that we can argue the points of this round and round, and no one is going to feel any different. Leaving anything else out of it, my original point was just that it was something I disliked about the episode, which is a fair comment, and other people then also added that they agreed also. Obviously the thread shows that you and others feel completely the opposite to the point of defending it, which is fair enough also.
The doctor has always been male and preferably should have a British accent because it is a British show. I certainly don't agree that changing the gender of a character isn't important.
If the doctor was played by an actress the character would inevitably be extremely different. Furthermore if posters are saying they don't believe gender has an impact on character, what the hell would be the point of it? Just a cheap gimmick to get people squabbling about the show and completely ruining it for no good reason.
I hated the Master becoming Missy and if Jenna Coleman ever became the doctor I would certainly stop watching. OK I realise that no body cares whether I watch or not but I have been a fan of the show for a very long time and don't want to see it destroyed. I also don't believe that I am alone in thinking this.
Firstly, I don't think we even have confirmation that he has a penis.
Secondly, I can't believe I just wrote that.
Thirdly:
The Doctor has a male body. That's not the same as saying the self is male.
Also, the Doctor is not British.
He has always been played by a British actor with a British accent. Like I said, whenever you think about changing The Doctor into a female, just because it is possible, just picture him being played by Andrew Dice Clay, this guy:
and you can see that it would kill Doctor Who. He is about as far from British as you can be. And "British" is one of The Doctor's traits. So is being male.
He has always been played by a British actor with a British accent. Like I said, whenever you think about changing The Doctor into a female, just because it is possible, just picture him being played by Andrew Dice Clay, this guy:
and you can see that it would kill Doctor Who. He is about as far from British as you can be. And "British" is one of The Doctor's traits. So is being male.
That's a bit of an odd argument. Which would kill Doctor Who more quickly - the Doctor being played by Wayne Rooney, or by David Hyde Pierce? Casting a British actor is not an aspect of the character, it's an aspect of the show. And that can change.
Personal preference I would like him to remain a man and British. Plenty of good actors would be great as the next doctor. Age, colour or even sexuality do not matter as much . Just pick an actor with experience and the right qualities.
Personal preference I would like him to remain a man and British. Plenty of good actors would be great as the next doctor. Age, colour or even sexuality do not matter as much . Just pick an actor with experience and the right qualities.
That's the only salient point here.
Oh, and females are termed 'actors', too. So I include them. ;-)
That's a bit of an odd argument. Which would kill Doctor Who more quickly - the Doctor being played by Wayne Rooney, or by David Hyde Pierce? Casting a British actor is not an aspect of the character, it's an aspect of the show. And that can change.
And they can add an alien into The Flintstones.
And they can add a cousin into The Brady Bunch.
And they can add an alien into Happy Days.
And they can add a baby into almost any sitcom.
However, when they do these things, you know that the end of the show is very, very near.
Oh, and females are termed 'actors', too. So I include them. ;-)
A female actor is an actress. Hence the "Best Actor" Oscar and the "Best Actress" Oscar. Not the "Best Male Actor" Oscar and the "Best Female Actor" Oscar. ;-)
And they can add an alien into The Flintstones.
And they can add a cousin into The Brady Bunch.
And they can add an alien into Happy Days.
And they can add a baby into almost any sitcom.
However, when they do these things, you know that the end of the show is very, very near.
And they can recast the main character.
And they can repeatedly ditch the primary supporting characters.
And they can re-write the main character's backstory, several times.
And they can make him younger.
Adding an alien into a continuity where no aliens exist, like 1950s Milwaukee, or a fake prehistory, is a fundamental change to the reality of the show. Being a woman, or not having a British accent, is not.
A female actor is an actress. Hence the "Best Actor" Oscar and the "Best Actress" Oscar. Not the "Best Male Actor" Oscar and the "Best Female Actor" Oscar. ;-)
Top hollywood actresses now refer to themselves as actors. So do females acting in soaps, and tv dramas, and pretty much everything.
It takes a while for everything, and everyone, to catch up.
A female actor is an actress. Hence the "Best Actor" Oscar and the "Best Actress" Oscar. Not the "Best Male Actor" Oscar and the "Best Female Actor" Oscar. ;-)
A female actor is an actor. 'Actress' implies that somehow they're doing a different job, which they clearly are not. There's no need for a different term. See also: comedian, presenter, newsreader.
Top hollywood actresses now refer to themselves as actors. So do females acting in soaps, and tv dramas, and pretty much everything.
It takes a while for everything, and everyone, to catch up.
So, when there is a traditional term which means both men and women, such as Mailman or Congressman or Policeman, they want to make it two terms, one for men and one for women by making us use Mailwoman, Congresswoman or Policewoman as well in order to differentiate the gender.
However, when there is a traditional difference for the genders such as Actor and Actress, they want to squish it into a single term? That makes no sense whatsoever. Either have a different word for each gender or have a single word for each gender, but don't change everything to the opposite of what it has always traditionally been just because you will find a way to take offense somehow no matter whichever way the tradition has been.
What is next? Is Waitress too much of a distinction or will women insist on Waiters as well? Steward and Stewardess? Host and Hostess?
And they can add an alien into The Flintstones.
And they can add a cousin into The Brady Bunch. And they can add an alien into Happy Days.
And they can add a baby into almost any sitcom.
However, when they do these things, you know that the end of the show is very, very near.
Happy Days ran for eleven seasons. Mork was introduced in the fifth season. Truly the end is nigh.
So, when there is a traditional term which means both men and women, such as Mailman or Congressman or Policeman, they want to make it two terms, one for men and one for women by making us use Mailwoman, Congresswoman or Policewoman as well in order to differentiate the gender.
Who are they? Usage of new gendered nouns isn't to differentiate the genders, it's quite the opposite, it's to stop differentiation between what are perceived as 'male' and 'female' roles. 'Mailwoman' and 'Congressman' are probably fine if you're referring to individuals, but clunky when referring to the role in general. Instead, what we have today are gender-neutral terms that don't differentiate - 'police officers', 'members of Congress', 'mail carriers'. And I don't think anyone objects to 'postie'.
However, when there is a traditional difference for the genders such as Actor and Actress, they want to squish it into a single term? That makes no sense whatsoever. Either have a different word for each gender or have a single word for each gender, but don't change everything to the opposite of what it has always traditionally been just because you will find a way to take offense somehow no matter whichever way the tradition has been.
Originally, the term 'actor' referred to either sex, 'actress' is a later addition, so your argument falls a little flat there.
Again, the only reason anyone has a problem with 'postman' is the implication that the subject is a man, rather than being Man. The word 'actor' has no such confusion, and there's no ambiguity as to what it refers to.
An 'actor' is one who acts. A 'waiter' is one who waits. What linguistic value is there in attached gender significance to these terms? And what social harm is done by maintaining the pretence that some jobs are only for men?
Words that serve no purpose end up in the dustbin of history, labelled 'archaic usage'.
What is next? Is Waitress too much of a distinction or will women insist on Waiters as well? Steward and Stewardess? Host and Hostess?
What is wrong with Policeman or Congressman referring to somebody of either gender? Just because they include "man"? Are you one of those people that can't stand the term Mankind? Traditionally, mankind has referred to us all. It does not simply refer to men. The same goes for Postman, Mailman, Policeman, Fireman, Congressman, etc.. Despite the fact that "man" is part of those words, they were not gender specific and traditionally did not mean only men. If we are going to go back to using Actor for both genders, what is wrong with these words for both genders? Or do you simply hate anything referring to both men and women to simply have "man" as a suffix? Do you object to "History" because of the "His" as part of the word?
(Sorry if this seems that I am ranting, but it does seem to me to be a bunch of PC nonsense which seems to only be there in order to change everything no matter what the traditional and/or common usage is. I don't want this entire thread to be sidelined on this and I am willing to drop the debate and "agree to disagree" if you want to do as such.)
P.S. A Waiter is a man who waits. A Waitress is a woman who waits. An Actor is a man who acts. An Actress is a woman who acts. I don't understand the ambiguity there. In fact, the two words help to further define the person and prevent ambiguity. Just like King and Queen, Prince and Princess or Duke and Duchess. Or like the suffixes Sr. and Jr.. They all take what we know and distinguish them even further. Nobody believes that an actor and an actress do different jobs (except that actors generally play male parts (but not always) and actresses generally play female parts (but not always)). So why try and force the disuse of a commonly used word, the disuse of which would cause ambiguity in its own right? "Best Female Actor in a Lead Role" is both unnecessary and convoluted. What in the world is wrong with "Best Actress"?
What is wrong with Policeman or Congressman referring to somebody of either gender?
If you believe that to be appropriate, then why do you have an issue with 'actor' also referring to somebody of either gender? You can't have it both ways.
Or are you actually arguing that 'policewoman' should be a thing - I was under the impression you thought this was absurd?
Just because they include "man"? Are you one of those people that can't stand the term Mankind?
Different etymologies, different contexts, different usages. 'Man' in the context of 'mankind' is a collective term for humanity. 'Man' applied to the individual means an adult male. Neil Armstrong could have said, "One small step for [a] man, one giant step for Man", and we would have known what he meant. He is a man, he is part of mankind, as are women. A group of adult males are 'men', not 'Man'.
Back to the question - 'postman' is a male mail mule. 'Postmen' are multiple male mail mules. There is no such thing as 'postmankind', there is no book 'The Ascent of Postman'. It is gendered. The very fact that it is possible to say 'postwoman' and have it make sense should tell you that.
Do you object to "History" because of the "His" as part of the word?
From Middle English, from Old French estoire, estorie (“chronicle, history, story”) (French histoire), from Latin historia, from Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historía, “learning through research, narration of what is learned”), from ἱστορέω (historéō, “to learn through research, to inquire”), from ἵστωρ (hístōr, “the one who knows, the expert”), from Proto-Indo-European *weyd- (“see, know”). Compare story.
For comparison, the mail equivalent of 'midwife' is not 'midhusband'. Although the 'wife' part comes from a word meaning 'woman', but 'mid' means 'with' - the term refers to someone who attends to women, not to someone who is a woman. So a male midwife is still a midwife.
P.S. A Waiter is a man who waits. A Waitress is a woman who waits. An Actor is a man who acts. An Actress is a woman who acts. I don't understand the ambiguity there. In fact, the two words help to further define the person and prevent ambiguity. Just like King and Queen, Prince and Princess or Duke and Duchess. Or like the suffixes Sr. and Jr..
Firstly, ambiguity is exactly the aim - implication that a role only applies to one gender or the other is unhelpful. Why are there no unique terms for 'male nurse', or 'male babysitter', or 'male secretary', or other traditionally female jobs? Why do we not need special words for men in those cases? Why are you more likely to associate a 'waiter' with a restaurant, and a 'waitress' with a cafe?
Secondly, Kings and Queen don't normally have to apply for the role.
What is wrong with Policeman or Congressman referring to somebody of either gender? Just because they include "man"? Are you one of those people that can't stand the term Mankind? Traditionally, mankind has referred to us all. It does not simply refer to men. The same goes for Postman, Mailman, Policeman, Fireman, Congressman, etc.. Despite the fact that "man" is part of those words, they were not gender specific and traditionally did not mean only men. If we are going to go back to using Actor for both genders, what is wrong with these words for both genders? Or do you simply hate anything referring to both men and women to simply have "man" as a suffix? Do you object to "History" because of the "His" as part of the word?
(Sorry if this seems that I am ranting, but it does seem to me to be a bunch of PC nonsense which seems to only be there in order to change everything no matter what the traditional and/or common usage is. I don't want this entire thread to be sidelined on this and I am willing to drop the debate and "agree to disagree" if you want to do as such.)
P.S. A Waiter is a man who waits. A Waitress is a woman who waits. An Actor is a man who acts. An Actress is a woman who acts. I don't understand the ambiguity there. In fact, the two words help to further define the person and prevent ambiguity. Just like King and Queen, Prince and Princess or Duke and Duchess. Or like the suffixes Sr. and Jr.. They all take what we know and distinguish them even further. Nobody believes that an actor and an actress do different jobs (except that actors generally play male parts (but not always) and actresses generally play female parts (but not always)). So why try and force the disuse of a commonly used word, the disuse of which would cause ambiguity in its own right? "Best Female Actor in a Lead Role" is both unnecessary and convoluted. What in the world is wrong with "Best Actress"?
Actor is a gender-neutral term which literally means: 'one who interprets'. There is no gender attached to it, other than by society. Actor was used for females who appeared on the stage after they were allowed due to the English Restoration of 1660. Then later actress was adopted, from the French actrice. Therefore, your argument about traditionality means that you should be using 'actor'.
And why should we be using different terms for different genders? Just because we always have? That's a terrible terrible argument that always gets shot down eventually. There are many things we 'always have done' that quite rightly get left by the wayside. And history shows that 'equal but different' is never a good path to stick to.
In fact, 'Doctor' is gender neutral, but there are still people who assume male when hearing that word. It is our fault as a society we have that notion. Doctors can be female too...
No offence guys but this is getting terminally dull. Give up eh?
Quite right.
This was supposed to be a perfectly sensible thread about the evidence I have that categorically proves that Jenna Coleman is going to be the next Doctor Who....
I am sick of these female "Doctor" discussions. Regeneration is change in physical appearance. And gender is much more than physical appearance (or 'having penis' like some people said). Doctor Who is a great tv show everyone should enjoy (regardless of their political views), not some ideological advertisement.
Female "Master" was a huge mistake and female "Doctor" will hopefully never happen. Otherwise millions of fans (including me) and even more casual viewers will stop watching.
Comments
Oh. Wait. That wasn't Moffat. Which I'm assuming means it was fine because everything Moffat does is wrong wrong wrong but when anyone else does it? Genius. For further evidence of this please also refer to 'Making companions the focus of the show'. It's what I like to call The RTD Zealot Hypochrisy Paradox.
RTD doing things better hasn't even been mentioned. In fact I even mentioned the Moffat penned library episode as an example of an episode done well. My complaint was based on the the pointless trickery of a character stating they were something they were not, which only seemed to function to waste time and allure the viewer with seemingly concrete information seeing as it was being said as fact by a character we are supposed to trust.
Plus in the two examples you mentioned, one was true in the sense of official records, with RTD going so far as to make the doctor say 'your dead, back home officially' and the other was that Donna, the companion who had traveled with the doctor was dead, as that part of her no longer existed. They both worked because they were written in a way where at the end you had to admit they were both technically true, whereas with Clara's Im the doctor moment, we just get 'it was just a lie'.
Don't expect peoples mind to be changed who don't already see my point (although as you'll see earlier in the thread some do and have agreed) but I still feel that I have a right to state my opinion that I felt cheated on that occasion.
It led the viewers down the wrong path, and it led the characters down the wrong path. It hinted at something significant, that turned out to be nothing but a lie on the part of our hero. No difference at all.
No different to death prophecies that turn out to be not what they purported to be, no different to telling us that the Doctor is regenerating and he can't stop the process (although I admit that did turn out to be a plot point, it was a completely different one to what we were expecting.)
It didn't just lead viewers down the wrong path though with a hint or a look or a suspicion or even a suggestion or a prophecy of what was to come. It was a character that we were supposed to trust stating information as fact.
Anyway, I think its obvious at this point that we can argue the points of this round and round, and no one is going to feel any different. Leaving anything else out of it, my original point was just that it was something I disliked about the episode, which is a fair comment, and other people then also added that they agreed also. Obviously the thread shows that you and others feel completely the opposite to the point of defending it, which is fair enough also.
If the doctor was played by an actress the character would inevitably be extremely different. Furthermore if posters are saying they don't believe gender has an impact on character, what the hell would be the point of it? Just a cheap gimmick to get people squabbling about the show and completely ruining it for no good reason.
I hated the Master becoming Missy and if Jenna Coleman ever became the doctor I would certainly stop watching. OK I realise that no body cares whether I watch or not but I have been a fan of the show for a very long time and don't want to see it destroyed. I also don't believe that I am alone in thinking this.
He has always been played by a British actor with a British accent. Like I said, whenever you think about changing The Doctor into a female, just because it is possible, just picture him being played by Andrew Dice Clay, this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOH-iCkzUFE
and you can see that it would kill Doctor Who. He is about as far from British as you can be. And "British" is one of The Doctor's traits. So is being male.
That's a bit of an odd argument. Which would kill Doctor Who more quickly - the Doctor being played by Wayne Rooney, or by David Hyde Pierce? Casting a British actor is not an aspect of the character, it's an aspect of the show. And that can change.
That's the only salient point here.
Oh, and females are termed 'actors', too. So I include them. ;-)
And they can add an alien into The Flintstones.
And they can add a cousin into The Brady Bunch.
And they can add an alien into Happy Days.
And they can add a baby into almost any sitcom.
However, when they do these things, you know that the end of the show is very, very near.
A female actor is an actress. Hence the "Best Actor" Oscar and the "Best Actress" Oscar. Not the "Best Male Actor" Oscar and the "Best Female Actor" Oscar. ;-)
And they can recast the main character.
And they can repeatedly ditch the primary supporting characters.
And they can re-write the main character's backstory, several times.
And they can make him younger.
Adding an alien into a continuity where no aliens exist, like 1950s Milwaukee, or a fake prehistory, is a fundamental change to the reality of the show. Being a woman, or not having a British accent, is not.
Top hollywood actresses now refer to themselves as actors. So do females acting in soaps, and tv dramas, and pretty much everything.
It takes a while for everything, and everyone, to catch up.
A female actor is an actor. 'Actress' implies that somehow they're doing a different job, which they clearly are not. There's no need for a different term. See also: comedian, presenter, newsreader.
This is something that thesps have been doing for the last three decades or so.
However, I see no reason to embrace the solecism.
So, when there is a traditional term which means both men and women, such as Mailman or Congressman or Policeman, they want to make it two terms, one for men and one for women by making us use Mailwoman, Congresswoman or Policewoman as well in order to differentiate the gender.
However, when there is a traditional difference for the genders such as Actor and Actress, they want to squish it into a single term? That makes no sense whatsoever. Either have a different word for each gender or have a single word for each gender, but don't change everything to the opposite of what it has always traditionally been just because you will find a way to take offense somehow no matter whichever way the tradition has been.
What is next? Is Waitress too much of a distinction or will women insist on Waiters as well? Steward and Stewardess? Host and Hostess?
Happy Days ran for eleven seasons. Mork was introduced in the fifth season. Truly the end is nigh.
Good catch from a poor example; I thought that he appeared much later. However, the larger point still stands.
Originally, the term 'actor' referred to either sex, 'actress' is a later addition, so your argument falls a little flat there.
Again, the only reason anyone has a problem with 'postman' is the implication that the subject is a man, rather than being Man. The word 'actor' has no such confusion, and there's no ambiguity as to what it refers to.
An 'actor' is one who acts. A 'waiter' is one who waits. What linguistic value is there in attached gender significance to these terms? And what social harm is done by maintaining the pretence that some jobs are only for men?
Words that serve no purpose end up in the dustbin of history, labelled 'archaic usage'.
Those terms are already pretty archaic.
(Sorry if this seems that I am ranting, but it does seem to me to be a bunch of PC nonsense which seems to only be there in order to change everything no matter what the traditional and/or common usage is. I don't want this entire thread to be sidelined on this and I am willing to drop the debate and "agree to disagree" if you want to do as such.)
P.S. A Waiter is a man who waits. A Waitress is a woman who waits. An Actor is a man who acts. An Actress is a woman who acts. I don't understand the ambiguity there. In fact, the two words help to further define the person and prevent ambiguity. Just like King and Queen, Prince and Princess or Duke and Duchess. Or like the suffixes Sr. and Jr.. They all take what we know and distinguish them even further. Nobody believes that an actor and an actress do different jobs (except that actors generally play male parts (but not always) and actresses generally play female parts (but not always)). So why try and force the disuse of a commonly used word, the disuse of which would cause ambiguity in its own right? "Best Female Actor in a Lead Role" is both unnecessary and convoluted. What in the world is wrong with "Best Actress"?
Or are you actually arguing that 'policewoman' should be a thing - I was under the impression you thought this was absurd?
Different etymologies, different contexts, different usages. 'Man' in the context of 'mankind' is a collective term for humanity. 'Man' applied to the individual means an adult male. Neil Armstrong could have said, "One small step for [a] man, one giant step for Man", and we would have known what he meant. He is a man, he is part of mankind, as are women. A group of adult males are 'men', not 'Man'.
Back to the question - 'postman' is a male mail mule. 'Postmen' are multiple male mail mules. There is no such thing as 'postmankind', there is no book 'The Ascent of Postman'. It is gendered. The very fact that it is possible to say 'postwoman' and have it make sense should tell you that.
From Middle English, from Old French estoire, estorie (“chronicle, history, story”) (French histoire), from Latin historia, from Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historía, “learning through research, narration of what is learned”), from ἱστορέω (historéō, “to learn through research, to inquire”), from ἵστωρ (hístōr, “the one who knows, the expert”), from Proto-Indo-European *weyd- (“see, know”). Compare story.
For comparison, the mail equivalent of 'midwife' is not 'midhusband'. Although the 'wife' part comes from a word meaning 'woman', but 'mid' means 'with' - the term refers to someone who attends to women, not to someone who is a woman. So a male midwife is still a midwife.
Firstly, ambiguity is exactly the aim - implication that a role only applies to one gender or the other is unhelpful. Why are there no unique terms for 'male nurse', or 'male babysitter', or 'male secretary', or other traditionally female jobs? Why do we not need special words for men in those cases? Why are you more likely to associate a 'waiter' with a restaurant, and a 'waitress' with a cafe?
Secondly, Kings and Queen don't normally have to apply for the role.
Actor is a gender-neutral term which literally means: 'one who interprets'. There is no gender attached to it, other than by society. Actor was used for females who appeared on the stage after they were allowed due to the English Restoration of 1660. Then later actress was adopted, from the French actrice. Therefore, your argument about traditionality means that you should be using 'actor'.
And why should we be using different terms for different genders? Just because we always have? That's a terrible terrible argument that always gets shot down eventually. There are many things we 'always have done' that quite rightly get left by the wayside. And history shows that 'equal but different' is never a good path to stick to.
In fact, 'Doctor' is gender neutral, but there are still people who assume male when hearing that word. It is our fault as a society we have that notion. Doctors can be female too...
As can The Doctor, according to Who lore!
Quite right.
This was supposed to be a perfectly sensible thread about the evidence I have that categorically proves that Jenna Coleman is going to be the next Doctor Who....
......and now it's just getting silly.
Female "Master" was a huge mistake and female "Doctor" will hopefully never happen. Otherwise millions of fans (including me) and even more casual viewers will stop watching.