His YA literature is hardly aimed at me (so I've never read it, obviously!) but I think from what I've read about the chap, Patrick Ness is probably a bit more sophisticated than that when it comes to characterisation. Any younger FM's read his stuff out there? Btw What is Tumblr? Seriously. (This could be my Judge asking a court "Who or what are The Beatles?" moment....)

This happens a lot, but is thankfully changing a lot. And shows like Doctor Who have set a better example of how it should be done. A character like Captain Jack has never explicitly stated his sexuality on-screen...he's had romantic and sexual interests in both men and women but it has never been the drive of a story. He got a whole spin-off and whilst Torchwood explored his relationships and family a bit more they never did a story where his sexuality was intrinsic.

The Sarah Jane Adventures was on the cusp of having Luke come out as gay. The direction they were taking from what we know was that Luke was going to tell Sarah Jane, she'd be fine with it, they'd get on with the story.

Doctor Who itself gradually made Clara's sexuality a bit more ambiguous. She clearly liked men, but they hinted lightheartedly at some kind of interest in Jane Austen which remained off-screen. It all became a passing comment, something trivial. Now and then it'd be great to see more obvious bisexual characters but they never fell into the trap of making Clara a 'token bisexual character'.

The show and its spin-offs have a good track record for this kind of thing. I'd give Class the benefit of the doubt, and Patrick Ness' comments on the matter seem quite promising too.

It's a blogging site where you share photos/art/news/opinions/whatever. Not a bad platform in and of itself but there's a certain sizeable niche which is deemed the epitome of political correctness gone mad. I can't say the description is wrong... I once had someone accuse me of being a homophobic misogynist on there. As a bisexual guy surrounded by a lot of rightfully successful women either this person is mental, or I'm on the cusp of some overdue identity crisis.

42 always made me a little sad that The Beatles don't seem to stand the test of time very well. It's a sad future, but hey, here comes the sun.

Ahhh. It's a bit Peter Cushing Gawn mad, by repute. (Need some new material...) Gotcha. As for The Beatles, they'll last forever, man! Then again, according to RTD it will be all Britney and Soft Cell come the end of the world. Yeah, right....

I'm a hardcore soft-arse leftie, but Tumblr makes me sad with its "political correctness" and I think its reputation is well-founded. When it comes to their politics, it's all about how horrible everyone is, especially white straight men, because they sit with their legs open on the bus.

Beyond that, it can have its redeeming sections, but there's also the incredibly aggravating "fandoms" who ruin shows like Supernatural by making an excessively big deal over their "ships" which gets all over the internet and makes you want to slam your head on the desk. It's kind of a cesspool of the worst things about the internet that aren't illegal.

If you still care about humanity, don't go there.

Yeah, because as soon as someone has a Tumblr account, it becomes their only defining aspect, right? (For the record, I do have a Tumblr account, but it doesn't sound like I read the same blogs you do.)

The point is that people see 'being gay' as the only characteristic that stands out, despite having lots of other personality traits. It doesn't matter two jots how well written the characters are, some people can't get past that. We don't make a fuss about how in-your-face it is that they go on about this female nurse has a boyfriend, or that policeman is married, or Indiana Jones gets the girl.

^ Ergo the 'gay agenda' of the RTD era. Women referring to their girlfriends, men to their boyfriends, one same sex kiss in those five years and we have a full blown agenda and conspiracy on our hands.

A mainstream show finally just acknowledges gay people in casual passing dialogue and a minority of straight people decide it's an agenda and that RTD has underlying motives.

I remember after Deep Breath aired there was the whole hullabalooh over Jenny and Vastra's "kiss". It was like "One of them is a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and you're bothered by the fact that they're the same sex...?"

Bloody Doctor Who, forcing our kids to be gay with its lesbian lizards.

I think Steven Moffat's been really supportive of Gay characters since the show first came back in 2005. He did some lovely writing in The Doctor Dances between the 9th Doctor and Rose, discussing Jack's sexual orientation, that was really relaxed and funny.

And I just love Jenny and Vastra - that scene in The Name of the Doctor when it looked like Jenny had been killed by the Whisper Men during the dream realm "conference call" was just heartbreaking. Similar with that poor same-sex couple in "A Good Man Goes to War".

I like what they did with Mark Sheppard's character in the S6 opener. We didn't know he was gay until the very end, by which point he'd already proven himself as a heroic and lovable character. It basically suggested that it didn't matter if he was gay, it's who he was that counted.

Favourite TV gay couple still goes to Buffy's Willow and Tara though. I think that was the first to be used in a TV show (at least in a non-derogatory manner)?

Probably not - the first lesbian kiss on British TV was 1974. Although I don't know the context of that one, I imagine there must have been at least one positive portrayal in-between?

Agony Again - Maureen Lipman's character's son was gay, and he ended up kissing (and being with) the Australian TV show actor that guested on her in-show talkshow. I remember that as being pretty positive (and compellingly uncomfortable to watch with my stepfather in the room, who then went off on one about it...). And as I was born in 1980, it was in-between - though I can't remember when!

Didn't Maureen Lipman have Gay neighbours in the original Agony in the 70s? I am sure I remember a scene when she phones them in the middle of the night and they are in bed together (in their pyjamas of course).

That's how it should be, tbh.

Not neccessarily. I like the way they did it with Sheppard's character, but that doesn't mean a character's sexuality shouldn't be explored or mentioned until they're done with. As much as I tire of the fixation on romance and sex that fiction always has, I don't see any harm in seeing more gay romances flesh out. I do think a lot of writers fall victim to portraying it as more of a lust thing and missing the emotional element, however, when a healthy blend of both would be nice.

On the Willow and Tara thing, I think they were the first instance of two lead characters having a full lesbian relationship on television, but I could be wrong. It was somewhat groundbreaking for its time though.

I had the most almighty crush on the son in Agony Again. Googled him recently and was shocked to discover he died very young.

LGBT has now become LGBTQ or LGBTQI. I find it all a bit tiresome, to be honest, and have always had a problem with the word "queer" (even if it's a word we're meant to be reclaiming, etc).

Some of the more recent gay stuff in DW has seemed a bit overdone, although I haven't watched the show for a year or two. Vastra/Jenny's kiss seemed specifically designed to get a certain section of the audience a bit overexcited and frisky, and I am glad Luke Smith's sexuality was not mentioned. It just doesn't seem necessary. Lesley Sharp's character in Midnight said she's been abandoned by her wife, but the gender of her ex-spouse was not integral to the story. There was a real sadness and brokenness to the character, and that throwaway line was so incidental and unfussy. Likewise one of the crew in Waters of Mars was sending messages home to his husband. That sort of stuff just adds background detail and is hidden in the smallprint. I feel that the Vastra/Jenny relationship buys into the poor image of women in Steven Moffat's DW. There's no subtlety, and everything is done with an arched eyebrow and a wink to the camera.

I won't be bothering to watch Class, although I quite fancy Fady Elsayed after seeing him in Citizen Khan ...

I can see that.

Tbh I think all the characters should be fully fleshed out on paper, and then an LGBT status given to a character at random. That way, it won't inform their development.

Interesting word - never really used as a slur, not really offensive, doesn't really define anything other than a sense of 'alternativeness'. I can't see how attaching a vague term to a list of specifics is useful.


I agree - it says less about sexual politics than gender ones. It's just as uncomfortable watching the straight characters 'flirting' as the gay or lesbian ones.

People are shaped by their experiences as they become who they are - they're not just a checklist of attributes. it's entirely likely that a gay character will have had different life experiences than a straight one, even if their personalities would be otherwise similar.

I don't remember the original series - I think I was a little too young for it (I seem to remember it was a big thing that it was back after *some* time...).

I think most people drop the QI, seeing it as nonsense. Me for one!


Gay teenagers don't really go through a different set of experiences than straight people these days. The characters are sixth formers, not middle aged!

There are straight people in Doctor Who?!?

I understand the Q is for queer, but what is the "I" for?

Also, if letters are going to keep being added, wouldn't something like "Alternative" or "other-oriented" work better? LGBTQI is quite a mouthful.

The I stands for intersex - as in hermaphroditism.

One of my main points in an earlier post was that I can see both sides to the argument of adding letters - the inclusivity and open-mindedness of it, but also the nonsensical nature of having an endless slur of letters on the acronym that render it pointless.

The good side is that these different letters are proof that people are being able to identify how they wish and be accepted for it more and more - that's great. But that open-mindedness has jumped the gun in comparison to our ability to contemplate sexuality. We're still thinking in terms of labels, and putting everything in distinctly defined boxes. Labels aren't inherently a bad thing, but the notion that sexuality in fact works on more of a spectrum or a scale is quite new. The idea gender identity works the same way is even newer.

People who insist on adding these Q's and I's are applying new ways of thinking to old fashioned methods. It's going the wrong way about doing something good, whilst it's still admirable. We're actually hopefully working towards scaling back labels altogether. So a kid can say to his parent that he met a girl he likes at school, or he met a boy he likes at school...and there'll be no demand by the parent or by society to label that interest with a designated sexuality. He may go on to only ever like other boys, he may end up liking both, it might be a phase. He might grow up and identify as gay, but it's a label he won't have to constantly consider. He'll just like other guys and get on with it, not too worried about what it's called or what it means, or how it defines him.

The adding of other letters simply means more boxes, more minorities. I appreciate what labels are for, and there's an element of pride in having your sexuality and gender identity recognised on a societal scale when you have to deal with all the tribulations that your identity entails. But people are becoming a bit more flexible when it comes to dancing, and as that happens more there'll actually be less of a need for the letters that are currently there. Let alone all the others that are vying for recognition.

Haha, somethings the Tumblr-dwellers make themselves sound like old people, "them queers and people of colour!!"