Mrebo said:
To answer Frank seriously, if a long-established show returned to the air with committed Christian showrunners and they announced the star character was going to convert to Christianity, I bet you many people would be offended by the pereceived Christian agenda.That is a terrible analogy. Being Christian is a philosophical choice. Being a female isn’t. Thus, having the doctor convert to Christianity would mean the show was making a social statement, by associating the wise sage with Christianity. By contrast, for decades many Who fans have mused whether it might be fun/interesting if the doctor were a woman. Totally different scenario.
Other examples (similar to the doctor being a woman) would be if the doctor were: black, Asian, overweight, blind, some other non-humanoid species, etc.
Other examples (like yours) would be if the doctor were: Democrat, Republican, Nazi, Jewish, Pastaferian, etc.
See the difference? That’s why screaming “feminist agenda!” every time someone brings up something good about a woman gets tiresome after a while. It ascribes philosophical choice to something that is a simple biological trait for half of the human population.
Puggo, that ignores the particular nature of the character at issue here: perpetually a man. It’s not just that some lead character in some show is a woman. Obviously that is not Warb’s objection. He was concerned that the precedent breaking choice to make the Doc a woman was motivated by, and heralded, a feminist agenda. I certainly think making the Doc a woman was partly based on a feminist view. I don’t know why recognition of that is so controversial.