New Dr Who Trailer

[Hawkmumbler]

While I agree the "canon" has been retrofitted to allow for Time Lord gender swaps, this has come largely from the work of Steven Moffat,

If by largely you mean Missy and that one General, then not really? Eldrad, a half Time Lord, regenerated across genders, that was 1976 under Baker and Martin. David Warners alternative 3rd Doctor regenerated into Arabella Weir in the Unbound audios at BF, and a major supporting character in the interference saga of Books regenerated from a male to a female mid way through the saga. It was an old concept by the time Moffat through his hat into the ring.

[SmallBlueThing(Reborn)]

What? Eldrad from the Hand of Fear? I don't remember him being "half timelord". Does that come from fan fiction?
And as for the others- yes, but Moffat did it first in Curse of Fatal Death (1999), and they riffed off that. Possibly Lawrence Miles got there first with Interference (dates of TV Curse script and manuscript for novel unknown) but that wouldn't be the only instance of "The Moff" pinching Miles's ideas.

SBT

[TordelBack]

Now this ^^^ is an informed discussion. More like this,  please.

[Hawkmumbler]

What? Eldrad from the Hand of Fear? I don't remember him being "half timelord". Does that come from fan fiction?

Your forgetting Eldrads motivation in that story was to become whole and gain immortality, and he imbued himself with some of the Doctor DNA, becoming half Time lord and regenerating in the story.

[SmallBlueThing(Reborn)]

I'm, I'm pretty sure that's not actually the plot of The Hand of Fear. Eldrad regenerates through the use of radioactivity- first from the microscope, then the reactor and finally on Kastria. It's cellular regeneration, not necessarily with bodily change- he patterns himself on Sarah at first, but later adopts his "true form" (male) before dying. I'm struggling to remember any absorbing of the Doctor's DNA or becoming "half timelord".

SBT

[Leigh S]

I am trying not to watch the video, as I suspect my blood pressure will rise, but I'm not about to harangue anyone entirely for thinking the idea is potentially at odds with the show so far, albeit if you take a fairly close minded approach to it.

In continuity, I'm not a fan of throwing EU stuff about as validation for the change, adn to be fair it is a change, in the sense that theDoctor has chosen to regenerate 12 or so times as a man (and a white man at that, but that's another kettle of fish!).  It isnt a stretch to explain that though - if I relly needed a head cannon ecue for why it's taken so long, well his first set of regens is overand he is now in a second set - maybe the first set were restricted by the Timelords, being a bunch of fuddy duddy conservative types who didnt like the idea of Time Lords changing gender?  Or maybe it's because this new set of regenerations are unusual because they stem from Matt Smiths Doctor gaining a huge does of mixed gender regeneration energy at the end of his cycle in that (admittedly not very enjoyable to me) story a few years back?

Out of continuity, I understand the instinctive gut idea that geeky young boys are potentially losing one of the very few non violent role models they had - certainly a lot of the appeal of the series to young me may well have rested on a hero who tries to outthink his opponents rather than outgun them. James Bond and David Beckham are not going to fill that hole.  But here's the thing, young girls havent had that role model at all, and it doesnt stop all the previous Doctors being there, fulfilling that role - think of it as sharing ratehr than losing and it becomes something quite wonderful

Of course, in practice, there will probably be a lot to annoy me about new Who, as there has been since Tennant came a gurning, but if you cn;t see some merit in either of those above attempts to make you think more kindly on the idea, then ask yourself why it is a problem -if the answer i the same as some ranting incels answer, then I'd suggest keep thinking

[IndigoPrime]

But here's the thing, young girls havent had that role model at all, and it doesnt stop all the previous Doctors being there, fulfilling that role - think of it as sharing ratehr than losing and it becomes something quite wonderful

Quite. Not least when you see videos parents took of their daughters watching the reveal and going nuts on seeing that hood come down. "The Doctor's a girl now – JUST LIKE ME!"

Frankly, it's about time.

[Greg M.]

Out of continuity, I understand the instinctive gut idea that geeky young boys are potentially losing one of the very few non violent role models they had - certainly a lot of the appeal of the series to young me may well have rested on a hero who tries to outthink his opponents rather than outgun them. James Bond and David Beckham are not going to fill that hole.  But here's the thing, young girls havent had that role model at all

Most role-models for young girls tend to out-think their opponents, rather than outgun them, surely? I wouldn't have thought it was a rarity in the world of heroines, in quite the same way it is for male heroes.

[Leigh S]

Well possibly that is true in a generality, though the field for scifi action heroines probably includes more kick ass Buffy characters than it does geeky misfits - More Barbarella's than Barbs (Justice for Barb!)

[IndigoPrime]

Most role-models for young girls tend to out-think their opponents, rather than outgun them, surely? I wouldn't have thought it was a rarity in the world of heroines, in quite the same way it is for male heroes.

Like Leigh says, it's not that simple. And within a certain sector of entertainment, women are still primarily a token member who has to be all things to everyone. Also, the balance in mainstream media is still woeful when it comes to gender. Honestly, I'd be a bit hmmm if James Bond was a woman. That doesn't make any sense. But the Doctor, a shapeshifting alien who can regenerate their entire form during death? Yeah, I'm OK with that. Moreover, millions of young girls will be too. (And for anyone out there getting sad at little boys having nothing to watch, hey, perhaps they can still watch this show, just as girls and women so often end up watching male-driven shows for much of the time – especially in the fields of SF and fantasy.)

[Greg M.]

Moreover, millions of young girls will be too.

We'll see. I think that's wildly optimistic on your part - not for a second do I imagine the number of girls getting into Who will equal the number of boys dropping out (or failing to get into it.) Whilst I appreciate that you are not concerned with what boys will or won't watch, I think it is very unrealistic to imagine they will be able to identify with this particular take on a female Doctor, or to expect them to make that leap. Leigh S has earlier suggested that they'll still have access to the back-catalogue of male Doctors, but without the gateway drug of their "own" Doctor, I can't see them delving in.

[IndigoPrime]

My point is more that we as a people need to get over content 'for boys' or 'for girls' based on the protagonist. It is a deeply problematic thing that in the long run causes massive problems for women, for all kinds of reasons. There is no good reason why shows lead by one gender cannot be watched and enjoyed by the other. But while girls are typically content to take in media featuring boys, the reverse is fare less the case. Given what I've been going through with media here, with the youngling, it's easy to see why – even from the very earliest children's books, everything is astonishingly heavily weighted against female protagonists.

Perhaps I'm being idealistic. I don't know. But I'm fucking sick of the way things work for kids right now, am pissed off at the way in which the world treats girls, and really want things to change. For me, the new Doctor Who just feels like a tiny step in the right direction, for what we all know is going to be a very limited period of time. (My guess: two series, tops. There is zero chance the next regeneration will be to a woman.)

[Greg M.]

My point is more that we as a people need to get over content 'for boys' or 'for girls' based on the protagonist. It is a deeply problematic thing that in the long run causes massive problems for women, for all kinds of reasons. There is no good reason why shows lead by one gender cannot be watched and enjoyed by the other.

Surely it's just human nature though, for boys to gravitate towards male heroes and girls to gravitate towards female ones, on the basis of ease of identification? I agree that girls – typically far more emotionally intelligent – find it easier to identify with male heroes than boys do with female ones, but that's sort of my point: I don't think what you want is realistic for younger boys. Again, I appreciate you have a daughter, not a son, so that's not where your priorities lie. And of course it's important that girls have their heroes, of all different varieties, but I don't think that a very rare example of an intellectual, non-violent male hero has to be removed as a result. Give the girls a new hero who'll be truly their own, not a repurposed and repackaged male character.

For me, the new Doctor Who just feels like a tiny step in the right direction, for what we all know is going to be a very limited period of time. (My guess: two series, tops. There is zero chance the next regeneration will be to a woman.)

Of course, recasting back from a woman to a man could be seen a controversial and retrograde step, removing what will by then have become a high-profile female role. However, depending on the ratings, my gut instinct is that the show may be given a rest post-Whittaker. I think Chibnall's been given a "kill or cure" mandate after the plummeting ratings of the Capaldi era, hence the BBC's willingness to gamble on a female Doctor and various format changes.

[Funt Solo]

Given where the discussion is now, I was trying to think of female protagonists I enjoyed as a boy.  (Of course, given the comparative lack of roles for women, the list to choose from is shorter). 

Still, there's The Wizard of Oz, The Sound of Music, The Railway Children, Mary Poppins, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Press Gang and Xena.  Actually, being honest, I found Mary Poppins too saccharin, but I loved all the others.

I don't really buy the idea that boys cannot appreciate a female protagonist.  Can anyone point to a study that would prove that, rather than just opinion?  (I'm not trying to score points: I just like to follow science.)

So I don't buy the posited idea that Doctor Who, by changing gender, is stealing something from the collective male childhood experience. 

Edit: IndigoPrime - have you tried Ronia the Robber's Daughter?  My daughter loves that - it's a book and a series (with English narration by Gillian Anderson) by Studio Ghibli.  Oh, and she also loves Kiki's Delivery Service.

[Frank]

The Wizard of Oz, The Sound of Music, The Railway Children, Mary Poppins, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Press Gang and Xena

I ate up Little House On The Prairie, Heidi, and Anne Of Green Gables, too. I can't remember whether Black Beauty was a stallion or a mare, but it was definitely a girls' show. Loved it, wore out the soundtrack album.

Marmalade Atkins, Belle & Sebastian - I thought Vicky The Viking and Tripitaka from Monkey were girls. My favourite Playschool presenter was Floella Benjamin, primarily because her hair clacked when she moved her head, but I'm taking the woke points anyway.

And that's just obviously kid-centred stuff. Cagney & Lacey, Roseanne (especially Darlene), and Samantha from Bewitched were all favourites. The most enjoyable characters in soaps - Elsie Tanner, Mrs Mangle, Alexis Carrington - were ladies of a certain age. In film, Scarlett O'Hara and Bette Davis kicked just as much ass as Ripley and tank top/shotgun Linda Hamilton.

For all I know, my friends were the same. We wouldn't have admitted it.