5 People Who Killed Doctor Who

It was announced just a few days ago that the next Doctor will be a woman played by Jodie Whitaker.

In my opinion this is the final nail in the coffin of Doctor Who. To me there is no way the show can recover now, but to be fair its not just been this single action that has sunk what was once the most wonderful of series.

Its been a long and slow process leading up to the death of Doctor Who, and in this article I am going to run through the 5 people who have contributed more to the demise of the Time Lord than anyone else.

Why A Female Doctor Kills The Show

Before we start I’d just like to establish why I feel a female Doctor isn’t a great idea, and could potentially sink Doctor Who. (If you are already that way inclined then I’d recommend just skipping this section.)

Of course feminists and virtue signallers will often just say that the reason I and others can’t stand a female Doctor is because we hate the idea of any women having leading roles on tv. This is of course nonsense and this blog alone which has 10 thousand word articles on shows like Xena prove that I have 0 problems with a female lead.

Personally I think its a double standard the way that those of us who don’t want a female Doctor are told we don’t like female heroes, but those who couldn’t bare the thought of the Doctor staying male aren’t treated as though they can’t stand male heroes on tv.

The Depressing, Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who

I’m not the one whinging on about how annoying it is that an iconic female character like Xena, Buffy or the Charmed Ones are female!

Anyway getting back on point, a female Doctor is a horrendous idea in my opinion for many reasons.

To start with contrary to what the media says, all of the Doctors are not meant to be different people.

All of the Doctors are meant to be the same person underneath their different persona’s and faces.

In Classic Who regeneration was always treated as essentially an advanced form of healing. A Time Lord’s body broke down, and then it repaired itself, but in doing so it took on a totally different appearance. Essentially it rebuilt itself from scratch. As a result of this process, the Time Lord’s outer persona would change too. For example the previous version might have been deadly serious, whilst the next might be more flippant and humorous.

However the core personality, consciousness, and of course memories of a Time Lord were all the same from incarnation to incarnation.

This isn’t just my interpretation. All of the most prominent people involved in Classic Who wrote/played/produced the character as being the same person.

Terrance Dicks, the shows longest running script editor said that the single most important thing was not to change the Doctors character too much.

Robert Holmes who wrote more episodes than anybody else and who is often regarded as the shows best script editor also said that he always wrote the Doctor as being the same character, and simply allowed the actor to reinterpret his lines however they wanted.

Terry Nation who wrote the most episodes after Bob Holmes said exactly the same thing too. Obviously they’d make a few small allowances for each actor. If it were Jon Pertwee they might write in a fight scene for him, and if it were William Hartnell then they obviously wouldn’t put in too many physical scenes. But the point is overall, Bob Holmes and Terry Nation treated the Doctor as being the same character from incarnation to incarnation.

John Nathan Turner, the shows longest running producer meanwhile also said that he always treated them as the same person, hence his strict policy about the Doctor never falling in love with his companions, and even little minor details, like making each of the three actors he cast as the Doctor grow their hair out, as short back and sides weren’t the Doctors style.

All of the actors who played the role from Jon Pertwee on meanwhile all voiced a similar sentiment. Jon Pertwee was always adamant about the Doctor being portrayed as an asexual, grandfatherly figure because that’s what the character had always been. Tom Baker says in a 1970s documentary called “Whose Doctor Who” which was recorded whilst he was at the height of his popularity in the role (which is collected on the Talons of Weng Chiang DVD.) That the Doctor is the most limited role he ever played, as there are so many things he can’t do as he wouldn’t seem like the Doctor anymore.

Peter Davison meanwhile also mentioned amalgating aspects of previous Doctors into his own persona, whilst bringing something new to it. Colin Baker also said he spent hours after being cast, watching old stories to get an idea of who the Doctor was under his different faces, and then stay within that.

Finally McCoy said that he also was inspired by the first two Doctors and wanted to essentially update their performances for a new generation.

Essentially the character of the Doctor always follows a template, and its both the job of the actor playing it, and the writer and producer to do something new within that template, not completely break it.

The same is true of just about any long running character. With Batman for instance, he has changed on the surface to an even greater extent than the Doctor over the decades. He has been a comedy character, a gritty, down to earth crime fighter, a more gothic, tragic, dark hero who murders his enemies etc. But underneath it all, he has always stayed within the same template that defines Batman. All versions of Batman live in Gotham, work with Commissioner Gordon, are called Bruce Wayne, are motivated to fight criminals by the death of their parents, fight the Joker, have a butler named Alfred, have no super powers, and use gadgets, have a batmobile etc.

Thus for the Doctor its the same. All versions of the Doctor in Classic Who are mysterious. We never find out his real name in ANY incarnation. They are written as older, more mature, fatherly characters to their companions, are motivated by a desire to explore the universe, and find out its secrets, and have a very strict moral code where they will kill an enemy if need be, but only in self defence.

Even little, more superficial aspects carry on from Doctor to Doctor. For instance all Doctors in Classic Who dress in frock coats, and tend to wear more elaborate, old fashioned, Edwardian, Victorian era clothing. Also John Nathan Turner is right, they do all have long hair in the classic era too.

Finally the TARDIS is always a police box on the outside, as all of the Doctors have either been unable to fix the chamelion circuit, or have grown fond of the police box shape.

Really you could argue that there is no point to regeneration if all of the Doctors are different people. Back in 1966 you could have easily had another character take over from William Hartnell.

Since we knew NOTHING about his history or people, it could have easily been introduced that the Doctor is a title passed on to various members of his kind whose job is to explore the universe, and after Hartnell’s character died, then the TARDIS would be recalled to Gallifrey, and handed over to a new member of his kind who would become the new Doctor, and so on and so on.

I honestly think that audiences would have accepted that explanation, and had they done that, then obviously no one would object to a female Doctor. Indeed it undoubtedly would have happened long before now.

However regeneration in many ways was the best of all options, as it allowed them to keep the original character, but change him slightly, so that the new actor could make it his own, whilst still staying within a template that ensured it was recognisably the same character as before.

Making it that all of a Time Lords incarnations are completely different people however, destroys the character of the Doctor. Now if nothing carries over from incarnation to incarnation, why not have one Doctor being evil? Why not have one Doctor be a James Bond style lothario shagging every companion he comes into contact with?

There has to be a template to ensure that the Doctor is a character overall, and not just a title passed on to different characters.

Now in all fairness New Who has broken the template of the character of the Doctor before and I have criticised it in the past. Tennant’s Doctor was written too much like a young man for instance (such as when he tells Wilfred Mott that he would be proud if her were his dad.)

Also there is the Doctors notorious romantic interest in various companions throughout New Who, such as Rose and Clara, which has been attacked by fans, both old and new who see them as out of character.

Still I’d argue that turning the Doctor into a woman is a bigger change. Obviously a woman could embody many aspects of the Doctors personality such as his intelligence, his curiosity.

However, the Doctors gender is part of the template of his persona, really by default at this stage. He has always been written and played as a man. His relationships were all from a male persona, grandfather, father, father figure, boyfriend, husband, etc. He always dresses in masculine clothes, even his look, of having the long hair, stood out because it was more unusual for a male hero to have long hair.

Added to that the character is inspired by, and really follows in the tradition of other British gentlemanly heroes, such as Bernard Quatermass, and Sherlock Holmes. It is for this reason that many fans would not be happy with a non British actor playing the role too.

No one is saying that you can’t have a female hero like the Doctor, but the Doctor is kind of set as a man, so trying to change him at this stage, would feel jarring, and it wouldn’t even feel like the Doctor anymore.

I think there are only 3 ways you can change a characters gender and make it work, none of which would work for the Doctor.

1/ Change their gender in a remake.

This isn’t always guaranteed to work (and that applies both ways of course. Try and change Buffy’s gender for instance in a remake and watch the very same people cheering for a female Doctor lose it!)

Still this can work as obviously the new female version isn’t connected to the original, so it isn’t jarring. Had Chris Chibnall decided to do a remake of Doctor Who, akin to the Peter Cushing movies with a female lead, then no one would have cared.

Even then though, whilst it wouldn’t have seemed jarring, I still say that if you want to give women their own hero then it is always better to create a new character. Even if say a female version of Batman in a remake is really good, then Batman is still always going to be seen as a male character, because he was introduced that way, and the most famous versions of him are men.

However a new character like Xena is a role solely for women that has gone on to become as iconic as any male character. I would have thought that’s what feminists would have wanted, rather than a hand me down of an existing male character.

2/ Write them like a transexual who wants to change gender: I obviously have 0 issues with either trans people, or with a trans character being introduced. However I don’t think you can suddenly make the Doctor suffer from gender dysphoria after 50 years (several thousand in the shows universe.) It wouldn’t make any sense that he has never had any problem being a man for all of his regenerations before, and would if anything be in danger of trivialising gender dysphoria, by making it look like just a phase people go through (as presumably the Doctor would turn back into a man at some point?)

3/ Create a character who is genuinely genderless and can switch between the genders at will: This worked with the character of Brainiac in Smallville who was written as a machine creature and regularly switched between male and female forms.

For the Doctor however, again this isn’t an option. Steven Moffat, after being bullied by SJWs, did recently rewrite it that all Time Lords are genderless, but still that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t jar with what came before.

Time Lords have never for 50 years been written as a genderless race. In terms of how they dress, their attitude to the opposite sex, their relationships with each other and other species. Trying to crowbar it in that Susan can morph into Brian Blessed after 50 years once again is in danger of turning the show into a parody.

Of course whilst those are my reasons for disliking a female Doctor, others have expressed anger at a role model being taken away from young boys. Personally I have never cared much about role models, but still considering that the feminists entire argument is “we need a role model by turning the Doctor into a woman”, then fair enough.

Why take a role model away from little boys, just to give it to little girls? Did Xena, take a role away from men? Nope, Xena existed happily alongside another male hero, Hercules. Why couldn’t we have done the same thing with Romana (an existing female character that is popular and could easily be brought back)  and the Doctor?

Ultimately whilst these are the reasons that I an others think a female Doctor is a poor idea all around, the reason I and many others have grown to despise the change is because it has been forced on us by a pushy political group.

The feminists and the SJWs are essentially the modern day version of Mary Whitehouse. A tiny, but very vocal minority, who forced their own opinions on the show through slandering its makers, and in this article we will take a look at the 5 people who made it possible for them to do that.

5/ Neil Gaiman

This acclaimed comic book writer began the whole female Doctor idea in the 2011 story The Doctors Wife.

Prior to this as we have been over Time Lords changing gender had never been a part of the shows canon.

The idea of the Doctor becoming a woman to be fair was mentioned in the press before. It first started when Tom Baker said it as a joke when he was leaving. Apparently he did it to wind up then producer John Nathan Turner (who later openly said that a woman should NEVER play the Doctor.)

Sydney Newman one of the creators of Doctor Who also brought up the idea in the 80’s but again that doesn’t mean much. Sydney Newman was obviously a great producer, but he didn’t always know what was best for his show.

For instance Newman famously hated the Daleks and didn’t want them to appear in the series at all. He also didn’t want any monsters in it either, and furthermore he wanted to have the Doctor regenerate back into Patrick Troughton and then become a woman.

Thus unless you also think that the Daleks should never have been in the show, and the Doctor should turn back into a previous incarnation then its really quite a lame argument to use “but the creator wanted it in a desperate attempt to keep it afloat in the 80’s.”

I might add that Newman wasn’t even the sole creator of Doctor Who. It was really more of a team effort. Verity Lambert (who was against a female Doctor) had a lot of input and cast William Hartnell, whilst it was David Whitaker who suggested the TARDIS be bigger on the inside than the outside.

Ultimately apart from a few jokes in the media, and one suggestion from Newman that was immediately dismissed by John Nathan Turner right away, gender bending Time Lords was never established in the show for close to 50 years.

Neil Gaiman was the one who retroactively rewrote the shows actual lore to make Time Lords non binary. Personally I think he did it to make himself into a Gene Roddenberry, Frank Hampson type figure.

For those of you unfamiliar with those two men, they were iconic sci fi writers (with Hampson creating Dan Dare and Roddenberry creating Star Trek.) Dan Dare and Star Trek both gave strong roles for ethnic minorities and women at a time when such a thing was almost unheard of. As a result of this both Roddenberry and Hampson are celebrated as liberal icons within the entertainment industry to this day.

Times have moved on however. Back in the 50’s when Dan Dare was first released, you could break new ground simply having a black character be Dan’s boss. However now in the 2010’s would anyone give a shit if the main characters boss was black? Would anyone care if the main character was black?

Similarly Gene Roddenberry could break new ground in the 60’s by having a black woman and a white guy just snog, but now does anyone even notice if there is an interracial love story like say Lister and Kochanski, that practically drives whole seasons of Red Dwarf?

However people like Neil Gaiman clearly wanted to be seen as a liberal icon who challenged the sexism and racism around him like Hampson and Roddenberry and I feel he saw a female Doctor as being his opportunity to make himself that.

With a female Doctor, Gaiman would be creating a process that led to one of the most popular male heroes becoming female. Gaiman could then present himself as the progressive champion as it would be easy to tar those who didn’t want a female Doctor as sexists. After all to people who don’t know about Doctor Who and probably think that the Doctors are all different characters, then it can sadly appear sexist to not want a female Doctor.

I might be doing Gaiman a disservice here. Until recently I used to see him as being somewhat more misguided in his desire for representation than a poser, but it was after reading these interviews with him I started to see him as being more in it for his own ego.

Neil Gaiman On A Female Doctor

Neil Gaiman On Buffy

You can see what I mean from those interviews its very much a “I’m going to teach you stupid little plebs about women” attitude from the way he tells us if we want to write great female characters to “go out and hang around with women” or when he says that the Doctor should be strong minded, and brave, but that women can have these qualities too. Thank you Mr Gaiman I never knew that until you told me!

Now you might be thinking “well it was only one line, and it was vague, so that didn’t solely lead to a female Doctor”. However the thing with the SJW’s, who are the people who pushed for this the most. (I know some fans probably thought it was an okay idea, and were up for it, and that’s fine.) Still the people who REALLY pushed for it were the SJWs who simply saw it as a victory without really knowing why.

These people should NEVER be pandered too. Give them an inch (in this case a throwaway line) and they will take a trillion miles!

For ages afterwards SJWs who wanted a female Doctor would always says “its canon that they change gender so it has to happen eventually.” Which they could only do thanks to Gaiman and this in turn just meant that the pressure for there to be a female Doctor became overwhelming when Peter Capaldi was cast.

It would be great poetic justice if some alt right writer came along and revived Gaimans most famous work, and completely rewrote its lore and all of its core characters to fit their divisive political agenda and then slandered anyone who didn’t like it.

4/ Paul Cornell

Now Paul Cornell’s role in sinking Doctor Who is more in relation to how he has behaved outside of the show.

I don’t like any of the episodes he wrote for the series, but they didn’t if I am being fair have any impact on the state of the show now.

Paul Cornell however was one of the most vocal supporters of a female Doctor. Now obviously Paul is entitled to his opinion (though I genuinely don’t understand how anyone who is actually a Doctor Who fan could say that they wanted a female Doctor?)

Still Paul was responsible for pioneering a lot of bad arguments for a female Doctor that ended up being picked up by the papers and a lot of the SJW’s.

First and foremost Paul called anyone who didn’t want a female Doctor a sexist.

Take a look at this quote.

“The absolute worst extreme of that trait is the sort of fan that thinks there shouldn’t be a female Doctor.  They’re sure they’re good people, so there must, their reasoning goes, be a good reason why they feel that way.  They’re not bigots, after all.  They can’t be.  So they find some very awkward ‘reason’ that can just about be made to sound okay.  But it must be okay.  Because they’re good people.

And they are good people.  It’s just that good people sometimes express bigoted thoughts.  I had a fanzine article published about why the Doctor should always be ‘a fair-skinned being’.  I wasn’t a villain then, I was just infected by bigotry.  Because we all are.  It took many years, but I finally realised I didn’t have a good reason to think that.  (I also needed to realise that admitting I didn’t have a good reason didn’t mean I was suddenly a horrible person, a fear that, I think, lies behind a lot of entrenched fan opinion about this sort of thing.)  I was being a bigot when I said it, but I probably said something entirely sincere against bigotry a few minutes later.  That’s how the vast majority of people are.  These days the consensus is that it’s not okay to have any sort of reason why there shouldn’t be a Doctor Of Colour.  That’s only become the case in the last two or three years.  Though everyone is unconsciously pushing that date further and further back, to the point where soon nobody could ever have believed something as terrible as that.  In a few years, it’ll be the same with the possibility of a female Doctor.”

After Dark Water aired and the overwhelming majority of people expressed anger at the Masters sex change, Paul Cornell took to twitter saying

“Anyone who doesn’t like their favourite character changing gender is exactly the type of person who would turn on their own family member for changing gender.”

Sadly many other female Doctor advocates began to use similar arguments and it became more difficult to say you were against it without being slandered as a sexist.

Whilst Paul obviously didn’t create this type of argument he did popularise it within the Doctor Who fan community as he was a major figure with a large influence (as well as a close personal friend of Steven Moffat too.)

Furthermore Paul Cornell also pioneered the disasterous argument that “Doctor Who is all about change and therefore all change in it is automatically great.”

“It still amazes me that there’s a kind of Doctor Who fan  who like certainty above all things, who hate change, emotional conservatives whose first response to a development in Doctor Who that they like is to declare that there’s a precedent for it.  Or worse, who can’t deal with any development in Doctor Whountil it’s a few years old.  They have, almost masochistically, opted to follow a show that changes all the time.  (I suspect they’re represented in the show itself by the creature Light in ‘Ghost Light’.) I think several creators of Doctor Who over the decades have instinctively realised that that particular fan gene is in opposition to creativity, and have therefore set their faces against it, sometimes too much.  There are also those who’ve gone too far the other way.  To be a good writer, you have to smash things up.  To make great Doctor Who, especially, you have to destroy something someone values with every step.  Those footsteps of destruction will, in a few years, be cast in bronze and put on a plinth for the next great story to destroy.  Doctor Who lives because of that process boiling away in its cells.”

I must admit even I bought into that crap argument for a while, but its nonsense. No one is saying that NOTHING in Doctor Who can change, but its equally stupid to say that everything in it must change.

The smart thing to do is just take each change on a case by case basis.

Colin Baker’s coat was a change was that great? So was his strangling Peri? So was making the Doctor half human? So was the new Dalek Paradigm? Were all of this great for the future of the show?

Also I think its wrong to compare changes made now, after 50 years of established lore, to ones made during the first 4 Doctors eras.

At that point Doctor Who was really establishing itself. In Hartnell’s time for instance we didn’t know anything about the Doctors people and we knew very little about his own personal history.

Therefore there were many gaps to fill. You weren’t going back and saying “hey actually it went like this instead”.

Telling us his planet is named Gallifrey, his people are the Time Lords, that he left because he wanted to explore the universe, that he can regenerate and that he only has 12 regenerations doesn’t actually contradict anything that came before. It fills it in.

Of course that’s not to say there weren’t continuity errors as there would be in any show that lasts for so long. Still making a continuity mistake is not the same thing as completely changing an entire characters motivation, like in the case of the Master who went from wanting to kill the Doctor to wanting to shag him in Moffat’s time.

All of the previous writers that Cornell cites as being willing to change the show like Robert Holmes, were actually able to justify their changes on a case by case basis.

The concept of regeneration for instance can be justified because its the only way the show could go on as Hartnell was too ill. Also it had an added benefit of being able to extend the shows life for many years, beyond even the actor brought in to replace Hartnell. Similarly changing the Doctors outer personality meant that a new actor could play it the way he wanted.

Therefore it wasn’t just a change for the sake of it. It had a reason.

Similarly when Robert Holmes seemingly rewrote the Time Lords society by showing them to be more corrupt than before in The Deadly Assassin. Holmes was able to justify to fans why he felt it wasn’t a contradiction.

Holmes said that in his mind the Time Lords had always appeared corrupt, and when you think about it, he wasn’t entirely wrong.

In stories that were not written by Holmes and came long before he wrote the Deadly Assassin. We saw that the Time Lords still had the death penalty (as seen in The War Games). Even modern day British society has abolished the death penalty. Are they really so peaceful with this in mind?

Also why has their society produced so many renegades and psychopaths like the Master, the Meddling Monk, The War Chief, and Morbius?

Then there is their rank hypocrisy in exiling the Doctor for interfering in the affairs of other planets and later sending him on missions to interfere in the affairs of other planets like Peladon.

Finally even just the question of why would the Doctor want to leave Gallifrey if it was such a perfect society might lead you to think that it wasn’t so rosey after all?

Similarly Terry Nation justified his changes in Genesis of the Daleks by saying that before we had only heard a few scant historical records of the Daleks origins whilst Genesis gave us a first hand account. He also said that he felt Genesis explained why the Daleks had always behaved in exactly the same way, as they had been conditioned too by Davros.

Also its worth mentioning that Doctor Who is also actually a show with many traditions too. In fact one could argue that its its traditions that are the key to its success as they ultimately are what enables it to still feel like the same show in spite of its many changes.

The TARDIS is still a blue police box after 50 plus years.

Unlike Time Lord gender bending the Tardis’ ability to change shape has been established from the start. So why in a show that according to Paul Cornell is all about change is that thing still a police box?

Added to that the Daleks have still met every Doctor onscreen (bar the 8th) the Cybermen, the Master, and UNIT have met almost every Doctor, other characters like Sarah Jane, the Brig, the Sontarans, the Ice Warriors, have spanned many Doctors too.

The Daleks also have the same basic characterisation. Yes other writers have added to their characters over the years and that’s fine. However their basic characterisation of despising all other life forms and being pitiless conquerors has remained the same. As by the way has their basic design too.

The Cybermen also have always remained the same emotionless machine creatures who want to convert people into members of their own kind.

Even the Sontarans have the same design and personality of being extreme war mongers.

So why have we kept all of these traditions if in Paul’s mind there are no constants in the show?

Simple because Doctor Who has a very flexible format that can allow you to change something if need be, which is why changes like regeneration and say focusing on monster stories instead of historicals have happened in the past and worked.

Changes just for the sake of changes however, like permanently changing the TARDIS’ shape, or permanently changing the Daleks core characterisation have never happened, because there is NO reason for them to happen.

A female Doctor therefore should be viewed in the same light as changing the TARDIS’ shape. If someone could come up with a reason as to why a female Doctor worked on its merits then no one would mind one bit. However for over 30 years not one person has managed too.

Thus people like Paul Cornell instead push this ridiculous “ALL CHANGE IS GOOD BECAUSE WILLIAM HARTNELL CHANGED INTO PATRICK TROUGHTON” to try and justify a female Doctor.

Sadly self loathing fanboys who don’t want to be seen as sad anoraks will lap it up. Of course they often contradict themselves. I find fans who claim to be impartial, but come down hard on people like me for not accepting a female Doctor, as that apparently means I am against all change. Will later ironically bitch about a change that they didn’t like, like say the Doctor being half human in the 96 movie. Paul Cornell himself ironically even complains about the Doctor using a gun too often in 80s stories. Hey Paul isn’t that a change?

I think Paul Cornell much like Neil Gaiman wants to be seen as the Hampson, Roddenberry style, wise man who fought against the prejudices of his times and will be revered years from now. The reason I say that about Paul is because in any interview he gives about feminism or a female Doctor, or representation he basically goes on about how great he is compared to the disgusting sexists in the industry about him.

See this quote here

“I think he’s a great choice!” Cornell enthuses, “I would’ve preferred a woman though… I got really annoyed at lots of my friends in the Doctor Who fandom, I’d no idea they’d react so conservatively and negatively to [the idea of a female Doctor]. They seemed to think it was okay to say an awful lot of s***.” Does he think we’ll ever see a female doctor? “Maybe! Neil [Gaiman] changed the world by including that one line in his script about a woman having been a Timelord before, so that opened up the possibility”

Sadly however Paul’s opinion became dominant, and this not only helped to lead to a female Doctor, but it also led to what can only be described as pieces of Doctor Who lore being vandalised in the Moffat era, because the attitude became “all change was good lets do what we want”.

So we got things like it being rewritten that the Doctor left Gallifrey because of the silly Hybrid story line, the Daleks suddenly having a concept of pity, the Master being in love with the Doctor, and of course the notorious Cyber Brig.

You have to like this, because Doctor Who is all about change and so therefore every single change is automatically brilliant. If you don’t like a beloved Doctor Who characters rotting corpse being ripped up out of the ground and turned into a Cyberman you are just an emotional conservative who would have hated William Hartnell becoming Patrick Troughton. That makes sense.

3/ Whovian Feminism

A blogger, this woman is to Doctor Who fandom what Anita Sarkeesian is to video game fandom (and trust me I don’t mean that as a compliment.)

Feminists and SJW “fans” played a huge role in the downfall of Doctor Who in general, but of all of them Whovian Feminism holds a larger percentage of the blame for many reasons.

To start with she is the one who spoke to people involved in the show directly. People always go on about how Ian Levine had a negative impact on Doctor Who in the 80’s for the same reason. For those of you who don’t know who he is, Ian Levine was a high profile fan in the 80’s who became the show’s unofficial continuity adviser.

Many have blamed Levine for encouraging John Nathan Turner to include too many references to past stories which alienated new viewers. Many have also blasted JNT for giving too many interviews with the fans and caring about what they thought instead of mainstream audiences.

Yet somewhat hypocritically I haven’t seen anybody complaining about the writers and the directors from the new series meeting up with Whovian Feminism to give her interviews or even promote her blog?

I might add that whilst Ian Levine has done some outrageous things, at the very least he has also saved dozens and dozens of 60’s Doctor Who stories from destruction, including the first Dalek story. Also Levine only became a part of the show due to his genuine encyclopedic knowledge of the series.

Whovian Feminism however has done fuck all for the good of the show, and only gets to talk to the makers of the series because of her aggressive political agenda where she smears anyone who doesn’t agree with her as a sexist. In contrast to Levine who knew the show inside out, this is a woman who until 2015 hadn’t seen a single Colin Baker story.

Whovian Feminism Interviews Rachel Talalay

Whovian Feminism Interviews Sarah Dollard

She has clearly had more of an influence on the show than other fans. Obviously its makers have come to see her as representing what most people want and have therefore tailored it to please fans like her in general.

Whovian Feminism is desperate for a female Doctor. She has labelled just about everyone who is opposed to it a sexist.

Take a look at this gem of a quote.

Supposedly well-meaning observers always like to come in and say that hardcore fans simply won’t accept a woman portraying the Doctor. This attitude does both the show and our fandom a disservice. While there is always a smattering of assholes to prove this type of attitude does exist, they aren’t even close to a majority. And even if it were true, we should not let the direction of the show be dictated by the worst of its fans. If a misogynistic jerk who disparagingly refers to a woman Doctor as “The Nurse” says he’ll quit watching the show, he’s exactly the type of fan we should be proud to piss off. I promise, plenty of new fans (especially ones with disposable income!) are waiting in the wings to take his place.”

The best thing about this quote is how Whovian Feminism for all her talk of equality clearly is a class snob the way she automatically equates having a low income to being a sad, lowlife sexist and bigot.

I guess we don’t want any riff raff, or commoners watching Doctor Who cause they’re all such disgusting sexists eh Whovian Feminism?

Sorry ladies you’re not welcome on the TARDIS anymore. You don’t have enough disposable income!

Still you can see that Whovian Feminism is your typical feminist fan, IE the most non inclusive type of fan there is. The type of fan who can never just watch something, but has to take it over completely (look at her tagline “My Fandom Will Be Feminist!“) The type of fan who will never compromise under any circumstance. It always has to go 100 percent her way or else you’re a disgusting sexist.

Even if what she and others like her want is not right for a certain character then it still doesn’t matter, it has to happen, and YOU have to like it as well or else you’re a sexist.

Whovian Feminism is also the type of viewer who is never going to be happy either. She wants to complain because its her bread and butter, so she’ll still find something to be unhappy about in the female Doctors portrayal.

Look at this article where she goes out of her way to find sexism in New Who stories.

Introducing Damsels In Distress Vs Doctor Who

Finally and perhaps worst of all someone like Whovian Feminism advocates that people are not hired on merit but simply for representation. She not only wants women cast in the role of the Master and the Doctor just simply for her agenda, but she also wants women hired behind the scenes just simply to fill diversity quota’s. She has even promoted a petition to make sure that there is an equal number of men and women writing for the series.

Now whilst this might sound like a decent idea in theory its actually a terrible way to run a series. Ultimately you are not hiring based on talent, but just to tick boxes. You could get a fantastic script like say Survival from a female writer like Rona Munro, but you couldn’t use that script because you’d already taken in your set amount of female writers that year.

Furthermore you could obviously have a great script like say Caves of Androzani from a male writer like Robert Holmes that you couldn’t use as you had your specific amount of male writers for that year.

At the end of the day people should only ever be hired based on their ideas and talent, NOT their gender and skin colour as Whovian Feminism advocates.

Yet sadly as seen from the interviews and promotion they have given her, the new who production team saw Whovian Feminism as someone who should be listened too, as well as the audience they were going for.

2/ Steven Moffat

The Quisling of Doctor Who fandom.

For what its worth I used to like his era during Matt Smith’s time, but the damage he wreaked on the series during Capaldi’s tenure was too great.

I don’t think that Steven Moffat was desperate to prove how progressive he was. Sadly however I think he was bullied into making it ultra feminist by the SJW’s who launched an absolutely vicious smear campaign against the man from 2012 on.

They accused him of being a sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, ableist, etc. All of their accusations were hollow. Indeed they were often over the most petty things like Karen Gillan is too sexy, his female companions lives revolve too much around the Doctor, the companion is just a sidekick and should be as important as the Doctor etc.

Sadly however Moff took their criticisms to heart and began to write the show for the feminist/SJW’s. This affected the quality of the show in so many ways.

To start with Clara came to dominate the series. Not only did many episodes revolve around her and her place of work too much such as The Caretaker, Kill the Moon, In The Forest of the Night (all very poorly received stories), but they also bigged up her role in the continuity to an absurd degree.

She was retconned into being the hero of every DW story ever made, the reason the Doctor conquered his fear as a boy, the reason he left Gallifrey, the reason he undid the time war, the reason the Time Lords gave him more lives etc. And she even ended the series gaining her own TARDIS and becoming completely unkillable, thus making her a better Doctor than the Doctor himself.

All of this understandably made Clara one of the most hated companions in Who history. Nobody likes a side character who comes in, thinks they are better than the hero, is proven to be better than the main hero, and on top of that regularly slaps the main hero.

Then of course there was the Masters controversial (to say the least) sex change and her sudden infatuation with the Doctor as well as the constant anti men and anti white jokes all helped to drive people away in spades.

The viewers for Matt Smith’s last episode were over 10 million. By the end of Peter Capaldi’s last season they were down at barely over 2 million. Now it is true that viewing figures are down for tv in general these days, but still even with that Doctor Who has still suffered a catastrophic fall in viewers. 5 times fewer people are watching it now.

To be fair not all of Moffat’s problems can be blamed on his pandering to feminists. The Cyber Brig for instance, one of the most hated ideas in the history of the show (and with good reason.) Has nothing to do with pandering.

Still for whatever reasons Moffat managed to completely destroy classic characters like the Brig (who he gave an atrocious ending to), and the Master who he turned into a literal parody of himself.

Even if Chris Chibnall hadn’t cast a woman it would have been difficult to carry the show on after the damage Moffat had done, but still in spite of things like Missy and the Cyber Brig, Moffat incredibly enough isn’t the worst thing to happen to Doctor Who.

Sources to back up what I was saying about Moffat pandering to feminists.

In this video Mundane Matt says that Moffat at a convention said that a female Doctor would never happen on his watch back in early 2011.

Feminists slander Moff from about 2011 on.

Steven Moffat Tweets Against Accusation of Sexism

Trigger Warning Sexual Assault in Doctor Who

Problematic Posters For Doctor Who

Doctor Who is Racist New Book Claims

2014 on we get a new Master who is a woman, as well as more examples of feminist pandering.

Steven Moffat We Need More Female Writers

Stop Assuming I’m A Sexist Demon

Steven Moffat “Doctor Who needs to do better on diversity”

This great scene from The Simpsons sums up Moff’s relationship with the feminist audience of Doctor Who, with Moff obviously representing Skinner (except rather than wear a dress, he forced the Master to wear one.)

“Just tell me how to write Doctor Who!!!!!”

1/ Chris Chibnall

It takes some going to be worse than your predecessor before you’ve even produced a single episode (even more so when your predecessor is Steven Moffat.)

Still Chris Chibnall has managed it with his first ever move in casting a woman as the Doctor.

Now as I have been over a female Doctor is to me a terrible idea that completely ruins the show, but its also opened up a can of worms for whoever comes after Chibnall.

What happens if someone wants to make the Doctor a male again? We are going to have to deal with the media and the Whovian Feminist types saying Doctor Who is transphobic and taking a role away from women (ironically).

So what will we have to have 13 women now? In that case the character is now completely different. Don’t even call it Doctor Who anymore because it has nothing to do with William Hartnell’s original character.

Also if we have cast a woman as the Doctor why stop there? Why not demand a black Doctor, an Asian Doctor, a French Doctor, an American Doctor etc. Not that I have any problems with those however, but the point I am trying to make is that we are now casting the role solely to tick boxes rather than because a particular actor is the best for the role.

All of these problems have emerged because of a single foolish decision on Chibnalls part. I don’t know why he did it. If it was pandering to feminists like Steven Moffat, virtue signalling, or maybe even just as a cheap gimmick, but whatever the case Chibnall has as Ian Levine said “put the final nail into Doctor Who

In my opinion the show is not long for this world and if you want to blame anyone then blame these 5 people. Whilst the SJW’s wanted the show to be done their way, if it hadn’t been for the actions of these 5 individuals then Doctor Who would still be strong and healthy.

Thanks for reading.

23 thoughts on “5 People Who Killed Doctor Who

  1. OK. I’m say this in the nicest way I can…. Jesus Christ you are an absolutely pathetic human being!! These opinions are fucking terrible!! Feel bad for your awful opinions!! If Doctor Who is “ruined” – which it isn’t – that’s all on YOU and your bullshit thoughts about human society and how it impacts TV!! You have ABSOLUTELY NO business expressing this borderline alt-right bullshit to the wider internet!!! Just… log off, delete the account, and let the rest of us normal folk with good taste – folk who still have faith in Doctor Who and humanity’s progress – appreciate what’s happening in the world of television! FUCK OFF!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • LMFAO thank you for that comment. Gave me a brilliant laugh with my breakfast this morning. Thank you for proving my point exactly that there is NO argument for a female Doctor other than just abusing the people who don’t want it as sexists.

      LOL I’m a socialist but apparently not liking a castrated Doctor makes me alt right? God you’re hilarious. Please respond to this I want more laughs.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Couldn’t agree with you more. Very well put. And the childish comment from the angry SJW does nothing but prove your point as to why the series should NOT pander to them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • LOL is that the best you can come up with? Can’t refute ANYTHING I’ve said here so you just go for the laziest, most cliched and unoriginal insult of “You like Sci Fi so I bet no woman wants to fuck you”. What devastating wit, its such a shame that you are wasted here commenting on my blog.

      Personally I’ve never understood that lack of sex argument anyway? Even if that were true so what? That automatically makes my points invalid and me a moron? By that logic then Paris Hilton must be one of the greatest intellects the world has ever seen and always be right as she has probably had more sex than you and me combined!

      Keep on with these comments SJW’s. All they do is prove me right that there is NO argument for a female Doctor, and that you all only got your way by hurling the usual, bland, unoriginal insults at the producers and the fan base “sad basement dwelling virgin”, “sexist” “alt righter”, “homophobic”, “transphobic”.


  3. I think the idea of a woman doctor is also passable, but I very much hope that the fourteenth is a man.
    In my opinion to blame is Russel T Davies, because due to his the SJW revolted against Moffat, who decided to make their game not to remain being bullied.


    • I personally don’t understand how anyone who likes Doctor Who can view a female Doctor as passable. Hope you aren’t offended by that as its obviously quite a strong way of putting it, but if you want to say why you don’t mind it, by all means go ahead. I’d be interested in hearing from people who are a bit more impartial and reasonable, which you seem to be, as opposed to the childish SJW’s who commented above (though their responses are always great for a laugh and do expose how they have no arguments).

      And yes RTD does hold some of the blame. I covered this in my “Why SJW’s Have Ruined Doctor Who” article. And yes Moffat was unfairly bullied. It was disgusting in hindsight the stuff people said about him. I defended him for the most part against the sexist accusations (sadly in 2015 I bought into some of them. At that point I had been so strident against the SJW’s I thought that maybe I had gone a bit too far and should hear their side. However by the end of 2015 I realised it was just all shit what they were saying about Moff.)

      I do always make it clear that I don’t think Moff was a phoney virtue signaller like many of the others. He was a victim of the SJW’s who basically attacked a decent, progressive guy and completely tarred him as a woman hating, LGBT people hating scumbag.

      However ultimately if you are talking about people who ruined the show he can’t be left out. He completely destroyed the characters of the Master and the Brig and that alone is utterly unforgivable, never mind the fact that he couldn’t fucking help himself every year with dropping hints about the great castration.

      Whilst it was horrible the way the Feminist “fans” tarred him, if he had just told them to fuck off then he would be better thought of by actual Who fans. Now he’s the man who sold us out sadly and that could very well end up being his legacy more than Matt Smith, the Weeping Angels and the Ponds. It would be a shame if it was, but the fans have a history of being unforgiving. Look at JNT who is still blamed for killing the show, and he did far, far, FAR less to hurt it than Moff ever did.


      • Great piece, I agree wholeheartedly, except I think RTD can’t be blamed for Moffat’s decisions.

        There is no valid reason for a female Doctor. None whatever. The reason these SJWs don’t want a Romana spin off is that would give the game away and show they aren’t any more “progressive” than a production team from 40 years ago. Why not bring back Romana and The Rani? Because that would force the moronic virtue signallers to admit their own views aren’t in advance of those held by people from a prior generation, and that the series was never in any need of “better representation of women.” There always were brave and super smart women on the series (none of the NuWho female companions are geniuses, as several classic companions were, like Zoe, Liz Shaw, and Romana).

        One of my favourite TV series is Prime Suspect. Now, I love the character of Jane Tennison and I love Helen Mirren’s performance. I would never want to see the Tennison character shoved to the sidelines so a male detective could take center stage. Of course nobody ever suggested such a stupid idea, no one ever claimed there needed more of a male presence in the show. The notion that hatred of the idea of the Doctor being a woman is due to sexism and misogyny is ridiculous. Probably at least as many women as men hate the idea. And I would hate the idea just as much if they took a show like Prime Suspect and decided to make Tennison come out as transgender and have a sex change operation so that from now on, male audiences could have their share of representation on the show.

        Whats the difference? So it’s not sci if, so what? Trans people exist. Trans surgery exists. Why don’t we go around changing the gender of female leads on TV shows? Or simply replace them with new male leads? But of course it’s only when the lead is male we hear this nonsense.

        Ultimately, no one would be upset if a Romana spin off series was commissioned. The same people who hate this idea would applaud that one. And that’s precisely why SJW and tumblr feminist idiots would never want that. They NEED to feel victimized. They NEED to feel like men are against them and men are oppressing them. Their ultimate goal is not the liberation of women (whatever that is) but the stoking of male anger and hostility. They can’t live without male hostility: since the default state of most men is to like and respect women, that puts these Feminazis in an awkward state. They need to feel like their bullshit, man hating ideology is true – and they can’t do that when the vast majority of men are supportive. So they have to find ways to constantly provoke male hostility so that they can enjoy the confirmation bias that results.


      • Great comment. Please comment here more often.

        A Romana spin off would have been the best alternative that would have made everybody happy, but you are right the SJW’s just wanted to take a role away from men. That’s what angers me about this. Whilst I would have always thought a female Doctor was a stupid idea, the real reason I and others are pissed off is the anti men level of spite behind this decision, and the fact that it only happened because people like Whovian Feminism smeared anyone who disagreed with it as a sexist.

        Even fucking Peter Davison was chased off of twitter by these people. Was there any chance that your average nerd was going to get into a big head to head with them?

        It was anti male spite plain and simple and that’s why I am not only angry at the decision, but quite frankly disgusted by it too.

        It annoys me more than anything else when the likes of Whovian Feminism go on about fans like us feeling like we own it, being entitled etc. We aren’t the ones who have come to a franchise later than anyone else, demanded that the core dynamic that’s been there for 50 years be changed to suit our divisive, hateful political agenda, and then insisted that characters like the Master be literally turned into the opposite of what they were.

        We are merely people who don’t see why you should change the existing dynamic of something unless there is a bloody good reason too. All change must have a reason. The changeover from Hartnell to Troughton wasn’t just on a whim. It was because Hartnell couldn’t do it anymore, and furthermore it didn’t actually contradict anything. They said they could get away with it because at that point nothing had been established about the Doctor’s race or biological abilities.

        A female Doctor however does fly in the face of the Doctors established character, and there so far has been NO reason given for it.

        1/ We want little girls to have role models? Bring back Romana, Susan of Jenny or better yet go fucking watch the dozens of tv shows with female leads out there that you NEVER bother with.

        2/ All change is good, yeah except its not. Was making the Doctor half human a good idea? Its funny how I often hear the same self loathing fanboys who call me an old Dinosaur still suck in the past bitch about the half human bit in the 96 movie. By their own logic that should have been a great development shouldn’t it?

        Yet it still happened just because these people were the biggest bullies. Its so annoying.


  4. Here and in other articles, you make some very good points. I’ll be the first to agree to that,

    However, I’m afraid I’m one of those fans you have trouble understanding, who has no problems with the concept of a female Doctor.

    For starters, I don’t really buy the idea that all incarnations have the same personality. I think the rapid differences between incarnations are too quick and distinct to chalk up to and older/younger/fitter body.

    One thing Chris Chibnall could do that you didn’t mention is have the Doctor notice he is a woman and not act like he cares all that much. In fact that would actually be the show putting its money where its mouth is concerning Time Lord sexes,

    The show has been inconsistent over the years over whether regeneration is chance or choice. Different episodes disagree on whether it’s one or the other. So, it seems to be a mix of both. Given that regeneration is an incomprehensibly advanced science (and because it’s, y’know, not actually real) we don’t really know much about it. There could be some factor we don’t know about that makes a female regeneration after 13 male ones likely, even if not by choice.

    Also, we don’t really see all of the Master’s, Rassilon’s, or Morbius’s incarnations, so we don’t actually know if they were all male.

    In another article (I forget which, so it’s going here), you mention the absurdity/horror of the idea of Susan, for example, dying and regenerating into a big, burly man, since she has a boyfriend and all. Actually, I think if we hypothetically saw that happen, it would be interesting to see how their love continues despite a change in gender, because deep down she’s the same person. I think that would be a very progressive and Who-ish story.

    The female Doctor won’t actually have to act all that different from previous Doctor in order to “act like a woman”. This is 2017, after all. (Well, it will be 2018 when she has her season, but… well you know what I mean!)

    So, anyway, those are the reasons I see nothing wrong with a female Doctor. Not looking for a fight, just contributing to the larger conversation.


    • Don’t worry I don’t think you are trying to start a fight. I have 0 problems with someone who wants to talk about this properly. Even then I’d never dream of blocking the childish SJW’s above. Their comments make me LOL so badly and expose them for who they are so all commentators are welcome here.

      Now onto your points I’m sorry but we couldn’t have the female Doctor not care that she had become a woman.

      To start with I think that actually trivialises what trans people go through. Nowadays the regressive left (not the true left who I would consider myself a part of) like to push this idea that there are no differences between men and women.

      Its complete nonsense. We are equal, but we are different. I don’t get this line of thought that goes “lets destroy all differences between people rather than just accept that some people are different and still respect them?” Its mad.

      Changing gender is a huge deal. Trans people can suffer severe mental health problems before they change because they feel that they were born in the wrong body. If there were no differences between the genders, why bother changing?

      Here look at this video from a trans person Blaire White (I’d also recommend her channel too, its great.) https://youtu.be/8cm_63_XFik

      Its not just a thing they do on a whim, and having a fictional character basically say “oh well its nothing” trivialises just what they actually go through.

      Also whilst Time Lords are aliens, it makes 0 sense to have them react that way. Just because their aliens doesn’t mean they don’t have binary genders. Most races do, its just a fact of evolution.

      If Time Lords didn’t have a concept of gender then they would have had to have been written completely differently before now. Why did the Doctor always treat Susan as a young girl if she could always have been a big 6 foot strapper? Why was the Master a sexist? Why did Romana and River always dress in feminine clothes even? Wouldn’t their society and dress sense be much less gender binary (which it has absolutely always 100 percent been) if they apparently didn’t care about, even notice gender differences?

      Also as for the changes in the Doctors personality well I see them as being because of a combo of his experiences and changes in body.

      First Doctor is grumpy, callous and distant because he is on the run from his people, scared they’re going to catch him, knows his relationship with Susan is breaking down (look how quickly she is prepared to leave him in An Unearthly Child.) And is less experienced and not actually interested in helping, more just exploring.

      By 2’s time he is more friendly, energetic and outgoing, but that’s because he is A/ in a younger body, and B/ has already gone through positive changes in 1’s time where we saw him accept that Susan needed to leave, come to care about other races like humanity, and become determined to fight the Daleks, as seen in stories like The Daleks Masterplan. Its a total myth that Hartnells Doctor was not a hero like the later ones. He is really from The Dalek Invasion of Earth on.

      David/ They dare to tamper with the forces of creation.

      The Doctor/ Yes they dare. And we have got to dare to stop them.

      So 2’s more altruistic personality is just a continuation of the development we already saw in 1’s time.

      3 meanwhile is more willing to fight, more rebellious, more angry, more anti establishment because he is A/ in a big guys body, and B/ was exiled to earth against his will and forced to deal with petty figures of authority.

      4 was more alien, eager to travel back into space and explore the galaxy, still as physical as 3, but again more youthful because he A/ was in a younger, but unlike 2, a big strong body and B/ after having spent too long on earth was eager to see the universe again. You can see that as 3 even after his exile is lifted he has become a bit too cosy on earth (even calling it his home) so he is eager to go back to seeing the universe again as 4.

      4’s personality changes as he resumes his travels too from the man child with a renewed interest in seeing the universe, to the weary traveller we see in his last season.

      5 meanwhile is more vulnerable because he’s more youthful and obviously the more violent nature of his death will have shaken him. Furthermore the other losses he deals with like Adric’s death also contribute to him being more vulnerable and prone to making mistakes.

      6 in contrast to this is angrier, more ruthless and aggressive because he’s realised that he was too soft and wimpy to deal with the horrors of the universe. He is also overconfident and egotistical to overcompensate for 5 who had a lack of conviction in himself after losing Adric. Colin was also more mentally unstable because thanks to the poison his regeneration was meant to have gone wrong.

      7 however is more manipulative because he obviously lacks the physical prowess of 3, 6 and 4, but also he has reached an age where he is fed up of dealing with the same enemies.

      I’ve always said you can tell how each Doctor is going to be when you look at his dealings with Davros and the Daleks. 4 makes a decision NOT to kill the Daleks as he thinks it is the right thing to do. By Destiny however he feels that was wrong. So 5 does try to kill Davros, but he can’t bring himself to murder him in cold blood. Though the Doctor has been willing to kill before, its always in self defence. So he bottles out, but as soon as he does he regrets it “I’m an imbecile.”

      So 6 is willing to kill Davros, but his ego, overconfidence and lack of preparation mean Davros outwits him and he is only saved by chance. However you can tell 6 realises his mistake and says to Davros “I shall be waiting for you”.

      Flash forward to 7 and he IS waiting for Davros. He’s the one that has set the trap this time and is prepared to kill him quite ruthlessly “I have pity for you”.

      So you can see a definite continuity there.

      As for 8 well he is younger and its often stated that he feels he went too far as 7, so he goes back to being more empathetic.

      9 after the time war is traumatised and more violent, though as I went over in my Daleks article, the influence of Rose makes him a better man, which in turn leads to 10.

      10 is younger and handsome and therefore more vain. He’s also the last of his kind so in contrast to the first 7 who were just lowly time lords, has an over inflated sense of his own importance in the universe, and is also obviously still not over the time war so he’s prone to being more angsty and unstable at times too.

      11 having had a little more distance from the war is able to be himself more, also he is a young body because he as they say, after the love he got as 10 he wants to be accepted more, and he was more afraid of death because he was on his last life.

      12 is older and more mature because he has been given a new lease of life, and wants to be himself more, which is an older soul.

      To me that explains the differences in personality more than anything else. Its not like each Doctors personality is completely formed as soon as they have changed. They are all a bit tricky at first and take time to develop their new persona (hence why most first Doctor episodes deal with a regeneration crisis before they settle into their new body.) but they all DO have the same core personality when you think about it.

      All are somewhat eccentric. All apart from a very few exceptions have the same dress sense, from practically the same era’s (they all tend to wear Edwardian, Victorian era clothing, frock coats, most tend to have hates as well, most tend to grow their hair out long).

      All also enjoy exploring and are desperate to find something that no one else ever has (this has led all Doctors into trouble. Like 1 who wanted to explore the Dalek city when everyone else didn’t and ended up meeting his archenemies, 5 who stayed on Androzani, 10 who stayed on Utopia and ended up setting the Master free, or 12 who was desperate to find out what was in the future with Orson Pink).

      All post time war era Doctors have a passionate hatred of the Daleks, all have a friendship with the Brigadier, all Doctors after 9 still love Rose, all after 10 love River, all love Susan etc.

      All are very secretive about their past too. None of them have told us their name, and all prefer not to use weapons, but will kill if need be. All obviously have an extreme fondness for earth.

      Even little things like the Doctors love of Jellybabies runs through many Doctors. Patrick Troughton offered people jellybabies as often as Tom Baker did for instance.

      Also shades of each Doctors persona’s pop up in all of them. All of them tend to travel with young women who are surrogates for Susan. Jo clearly is a surrogate for Susan when you think about it. 2, 4, and 1 could all be very sneaky and manipulative like 7. 1 and 6 were very violent at times like 9. Most of the Doctors can be great fighters like 3 and use violence. Even the First Doctor kicked some serious ass in the Romans.

      See here https://youtu.be/a9njqBHwJbQ

      So again you can see all of these traits are there under the surface in every Doctor, but in some they just bubble to the surface and become dominant for whatever reason. In 3’s he became more an action man because he was big, 9 let his dark side out because of the horrors he had endured, whilst 10 was more arrogant because of his unique situation.

      Really that’s the only way it makes sense. If everything about a time lord changes then that’s kind of crap. That to start with means the Doctor doesn’t exist as a character. He’s a series of different characters linked together by a name.

      Anything can change. Hell the next Doctor could be evil! It also means you can’t develop the character of the Doctor either as everything changes, his experiences don’t matter. 10 might not love Rose for instance.

      Its worth noting that no actor or producer or writer ever actually portrayed the Doctors as all being different people. Yes they all brought aspects of their own personalities to it, but they all said they were mindful of what came before.

      Jon Pertwee refused to play him as a clown (which ironically was why he had been cast.) He said that the Doctor had previously been the greatest scientist in the universe, so to suddenly make him a complete moron would be ridiculous. He threatened to walk if they didn’t let him play the Doctor as a serious character!

      Tom Baker also says on the documentary Whose Doctor Who (which is included on the DVD for Talons of Weing Chiang. I’d recommend you watch it if you haven’t. Its quite interesting as it’s a little time capsule into the 70’s as much as anything else.)

      Anyway Tom says on it that the Doctor is one of the most limited roles he has ever played because there are so many things he can’t do as then he won’t seem like the Doctor anymore.

      If the Doctors are totally different people and everything changes, there’s no continuity, then why would Tom say that?

      Its also worse when you make them out to be totally different people. By that logic why should 5 care about the Brig when he meets him? He’s never met him before.

      Regeneration has been meddled with a few times, but those few times have always been hated by fans like 10’s I don’t want to go. That is almost universally regarded as the worst regeneration sequence because it makes out that each Doctor is a different man.

      So with this in mind I don’t see why a gender bending regeneration is okay?

      And sorry but I don’t think Susan as a big burly man would work. To start with if David isn’t bisexual then their relationship wouldn’t work. You can’t just change your sexuality like that. I mean sure he would still care about Susan, but I wouldn’t expect him to want to sleep with him, anymore than I would expect Elton John to want to sleep with Cheryl Cole.

      And the Doctor for leaving her with David with that in mind, or being involved with Rose is pretty stupid. Imagine if he had morphed into Ingrid Oliver instead of David Tennant? Also New Who has apparently made it that Time Lords sexualities change when they regenerate which is just completely stupid.

      We had the Master who in Simm’s time hated the Doctor so much he would rather die than be with him (which considering the Master is such a coward he was happy to put himself above trillions of lives is saying a lot!)

      Yet when he was Missy his sexuality changed and so now he is in love with the Doctor? That’s just too silly. That means that yes 9 could have morphed into Ingrid Oliver and been a straight woman who would have wanted to shag Mickey instead of Rose. Then later Oliver’s Doctor could have regenerated into Russell Brand and nipped back to see Rose, leaving Mickey heart broken.

      When that happens you have turned it into a total parody.

      I do admit though that whilst these are my reasons for not thinking a female Doctor was that good an idea, I only really have begun to hate the concept because of the way it has been forced upon us by the SJW’s.

      Its not even just that a female Doctor had to happen because of them, but we have to LIKE it or else we are a sexist. Look at the disgusting way the papers have slandered those who don’t want it as sexist.

      I remember back in 2013 when this crap first began to start. I simply said that I didn’t like it on a Doctor Who forum when it was first proposed and I was bombarded with comments calling me a sad sexist, a basement dwelling virgin who hates women because none of them like him, and I need to get used to seeing women on tv, which really fucking pissed me off the most as I actually liked far more female led shows and forms of entertainment than most. I’ve written 10 thousand word articles on Xena, Buffy, Amy Winehouse that have been viewed thousands of times, yet I apparently can’t stand women on tv or any form of entertainment made by women?

      It was at that point I realised I could either lie and say “yes its a wonderful thing” to not get called a sexist, or I could be honest, but sadly in order to do that I’d always have to go into such detail and run through the history of Doctor Who all to avoid being called sexist.

      This coupled with the anti men remarks in the show and the fact that characters like the Masters whole identities have been changed annoys me.

      Basically a group of cry bullies came to DW when it became popular in the 2010’s, demanded that it change to fit their ideology, and then when it didn’t, slandered and bullied everybody until they got their own way. Even when the show was nosediving in the viewers during Capaldi’s run they still got their own way because they were the biggest bullies.

      And I truly despise Chibnall for casting a woman, as again there was NO attempt at a compromise. Why wasn’t Romana brought back and given a spin off instead of that racist trash Class?

      That should have made everybody happy. Also even if he had to pander to the SJW’s with the casting why not just cast a black guy?

      Adrian Lester would have been a fantastic Doctor. Nobody would have been pissed if he had pulled that hood down. The only problems with a black Doctor is that they might run into some problems with historicals, but again you could maybe just give them a miss for a while.

      A black Doctor certainly is no problem narratively, as his skin pigmentation genuinely is no more important than his eye colour, hair colour etc.

      Yet Chibnall decided to go for the full female Doctor right away cause he is a self loathing fanboy who is pandering to feminists.


      • While I’m still not 100% convinced that the Doctor’s personality doesn’t change over regenerations (10 and 11 come to mind), you do make some good arguments for it.

        I don’t mean to diminish what trans people go through, of course. They have to go through difficult and painful transitions just to fulfill their identities, and are often misunderstood and abused. However, two things are wrong with the saying having the Doctor not care about being female would be insulting to trans:
        * While trans people transition in a long, complicated, and emotionally exhausting at best process, there are also genderfluid people who feel female, male, or neither at different times, sometimes changing from day to day. Rather than saying the Doctor negatively reflects on trans, we can say he reflects on genderfuid people.
        * Even discounting the genderfluid point, nowhere does it say that the Doctor regenerating into a female is supposed to mean transgenderism. Transgender people are real humans who have one body, which they feel is at conflict with their personality and mind, so they do things to act more like how they feel, even with surgery sometimes, if that’s what it takes. The Doctor is a fictional alien whose body regularly changes itself when he’s in a deathly situation, often in unpredictable ways. The two are not the same, nor are they supposed to be.

        Also, just because Missy’s sexuality seems to have changed doesn’t mean that that’s always the rule when Time Lords change sex, in fact he/she could be a minority.

        But getting back to personality, even if they all have the same unbroken personality the Doctor can absolutely keep that personality into his female incarnation. I don’t see how a few different body parts and a higher voice would be a big deal where different skin color or hair color wouldn’t.


  5. I am a woman and I totally agree with your article, so that idea that “all those who dislike a female Doctor are sad men who have no sex” is proven invalid.
    I’m against a female Master, and Time Lords changing gender in general. The same way I would be against The Rani, Romana or Susan becoming a man.
    A character is born with a gender and, as you have said,unless he or she is written as a transgender character who isn’t comfortable with his or her gender, s/he should’t change gender just because. It’s wrong.
    I have a confession to make: I like female characters on the RTD era way way better than the Moffat era ones. Rose, Martha and Donna, and their families were amazing, flawed, well written female characters, they had virtues and defects, they were compelling to watch, they had heart
    Moffat era female characters I find them flirty, vacuous shells. Amy is always telling Rory to shup up, she wants to bed the Doctor when she is marrying the next day, the “bloody queen” iy’s just a gun toting stereotype, Nefertiti i’ts just a horny female who wants to bed the Doctor (again), Tasha Lem is annoying and smug, Clara is just dull, you don’t know anything about her, what makes her tick. She is unfazed by danger, she is like a super-heroine. Bill I like her but isn’0t fleshed out enough.
    The problem I had with the Moffat era are their female characters were writted ans this super woman, who tells men to shut up and save the day; who diminished men or treated them as inferior. THAT IS NOT FEMINISM, that is not have empowered women, equal to me.
    The answer to that IS NOT to have female Time Lords, it’s just write your female characters better, have them BE persons, not just charicatures. Have a woman be all feisty, flirty, man-diminishing and man-eating is not the same that have a woman to be independent, strong and a character in her own right.
    Have a woman who doesn’t need to bed a man but who treats them as equals
    As a woman I’m totally against REAL sexism and applaud REAL feminists (those who fighted for women rights during history, women vote, etc) but I despise SJW who see sexism everywhere from their sofas…


  6. What I meant by all that it’s that if Moffat was being targeted by feminists, the answer would be to start writing more compelling female characters, more fleshed out and not the bullshit that was Missy or gender-changing Time Lords (and not certainly have one change from man to a woman and exclaim somehting along the lines “all that ego”), or transform Doctor Who to The Clara Oswald show while having her be as empty and dull as ever.
    In the Classic era we had compelling female characters like Leela, Sarah Jane and Romana, strong but not diminishing the Doctor


    • Totally agreed on all counts. The SJW’s have no argument. As this page shows the only people who have given reasons are either people who are maybe not completely for a female Doctor, but don’t mind one, or the people who don’t want one.

      The SJW’s however have just thrown abuse around. Yet despite this they got their way! It just reinforces what I always say that they are little spoiled brats who get their way by bullying. Its funny Whovian Feminism says we should not let the worst of its fans dictate how the show should go. Yeah I agree, hence why people like her shouldn’t have been pandered to at the expense of its ratings.


      • SJW give bad name to the real feminists, those who fight for equality, not superiority of one gender over another. I sincerely find ridiculous getting all worked up about videogames and TV shows. I facepalmed greatly about the backlash against Peter Davison on twitter, the poor guy had leave twitter *facepalm*
        Classic Who was acused of being sexist because the companions and assistands asked “what happens Doctor”? WTF they didn’t see strong women like Leela, Romana, Barbara or Sarah Jane, who went into adventures with an alien and sometimes they got kidnapped or asked for help, as male characters like Harry Sullivan or Turlough did. Sexists are those shows that relegated women to domestic environments, cooking or bearing children

        I really would like to see those SJW go to some Middle East countries and fight for women rights there, REAL women rights, not getting all smug because they got their way in Doctor Who and ruined the show . Congratulations!! Women around the world will have a better life now


  7. What do you do with the parts you have left out?
    Verity Lambert spoke of regeneration to a female Doctor right at the beginning.
    One of Tom Bakers episodes spoke of the possiblity of regenerating into a female.

    Your article seems to have ommitted those.

    For info, I am neither for nor against. I’ll leave that part up to the Doctor, if the actor/actress is good, I’ll keep watching. If they arent, or I don’t like their portrayal, I’ll stop (didn’t watch many of the Colin Baker era, I like the actor, just didn’t like how it was written and his portrayal, and hated the whiny Mel as well)


    • You have got a lot of misinformation.

      Right lets kill this myth once and for all. There is NO mention of time lord gender bending within the show prior to the Moffat era. I see so many people say “but it was mentioned in a Tom Baker episode” funny they can never tell me what one.

      Also Verity Lambert never said that she wanted a female Doctor, never mind at the beginning. When Lambert produced the show, regeneration hadn’t even been created! She had left by the time they dreamed up the show, and had 0 input into it.

      The first time the idea was even mentioned was by Tom Baker in 1981. Furthermore Tom Baker made it up to humiliate JNT. He HATED JNT at that point and knew how much JNT courted the fans, so he said it to make JNT look incompetent (oh the irony.) He was also trolling the reporters too.

      After that Sydney Newman suggested it in 1986, but again this doesn’t mean a thing.

      People like to act as though that’s proof it must happen “oh the creator of DW wanted it”. To start with he wasn’t the sole creator of the show.

      Also these are other things he wanted for it.

      1/ No Daleks.

      2/ No monsters or aliens

      3/ No Patrick Troughton (At first)

      4/ The TARDIS not to look like a police box.

      5/ For Patrick Troughton to return, then for the Doctor to get a trumpet playing hippie with John Lennon glasses.

      If anything the fact that he wanted a female Doctor suggests its about as good an idea as any of those things.

      And I’m sorry but I don’t understand how anyone can be impartial. Its a huge change. To act like its just nothing is silly IMO.


      • So you say there is no mention of time lord gender bending before Moffat, yet you give two examples of this possiblity in 1981 and 1986.
        You do realise that Moffat had nothing to do with the show at that time don’t you?


  8. In my opinion the only way to get Doctor Who back on track is to get RTD running the show again. I am a 62 year old female who has watched the show since the beginning. To me The Doctor is male, always & forever. I just can not comprehend the idea of a female Doctor. Most people that are for this modern concept are new Whovians who have only been fans of the show since Ecclestone’s era. For the older fans I think you will find this new Doctor goes against the grain. To those that say it’s 2017 “get with it”, I say no, it’s the foundations of the start of the Doctor in 1963 that we should still be fulfilling in 2017, not change for changes sake..


    • Well said. Yeah RTD was unquestionably better than Moffat. I didn’t like RTD’s comments about “its just ten people writing in thousands of letters under different names.” That to me was literally the type of thing Michael Grade would say.

      Still RTD ultimately had more genuine love for the series, knew how to tap into the mainstream opinion, and didn’t get so easily bullied by the most vitriolic fans like Moffat was.

      Its funny cause I used to prefer Moffat. I thought that the Matt Smith era was great, but dear god had it not been for Chinballs, he would have the been the absolute worst producer for what he did to the show in the Capaldi era.

      Changes for changes sake are always the worst way to run a show. That’s when you get the Doctor being half human, Colin’s coat, the new Dalek paradigm.

      A change is fine as long as there is a reason for it. Like the Doctor changing because you need to replace the lead actor, making it in colour because it looks outdated without it etc.

      I am so fed up of the bullshit “all change is good” argument I could scream. To me saying all change is great is as stupid as saying “IT MUST NOT EVER CHANGE!” A happy medium is yes change it if its good, and beneficial to the show. Sadly now one has even supplied a reason, never mind a good one for a female Doctor.


  9. What convinces me that Moffat’s idea of Time Lords being above gender stereotypes is nonsense is the clear misogyny of the Master in the classic series, especially in Davison’s first story Castrovalva. Castrovalva is the Master’s creation, made to trap the newly regenerated Doctor. So are gender relations there egalitarian, as we might expect from someone raised in a society that has transcended such ‘primitive conceptions?’ No, it’s a male supremacist’s paradise. The adult women never actually speak, they do all the menial labour .and are ordered around like slaves by the male Castrovalvans, who are clearly taken aback by the self assertion of Tegan and Nyssa.

    Everything we know from the classic series, the faces Troughton’s Doctor is offered in the \War Games, the parade of female forms Romana tried out in Destiny of the Daleks, all indicate Gallifreyans do not swap genders. It’s circumstantial evidence yes, as such a restriction is never spelled out, but still overwhelmingly strong.


  10. Not sure if you are still reading comments on a post from 6 months ago, but here it comes my 5 cents on this matter.
    I’m a woman and as such, I’m all in favor of fighting sexism and bigotry in the places where it happens. Turning the Doctor into a woman is simply idiotic. Seriously, it’s ruining a beloved character for nothing.
    The Doctor is male, he was born male and gender swapping Time Lords is the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen. They already have ruined the Master’s character by going from the Doctor’s mortal enemy and dark mirror to someone who calls the Doctor “my boyfriend” flirts and wants to sleep with him (*excuse-me while I throw up a bit*)
    I would be against a Buffy reboot if they turned Buffy into a bloke, or a Xena reboot with a hairy male in her place. Why on Earth does some people consider necessary to change a character’s gender? It’s wrong on so many levels this female Doctor I don’t know where to start.
    If they wanted to be bold and brave, whu not cast a different race actor to play the Doctor? I wouln’t be against a Black or Asian Doctor,why not be bold with the age range and cast a 18 or a 70 year old actor? Why not cast an old lady as the next companion, instead of always young ones? a middle aged intelligent woman who isn’t in love with the Doctor or isn’t afraid of giving him some home truths, or an ageig scientist woman, who’s in the same intellectual level as him?
    No, they had to ruin the Doctor’s character for us, didn’t they? what’s wrong with an intelligent female companion who isn’t the main character but provides a good model role?
    New Who has given us plots and arcs who revolve around the female companions, almost making them more important than the Doctor, isn’t that enough?
    As you commented on another post, why not do a Romana spin-off with a female leader? who also regenerates? who also is a Time Lord?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s