As it was meant to be all along!

Huh? How does "I don't think anyone deservers to be ridiculed about this" = "this is my forum, get out"? Isn't that like the exact opposite? I certainly didn't mean anything of the sort. Is it suddenly a bad thing that people are mostly civil about this and making good arguments? I feel very lost.

I feel the same way as Breja here. I wish they would have left the Doctor male, but here we are.

What I would *hope* for is that they start off with a simple, point blank acknowledgement of the fact, and then completely ignore it after, and just tell good stories with the best actor or actress available. It's what they've always done with entire (pretty drastic) character changes before.

I suddenly realised something weird.

I've always been amongst the people who understand the least about reincarnation (or maybe I simply overthink it, no spiritual belief works well with overthinking - heck they tend to even barely work with mere thinking but whatever). I mean, the point of perpetual amnesia in a long term learning endeavour, the point of punishment or rewards for forgotten deeds you wouldn't necessarily perform now, etc. But I get the gist of it : you're the "same person" even though you're reborn as a member of a different social class, or epoch, or biological 'kingdom', or whatever.

Which is pretty similar to timelordy regeneration, without the amnesia, restricted to humans, and with predefined age categories instead of life cycles. So, okay, not very similar. But borrowing the same concept of preserved identity through variable identities. It "functions" (it gets endorsed), in both cases, because our minds can cope with that idea. We see it making sense somehow.

But this thread illutrates how different people implicitely restrict this range of potential identification differently. "Hey, a change of sex means that's not the same person anymore". With all the implications : From "hey, I could be the same person if I was different, but not if my gentials were", to "hey, that very different person over there could be me in some way, but that one over there absolutely never because tits", to "hey, I could identify -fully relate- to this one bit not that one, because I'm a man/woman".

Are there such untold barriers in different people's understanding of general metempsychosis ? Is reincarnation gendered (woman being farther from man than a cow or a tree is) ? Are the people who are traumatized by the Doctor's Sex-Swap also considering that reincarnation would only be understandable when keeping the same sex and gender (from man, to bull, to... very manly flower ?). Could the Dalai-Lama be female ? Does it... depend ? Like, when The Master gets regenerated as a female but that's okay because he's evil and sick and crazy and real good people would stick to their sex ?

It's not about endorsed beliefs in such "realities" (people pass judgement on Doctor Who's logic without believing in its universe), but about deeper beliefs on identity, on the definition of the self, on contingence and necessity, on primary and secondary qualities. My question is : if it is thinkable (even if not believable) to reincarnate as animals and plants while staying the same person, is it thinkable to be reincarnated in a different sex while staying the same person ? Am I overestimating the range of metempsychosis beliefs ? Is it thinkable in reincarnation but not in timelord regeneration because it would be like having the doctor regenerated into a pig or sumthin and lol wtf rolf dude ?

Another way to ask it may be : did the people outraged by that next Doctor also slam the door behind them during Brannagh's "Dead Again" movie ?

Again, these reactions are very telling about people's deep worldviews. And of course, questioning them is often deliberate on the show's behalf. But they make me also question my assumptions about the (rather unfamiliar to me) world of reincarnation believers.

Eh, I've never been into Dr. Who to begin with, and this isn't something that's going to change my continued ignoring of the show's existence.

actually, come up with the idea to save the show after ratings went down and 'The Trial of a Time Lord' story arc was screwed up by the producers doesn't mean Newman planned this change for a long time.

but if this had come true in its time, success or failure of this decision had clearly shown, was it worth it.
though today, regadless of what intentions behind this decision really were, in the age of Internet and radical political correctness this just means another round of SJWar of hating and name-calling and label-sticking.

and, unfortunately, their intentions might be not so well, as already pointed out:
missed last five series and am not familiar much with current state of affairs, so I wonder, was this really a desperate attempt to make attention to the show, even if this will be that kind of attention?

personally I don't like this decision, but can't say I'm strongly against it. the show is going in weird direction anyway, so one more kunststueck won't really change all the weather. dunno who Mrs. Whittaker is, maybe she will make good Doctor (or shall we say... Doctressy?). it's great opportunity, so good luck to her.
what disturbs me more is new showrunner. didn't adore Moffat either, but Chibnall as writer was much less interesting even than Davis, whose stories I find just bad (except brilliant 'Midnight'), but not so boring.

btw, could whovians here kindly tell if genderswitch regeneration of gallifreyans was known in Whoniverse before Gaiman's 'The Doctor's Wife' of 2010? Not Sydney Newman's letter, not 'Curse of Fatal Death', but something confirmed as canon. audiodrama, comic book, anything?

Actually, Doctor Who is not a woman, the Doctor is.

*runs and hides*

It was quite consistent -so if you didn't enjoy the beginning you won't probably feel any different about the rest. What stood out for me was the very realistic portrayal of how someone would react to a life-changing event. To the point that sometimes it was disturbing.

And I must confess I completely didn't see the big revelation coming...

I can't claim to know every Doctor Who episode of the classic series, and I've barely scratched the surface of the material from other media, but I can't think of anything like that ever being mentioned. I'm pretty sure there was nothing in the classic episodes, and I don't think comics, audiodramas or anything other than what we see on TV counts as canon anyway.

It's not the first time the series has had a female doctor.

Looks a little big-headed.

I personally think it may run one season and switch back to male.
What about these changes?

Superman is now Superwoman?
Batman is now Batwoman?
Sherlock Holmes is now Sheilly Holmes?
Tarzan is now Tarzena?
Indiana Jones is now Diana Jones?
And the list could go on and on and on..

I don't think any would be successful as changes but that's just my opinion and of course it sucks because it's mine.

I would actually remind you that the series "Elementary" switched genders for Dr. Watson, nobody batted an eyelid and it turned out to be an inspired decision.

Also, M became a woman in the James Bond films in 1995, and Judi Dench owned the role (useless bit of knowledge: in 50 years of Bond films, she's the only person to say the word "fuck" in any of them).