The (Regenerated) Doctor Who Thread: Reverse the Polarity!

[Ameriganastan]

So the theme this week is space at the camp at which I'm a counselor. While most people are having the grand dispute of Star Wars versus Star Trek, I'm toting Doctor Who.

I drew the TARDIS on construction paper along with various quotes from a few of the regenerations of the doctor and imma tape them all over my shirt for the dance Thursday night.

I wanna go to that camp...

[Astrolinium]

So the theme this week is space at the camp at which I'm a counselor. While most people are having the grand dispute of Star Wars versus Star Trek, I'm toting Doctor Who.

I drew the TARDIS on construction paper along with various quotes from a few of the regenerations of the doctor and imma tape them all over my shirt for the dance Thursday night.

Good man. Have a jelly baby.

[Kannap]

So the theme this week is space at the camp at which I'm a counselor. While most people are having the grand dispute of Star Wars versus Star Trek, I'm toting Doctor Who.

I drew the TARDIS on construction paper along with various quotes from a few of the regenerations of the doctor and imma tape them all over my shirt for the dance Thursday night.

I wanna go to that camp...

It's a much better camp than the one I worked at last Summer, even after the tornado earlier this year.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

If you're going to talk about retcons, you need to talk about the actual show, not about some pet theory of identity you have and believe Chris Chibnall should accept (and apply to a fictional alien). There is no retcon here. You can write another wall of text if you like. You can write another handful of awkward analogies that are unnecessary at best and obfuscating at worst. You can flatter yourself that you're writing brilliant insights into the inner workings of a soft sci-fi show, and you can continue to bandy about the word "illiterate".

But until you produce a line from a previous episode where a character (who can reasonably be assumed to be both well-informed and truthful) says, "Time Lords cannot change sex during regeneration (without first gaining control of their regeneration)" you have no argument.

That other thing was already annoying. See why I don't do it? I just rely on people who feel like they want to read what I have to say being capable of understanding how paragraphs work. Maybe despite its paragraphs the product is, as Astro says, incoherent but it's moronic to think not showing why is actually going to change anything.

For instance, I think that it is perfectly clear that there is no "pet theory of identity". There is an inference about the way regeneration works (you know the fictional alien in question's defining alien-quality). And there was a quote from a previous episode previously mentioned. If you're going to insist on misinterpreting plain English or just not reading it, there really isn't too much I can do to help you. If you think I contrive to make simple words not make sense, then please tell me how because I understand what I mean... and as I said before, I can't use psychic powers to tell me what exactly it is you're struggling with.

But, let's hold up a bit, there is a quote but it says nothing like what you say. Why would it? That is not my argument. It's pathetic to see you continue to pretend that it is. What it does is explain that I'm not the only one who has my theory of the way regeneration works.

Your argument is that this constitutes a retcon. For that, you need the established facts of the show to be contradicted. You have not shown this to be the case. You have made a series of assumptions based on premises that, as Kouralia pointed out below, (and as I would have pointed out had our merry-go-round ever reached the point of talking about the actual fucking relevant facts of the actual fucking show) are contradicted by the facts of the show (I think you've claimed to have rebutted that (your language is ambiguous), but you really haven't. You've just gone "Well, maaaybe..." like a hack scientist who can't let go of his broken hypothesis).

If I responded to each of your points at the same length you respond to mine, we'd have written a novella between us by now.

Yes, vapid assertions and strawmen do tend to have the side-effect of shorter posts. Explanations tend to involve at least two sentences on account of (a) stating a position (what you do) and (b) saying why (which you don't do). Explanations that also have to point out that they're try to correct for vapid assertions and strawmen tend to have at least three sentences on account of (a) stating a position (what you do), (b) saying why (which you don't do) and (c) acknowledging the assertion/rebuttal (which you don't need to do).

My posts are quite a bit longer than this would suggest. But I not only have more to do, I clearly hold my responses to higher standards than you do. Whether or not I manage to execute those standards is beside the point... I still try.

I'll try as soon as you start talking about Doctor Who. Of course, if by some chance you do, I'll still manage to keep my posts more concise than yours.

[Forsher]

Your argument is that this constitutes a retcon. For that, you need the established facts of the show to be contradicted. You have not shown this to be the case.You have made a series of assumptions based on premises that, as Kouralia pointed out below, (and as I would have pointed out had our merry-go-round ever reached the point of talking about the actual fucking relevant facts of the actual fucking show)

You're not reading, you don't get to throw hissy fits based on the presumption you have been reading.

it makes a mockery of the whole ginger thing. Hopefully that changes.*

Of course, I haven't seen the series just been as of yet so I can't really say if there have been any indications the Doctor has gained any sort of control over, um, his regenerations which makes her latest regeneration difficult to swallow.

maybe the Doctor's managed to learn something about his species and she will now carry that forwards so the fourteenth doctor is a ginger dude.**

again maybe he got educated in the episodes I have not seen, doesn't actually fundamentally recast the question of the Doctor's nature.***

*Any other dyed Doctors are problems I am not aware of. And, given I am familiar with the revival series one, also from the original run which I presume pre-dates the ginger thing anyway (I have seen some Third Doctor episodes but not, I believe, his regenerations from Two and into Four).

***Two points here. One, I can't remember the exact details of Missy but the Master has always struck me as being more aware of what being a Time Lord means than the Doctor anyway.

A deliberate regeneration side-steps these issues entirely (at least in my eyes... this is funny) but, again, it has been my impression this is an aspect of Time Lord life history that has been beyond the Doctor

Not enough facts of the show for you?

I have suggested that the Doctor's inability to really control regenerations (hands/not-hands aside) raises continuity issues.

Think, for a moment, about the nature of the regeneration. While it is true that each regeneration is a new personality, it is not true that each regeneration is a new person. There are clear consistencies across them. There is either a constant self and changing persons, or a constant person and changing selves. Therefore, an accidentally regenerative Time Lord/Lady in any given regeneration must be drawing from the same essential being.

the Doctor has not demonstrated the capacity to influence the next regeneration deliberately.

The issue is that there is no reason (in the episodes I have seen... a point I've been very clear on) to believe that he has any ability to execute such a whim.

That is, "a dyed hair doctor is definitely not a good thing: it makes a mockery of the whole ginger thing". Where is the room to interpret that as "You have a problem with actors dyeing their hair for a role?" I ask you? Because on the basis of the words involved it isn't there.

*Compare and contrast the TARDIS wiki which has this to say, "According to the Sixth Doctor, a Time Lord's basic personality traits remained unchanged throughout all their lives, but the balance of said traits could be affected by regeneration. (AUDIO: The Sirens of Time) " It should obvious that this is the same sentiment.

**Which is an arguable assumption. I have been clear that something could have changed in episodes I haven't seen, but you could also argue the hand-regeneration was controlled. To which I might argue that it was a lucky happenstance or that it was different in that it was so close to a "conventional" regeneration or that it only worked out because that is what the Doctor thought (i.e. both). You might see some other form of attack on this point, but I don't know of that one/those (and similarly I do not see the flaws in my other premises).

Still not enough facts of the show?

I'm going to go ahead and say that Kouralia understands my argument. At any rate, this is a critique that appears to do so.

To which I can only respond with three things:

1) I had forgotten that episode/its events (I have seen it) and it is a problem,
2) It does appear to have been a non-deliberate regeneration according to the personality page in TARDIS wiki for the eleventh General: "was at least partly relieved to be a woman again". However, we don't know for sure. (Buyer's remorse for instance... plenty of people are relieved that, say, a movie they paid money to watch is finished... i.e. regret does not imply an absence of agency.)
3) I can't think of any other dismissal for this problem so my last response is about the name the General. Perhaps the character was created as something of a foil for the Doctor and the Master, i.e. neither ran away nor went mad, but still goes for a the [noun] name.

Solid post, would struggle to rebut again. 10/10.

There is also a flaw in my earlier logic which I really should have noted before. While a dozen samples from a process is quite good when they're random, it is still always possible to find a different looking part of the process in the next one. With two such examples of this, it gets less likely but how many regenerations do we think that all Time Lords have clocked up between them? And why would a show about time travelling have to worry about coincidental timing? Isn't that the entire point?

I'd say it would be only fair to you to note that you actually noticed this discussion but that would imply there was something right about pretending the above wasn;t there.

are contradicted by the facts of the show (I think you've claimed to have rebutted that (your language is ambiguous), but you really haven't. You've just gone "Well, maaaybe..." like a hack scientist who can't let go of his broken hypothesis).

I have explained that it is not conclusive based on the evidence from TARDIS wiki. I have pointed out this is not a solid rebuttal. If you think it is conclusive you need to explain why everyone who suffers from buyer's remorse didn't intend to buy whatever it was they later came to regret purchasing. I do not see, absent further details (which may exist... as I said, I do not remember the episode), how you can honestly say Kouralia's objection is more than maybe (unless you assume/know it was accidental).

Note Kouralia says "So it's very clearly possible to alter genders in a non-planned regeneration" which is not stated in the article so you can take my response as saying, "Is that also an inference or was it outright stated?" If the answer is that it wasn't an inference, it is a conclusive argument (although possibly a retcon at the time it is clearly canon now) and my argument collapses for having lain upon false premises (well, just the one critical one).

Further note, science does not advance by mindlessly accepting each new study as absolutely correct. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. It is simply wrong to suggest that it is "hack-ish" to interrogate any study's methodology, evidence and scope.* It remains dubious to speak of higher standards whilst not even attempting even the slightest overture to them.

Similarly, that I/we can't see any further critiques of the General example doesn't mean that there aren't any. What it does mean is that if I/we were the peer/s reviewing the case and assuming we know it was accidental that we have to reject my theory and say that my argument does not conclude a female doctor is a retcon.

*Look up Simpson's Paradox.

But sure, keep talking yourself up. As I said before, it is one thing to find my examples obfuscating, it is another thing to mistake them for arguing something else entirely... which is what you did.

I'll try as soon as you start talking about Doctor Who.

I have been. I know you I have been because you've already apologised for forgetting about the ginger thing. But that;s okay. I already though you were actively not trying to read my posts fairly in favour of looking for evidence of your pet theory (i.e. that my argument was "cooties!")... like a hack scientist.

Of course, if by some chance you do, I'll still manage to keep my posts more concise than yours.

By which you mean you will look to use vapid assertions and reductionist pigeon-holing in order to attack strawmen wherever possible. That's fine, man. I respect your dedication to your despicable methods.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I haven't mentioned "cooties", or made the slightest suggestion that your motives stem from misogyny, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up (doth the lady protest too much?).

Anyway, I'm not going to carry on listening to this. You've proven yourself incapable of arguing coherently (three people have now told you that they don't understand what you're on about; you can't keep pinning your failure to communicate on me) or respectfully (from my first post you were accusing me of illiteracy).

I have better things to do than respond to your masturbatory, sophomaniacal bullshit. Good day.

[Hirota]

<sigh> If the red nose special was actually canon, we would not have this big song and dance over a pretty unimportant issue.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

<sigh> If the red nose special was actually canon, we would not have this big song and dance over a pretty unimportant issue.

"They're not breasts. They're Dalek bumps"

I guess you mean they could claim she is a Time Lord with Dalek bumps?

[Kouralia]

Just on the matter of the self-person being altered... Hell Bent: 'The General' (way to go with the titles, DW: could the Time Lord CinC not get a fancier name?) canonically spent their first ten lives as a woman, before regenerating into a man for their eleventh, then back to a woman for their twelfth. So it's very clearly possible to alter genders in a non-planned regeneration.

I'm going to go ahead and say that Kouralia understands my argument. At any rate, this is a critique that appears to do so.

To which I can only respond with three things:

1) I had forgotten that episode/its events (I have seen it) and it is a problem,
2) It does appear to have been a non-deliberate regeneration according to the personality page in TARDIS wiki for the eleventh General: "was at least partly relieved to be a woman again". However, we don't know for sure. (Buyer's remorse for instance... plenty of people are relieved that, say, a movie they paid money to watch is finished... i.e. regret does not imply an absence of agency.)
3) I can't think of any other dismissal for this problem so my last response is about the name the General. Perhaps the character was created as something of a foil for the Doctor and the Master, i.e. neither ran away nor went mad, but still goes for a the [noun] name.

Solid post, would struggle to rebut again. 10/10.

Yay, I get top marks. Tbh though, I'm lazy so will just stick with this point rather than entering the debate at large:

1) Obviously yeah, you'd forgotten that point, so take that into consideration in the future. I think that bar Missy, this is the strongest canon incident related to a female Doctor.
2) She does something along the lines of asking the soldier if she's back to normal etc. I'd say she had little control over her ability to be female, and while she may have hoped to be so, there was no guarantee of it. Not entirely sure why she went male in the first place though. Maybe just to try it, or maybe that was accidental too? Regardless, it would seem that unless there is clear preparation time there is no ability to guarantee gender post-regeneration (and positing that there is an ability to guarantee characteristics post-regeneration through preparation is conjecture, as far as I know. I'm not sure if there is any evidence to back it up.).
3) Eh. A perspective, but one I disagree with. I don't think there's anything to suggest that 'The General' is anything more than his title/rank. It's difficult to judge age with Time Lords, even by number of regenerations (a field commander in the Time War could probably rack up a number in the course of an Earth year, if he was in a dangerous area), but I doubt The General was anything really comparable to The Master or The Doctor.

There is also a flaw in my earlier logic which I really should have noted before. While a dozen samples from a process is quite good when they're random, it is still always possible to find a different looking part of the process in the next one. With two such examples of this, it gets less likely but how many regenerations do we think that all Time Lords have clocked up between them? And why would a show about time travelling have to worry about coincidental timing? Isn't that the entire point?

Not sure what this point is. Yeah, it might be a rare thing (but then, judging by the small number of time lord regenerations we've seen, it could actually be more common off-screen), but it still doesn't mean they can't demonstrate it. So far, of the time lords we've seen quite a bit of, as far as I know, we've seen all of them change gender once during their cycle, so on the basis of that alone we're not seeing anything out of the ordinary. We've seen regenerations change height, weight, voice, body shape, hair length, style and colour, skin colour, age (and the relevant fraility issues that come with ageing - otoh didn't one of the Doctors basically die from being too old?), personality, and now gender. I don't think that becoming female is really noteworthy on any level beyond the meta 'It's something new for the show.'

[Astrolinium]

BBC Responds to 13th Doctor Complaints

Since the first Doctor regenerated back in 1966, the concept of the Doctor as a constantly evolving being has been central to the programme. The continual input of fresh ideas and new voices across the cast and the writing and production teams has been key to the longevity of the series.

The Doctor is an alien from the planet Gallifrey and it has been established in the show that Time Lords can switch gender.

As the Controller of BBC Drama has said, Jodie is not just a talented actor but she has a bold and brilliant vision for her Doctor. She aced it in her audition both technically and with the powerful female life force she brings to the role. She is destined to be an utterly iconic Doctor.

We hope viewers will enjoy what we have in store for the continuation of the story.

[The Alexandrian Polis]

Look in the comments of Whittaker's trailer, as some guy with a Picard profile said, it's like David Tennant is leaving all over again.

[Philjia]

She is destined to be an utterly iconic Doctor.

That's a really meaningless statement. All the Doctors are iconic to a general degree, and I think it's highly unlikely she'll get the same level of cultural recognition as Tom Baker.

I think it's also fairly unlikely Whittaker will be remembered very fondly in years to come. The show still needs major alterations to the format and style to avert the general slump in quality the series has been undergoing (slightly averted in series 10), but it's likely that Chibnall will be playing things safe. This will leave 13 hobbled by the same issues that have plagued the show for years, made even worse by the fact that we've seen them a hundred times before.

[Eastfield Lodge]

• there is an underlying self-person
• each regeneration samples from that self-person
• absent controlled regeneration, each regeneration is a non biased sample
• hence, a regeneration into another "gender" (sex?) alters the inferred self-person
• the Doctor has shown no real capacity for controlled regeneration**
• hence, a female Doctor/regeneration alters the inferred self-person
• a retcon occurs when an established part of continuity is rendered inconsistent with newer canon
• the regenerations of the Doctor are established parts of continuity
• hence, the Doctor's inferred self-person is an established part of continuity
• therefore, a female Doctor is a retcon
• retcons are undesirable
  
  • this is an argument I am implicitly making rather than another premise
  • I feel that it is sufficiently common a position that there is no real need to explain the argument
  • and lo I have not been criticised on this account (oh dear, now I want AEBH to have understood my posts... and by want I mean have a vested interest in having as always one wants to be understood)
• therefore, the Whittaker-choice was undesirable (because it is a retcon)
• but we might enjoy Whittaker's Doctor anyway because we're fans of the show (enter the dictator analogy)

Which is 208 words long. But that's including the explanation for why I haven't bothered to argue why retcons are undesirable. And the last bullet point which is just showing AEBH where the dictator analogy attaches. Remove those and you're at 117. And the explanation of what a retcon is... which you probably don't need.

But 100 is just a number, That is literally as simple as it can get being bullet points of one point per bullet. And it doesn't say "can't have different sexes/gender between any two regenerations".

Controlled regeneration has only ever been shown in two instances in the entire show, afaik - when 2 was offered a choice of regeneration body, and by the Sisterhood of Karn for 8. Doesn't sound like something that happens on a whim, so the three previous Time Lords who've changed genders that we know of, I highly doubt that the Master would have been afforded such an option. The other two, who knows. The Corsair, according to his TARDIS wiki article, doesn't sound like someone who would have had that privilege either.

Also, your premise is that regeneration into another gender/sex alters the base self-person, but that is something that's never been outright stated (something which you yourself are mentioning quite a bit in your defensive arguments).

[Philjia]

• there is an underlying self-person
• each regeneration samples from that self-person
• absent controlled regeneration, each regeneration is a non biased sample
• hence, a regeneration into another "gender" (sex?) alters the inferred self-person
• the Doctor has shown no real capacity for controlled regeneration**
• hence, a female Doctor/regeneration alters the inferred self-person
• a retcon occurs when an established part of continuity is rendered inconsistent with newer canon
• the regenerations of the Doctor are established parts of continuity
• hence, the Doctor's inferred self-person is an established part of continuity
• therefore, a female Doctor is a retcon
• retcons are undesirable
  
  • this is an argument I am implicitly making rather than another premise
  • I feel that it is sufficiently common a position that there is no real need to explain the argument
  • and lo I have not been criticised on this account (oh dear, now I want AEBH to have understood my posts... and by want I mean have a vested interest in having as always one wants to be understood)
• therefore, the Whittaker-choice was undesirable (because it is a retcon)
• but we might enjoy Whittaker's Doctor anyway because we're fans of the show (enter the dictator analogy)

Which is 208 words long. But that's including the explanation for why I haven't bothered to argue why retcons are undesirable. And the last bullet point which is just showing AEBH where the dictator analogy attaches. Remove those and you're at 117. And the explanation of what a retcon is... which you probably don't need.

But 100 is just a number, That is literally as simple as it can get being bullet points of one point per bullet. And it doesn't say "can't have different sexes/gender between any two regenerations".

Controlled regeneration has only ever been shown in two instances in the entire show, afaik - when 2 was offered a choice of regeneration body, and by the Sisterhood of Karn for 8.

Romana regenerated into several different bodies before she chose the form of Princess Astra.

[Risottia]

<sigh> If the red nose special was actually canon, we would not have this big song and dance over a pretty unimportant issue.

"They're not breasts. They're Dalek bumps"

I guess you mean they could claim she is a Time Lord with Dalek bumps?

"They're also extremely firm".


Ok, now I'm shipping Whittaker's 13th with Simm's Master. GET SAXON BACK I DEMAND IT!

[Eastfield Lodge]

Controlled regeneration has only ever been shown in two instances in the entire show, afaik - when 2 was offered a choice of regeneration body, and by the Sisterhood of Karn for 8.

Romana regenerated into several different bodies before she chose the form of Princess Astra.

Good point, I forgot about that.

[The Two Jerseys]

BBC Responds to 13th Doctor Complaints

Since the first Doctor regenerated back in 1966, the concept of the Doctor as a constantly evolving being has been central to the programme. The continual input of fresh ideas and new voices across the cast and the writing and production teams has been key to the longevity of the series.

The Doctor is an alien from the planet Gallifrey and it has been established in the show that Time Lords can switch gender.

As the Controller of BBC Drama has said, Jodie is not just a talented actor but she has a bold and brilliant vision for her Doctor. She aced it in her audition both technically and with the powerful female life force she brings to the role. She is destined to be an utterly iconic Doctor.

We hope viewers will enjoy what we have in store for the continuation of the story.

The "powerful female life force" part was a bit over the top...

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ive actually got a bit of a buzz about Jodie Whittaker as the new doctor.

At first i was like "Eh, neat, lets see how she does" now ive seen some clips of her acting in theatre productions and rewatched Attack the Bloc and im actually a bit excited.

What is this broadchurh show she was in like?

[Philjia]

Ive actually got a bit of a buzz about Jodie Whittaker as the new doctor.

At first i was like "Eh, neat, lets see how she does" now ive seen some clips of her acting in theatre productions and rewatched Attack the Bloc and im actually a bit excited.

What is this broadchurh show she was in like?

Series one is a pretty damn good police procedural about the murder of a schoolboy in a small seaside town. David Tennant and Olivia Coleman are the detectives and Whittaker is the victim's mother. Series two rather went off the rails, however. I haven't watched the third series. All were overseen by incoming Doctor Who executive producer Chris Chibnall.

[Ameriganastan]

Look in the comments of Whittaker's trailer, as some guy with a Picard profile said, it's like David Tennant is leaving all over again.

I haven't seen butthurt this entertaining since NaruHina was made canon. I love it!

[Forsher]

I haven't mentioned "cooties", or made the slightest suggestion that your motives stem from misogyny, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up (doth the lady protest too much?).

Anyway, I'm not going to carry on listening to this. You've proven yourself incapable of arguing coherently (three people have now told you that they don't understand what you're on about; you can't keep pinning your failure to communicate on me) or respectfully (from my first post you were accusing me of illiteracy).

I have better things to do than respond to your masturbatory, sophomaniacal bullshit. Good day.

Cooties has been how I have been referring to your "premise that the Doctor being played by a woman is just intrinsically wrong" for a while. I will add this to the litany of things you haven't read.

On which note, there is a difference between finding something incoherent and outright missing substantial chunks of posts. You have repeatedly failed to understand (which may be due to incoherent* arguments) and repeatedly failed to acknowledge many aspects of my posts. Don't pretend otherwise.

Similarly, if you don't want to be accused of illiteracy demonstrate at the very least an absence of the latter. It is highly questionable to make jokes from posts when you don't understand them. It is better just to ask. I thought you had understood what I meant and were being unfair... as I had specifically pointed out that I was talking about an analogy. Might want to think about that. Similarly, you might think about that when you ask to clarify A that you don't assume the clarification was about B, which is what you did.

*Again, how a bulleted list of premises and logical conclusions is incoherent escapes me.

Yay, I get top marks. Tbh though, I'm lazy so will just stick with this point rather than entering the debate at large:

1) Obviously yeah, you'd forgotten that point, so take that into consideration in the future. I think that bar Missy, this is the strongest canon incident related to a female Doctor.

I have been completely open about my fallibility: "You might see some other form of attack on this [not the General] point, but I don't know of that one/those (and similarly I do not see the flaws in my other premises)." I do not see how I could be more considerate of the possibility.

2) She does something along the lines of asking the soldier if she's back to normal etc. I'd say she had little control over her ability to be female, and while she may have hoped to be so, there was no guarantee of it. Not entirely sure why she went male in the first place though. Maybe just to try it, or maybe that was accidental too? Regardless, it would seem that unless there is clear preparation time there is no ability to guarantee gender post-regeneration (and positing that there is an ability to guarantee characteristics post-regeneration through preparation is conjecture, as far as I know. I'm not sure if there is any evidence to back it up.).

It had certainly been my understanding that deliberate regeneration was possible based mostly on impressions from summaries of the original run.

The question of when the General regenerated into a dude is important. To mention Xavin again, one of the theories is that the character thinks a male form is better for combat purposes (and just generally is more respected). If the dude-General was a Time War era regeneration episode this perspective would make sense. In this theory, the underlying self person could have "decided" this is bollocks (and the theory is inconsistent with the below notion) or no longer relevant or a bit of both.

3) Eh. A perspective, but one I disagree with. I don't think there's anything to suggest that 'The General' is anything more than his title/rank. It's difficult to judge age with Time Lords, even by number of regenerations (a field commander in the Time War could probably rack up a number in the course of an Earth year, if he was in a dangerous area), but I doubt The General was anything really comparable to The Master or The Doctor.

Fair points all.

Not sure what this point is. Yeah, it might be a rare thing (but then, judging by the small number of time lord regenerations we've seen, it could actually be more common off-screen), but it still doesn't mean they can't demonstrate it. So far, of the time lords we've seen quite a bit of, as far as I know, we've seen all of them change gender once during their cycle, so on the basis of that alone we're not seeing anything out of the ordinary. We've seen regenerations change height, weight, voice, body shape, hair length, style and colour, skin colour, age (and the relevant fraility issues that come with ageing - otoh didn't one of the Doctors basically die from being too old?), personality, and now gender. I don't think that becoming female is really noteworthy on any level beyond the meta 'It's something new for the show.'

To an extent it depends on how we view gender with Time Lords. I saw one article discuss the Doctor as being genderless (as we'd understand it anyway) but while I don't think this is true, it is entirely possible that being one gender or another for Time Lords is like being, say, brown or grey haired for people (that is,gender dysphoria doesn't make sense in a Time Lord context). In that case (which may be the same as genderless), then the female or male-ness of any given regeneration never says anything about the self-person and therefore it really is only noteworthy in the same sense a bald Doctor would be.

Controlled regeneration has only ever been shown in two instances in the entire show, afaik - when 2 was offered a choice of regeneration body, and by the Sisterhood of Karn for 8.

By controlled I mean the regenerating Time Lord is able to choose the form to some extent of the result rather than directed or guided by external forces. Either way, assuming I am right, one finds an escape from retcons.

Doesn't sound like something that happens on a whim, so the three previous Time Lords who've changed genders that we know of, I highly doubt that the Master would have been afforded such an option. The other two, who knows. The Corsair, according to his TARDIS wiki article, doesn't sound like someone who would have had that privilege either.

Like Philjia I was thinking of Romana... but reading this it seems that controlled/deliberate regeneration is not a universal theory of

Also, your premise is that regeneration into another gender/sex alters the base self-person, but that is something that's never been outright stated (something which you yourself are mentioning quite a bit in your defensive arguments).

It's a bit more subtle than that. I am suggesting that our understanding of the self-person changes and that the base self-person is constant across all regenerations. Think of regeneration like sampling from a population. The trouble is that it's possible to accidentally sample a population of people a dozen times or so and conclude that the average height is around 2m without having done anything wrong in the sampling process. The reason this doesn't happen is that it is very unlikely to have even one such accidental sample, let alone a dozen. Come to think of it one might argue that each regeneration is just choosing one pre-built regeneration* that lives in the ether or wherever and those are constructed from the underlying self-person. In that case, then it is like taking a sample of one person and their being 2m. This way of thinking means it is still difficult to accept the notion of a lot of female doctors... unless there was some form of bias in the sampling of the original thirteen (and, hey, maybe the key to refreshing the show is to dig deeper into what is a less developed area than I thought).

The idea of an underlying self-person is my understanding and there is that supporting quote and yeah it is not stated outright. I'm not sure that I have quite been saying this before (i.e. you're being generous) but no matter how much I like that line, it is not "the self-person theory is correct" by any means.

*TARDIS Wiki says of the Eighth Doctor: "When Ace was sent into the Seventh Doctor's mind, she discovered a room with thirteen cubicles, seven of them empty, while the other six contained shadowy white figures, representing the Doctor's future incarnations. The barely formed eighth incarnation asked Ace if "it [was] time", but she told him it was not and encouraged him to return to his slumber. (PROSE: Timewyrm: Revelation)"

Series one is a pretty damn good police procedural about the murder of a schoolboy in a small seaside town. David Tennant and Olivia Coleman are the detectives and Whittaker is the victim's mother. Series two rather went off the rails, however. I haven't watched the third series. All were overseen by incoming Doctor Who executive producer Chris Chibnall.

The first problem with series three (that I remember) is that I read a review by someone who believe YES ALL MEN . The show has a nuanced and, dare I say, actually accurate outlook. Given the second problem is the final problem (hmm) I'd have to say that it is much better than series two but it is a big problem because they try to shoe-horn in a few characters... The Missing, in contrast, just forgot all characters from series one who were tangential to the new plot (and didn't even bother giving them new jobs as the plot demands to keep them relevant). Obviously, if you don't want to watch a cop show where the crime is rape, don't watch Broadchurch 3 (watch Happy Valley... no, don't... it's much worse in this regard... and better than Broadchurch but I digress).

[Skylus]

From the VERY FIRST page.

"sometimes she is a champion of justice, and sometimes she is a lonely god, but she is always the smartest and most charming man in the room."

....Should be fixed.....?

[Astrolinium]

From the VERY FIRST page.

"sometimes she is a champion of justice, and sometimes she is a lonely god, but she is always the smartest and most charming man in the room."

....Should be fixed.....?

I know what I wrote.

[Skylus]

So is The Time of the Doctor the one where the Master brings back the Time Lords before Galifray is blown to pieces?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So is The Time of the Doctor the one where the Master brings back the Time Lords before Galifray is blown to pieces?

Nah, it's the Doctor's last stand on Trenzelore, where he squares off against the Daleks in defence of Christmas.