|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jul 17, 2017 12:02:30 GMT
That's not what I said Vegas. They are totally different situations, nothing to do with which shows they are. See edit. Yeah, it's not a reboot, Capaldi and Whittaker are playing the exact same character. Capaldi will change into Whittaker on screen. Given it's part of Doctor Who canon that timelords can regenerate into either sex, do you now see why your comparisons were so irrelevant? |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 12:05:40 GMT
I love it when sexist, racist pieces of human excrement lose it over such trivial events. Thanks for this. Ah another one who has never bother to advance an argument beyond "ur teh sexistz" I remember your brilliant "study" on Sexist hurricanes done by business students. Go away you child. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 17, 2017 12:17:18 GMT
Yeah, it's not a reboot, Capaldi and Whittaker are playing the exact same character. Capaldi will change into Whittaker on screen. Given it's part of Doctor Who canon that timelords can regenerate into either sex, do you now see why your comparisons were so irrelevant?
Okay... You ARE a shitload dumber than I give you credit for.... |
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jul 17, 2017 12:19:01 GMT
Yeah, it's not a reboot, Capaldi and Whittaker are playing the exact same character. Capaldi will change into Whittaker on screen. Given it's part of Doctor Who canon that timelords can regenerate into either sex, do you now see why your comparisons were so irrelevant?
Okay... You ARE a shitload dumber than I give you credit for.... Does anyone else want to give it a go? It doesn't appear to matter how much I dumb it down, he still doesn't understand what I'm saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 17, 2017 12:24:24 GMT
Does anyone else want to give it a go? It doesn't appear to matter how much I dumb it down, he still doesn't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure that anyone else wouldn't be so blindly caught up in the specifics of the show to actually worry about how comparing a main character of a show suddenly being a female to another main character of a show suddenly being female.... In other words... anyone else probably isn't that stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 12:27:13 GMT
Because The Doctor isn't 13 different people. The Doctor is one person. In thirteen different bodies. Why shouldn't one of those bodies be a female one? I'm afraid it's true that the Doctor changes periodically, whether you accept it or not. It's also true that there's absolutely no reason why one of those bodies shouldn't be female. And the Doctor is still the same "man", except in a female body now. No, you don't change the person just because you change the body. To claim that flies in the very face of what you've just said yourself about how the appearance changes but the person remains the same. Then like I said, I don't think that will be an issue. You would pretty much have to, unless you're rather a hypocrite. I simply choose to say it because you can't - or at least haven't - articulated any other reason. The way your argument comes across it's "my reason is sexism but I don't want to admit it to myself". And I'd be fine with a female James Bond. There are characters I'd object to a gender swap on, but Bond isn't one of them. Rather a silly self-defeating argument to attack my opinion for my attacking other people's opinions. And to my mind, you've confirmed that the basis of this whole thing is just sexism. You see women as fundamentally different from men, which they are not. I defy you to name one character trait that is present in all men and no women. Even one. Bravery? Intelligence? Logical thinking? Empathy? Quick Wittedness? Love? Anger? Despair? You cannot do it; every one of those things can be present in either gender, or absent in either gender. And that is ignoring that even if that were true of human beings, you have no basis whatsoever to assert that it is also true of Galifreyans. I know you're trying to highlight a perceived absurdity, but I'd be fine with any of those changes. Actually, as a Star Trek fan of such magnitude that it's almost tragically stereotypical (I have my own Star Trek website. With articles. Thousands of them. With millions of views. And a forum.), I'd be quite intrigued to see a female Kirk. In fact there actually was an occasion on which a woman played the part of Captain Kirk, and it was quite entertaining (although not a very good episode overall). (In passing, I'll note that the idea that James Bond is a code name is almost certainly untrue. But whatever.) And nor do I. Bring it on, I say. Why should I have to like it? Right....you're opening a can of worms here. Of course you would. You couldn't change into a woman overnight and be the same person you were. Your hormone levels would change completely and consequently your behaviour, thinking and reactions would be different. The way you approach things will be different because of obvious physical differences. Hang on, you're now saying that being a woman still will obviously play this like a woman, but I thought there were no differences? What part of "I don't know how I would have reacted" do you not understand? OF course it it is. Not wanting characters changed makes me sexist and racist, regardless of the original sex or race of the character. I can't attack your opinion on others opinions, but its fine for you to attack their opinion. Hows that work? You are saying that everyone who doesn't like this is sexist, regardless of their gender. Therefore you are removing the agency of any woman who doesn't like it and labelling them for not following the monolithic hivemind of "woman" Fundamentally different? Nope, more strawmmaning. All traits exist in all humans to a greater or lesser extent. Some are stronger in men and some in women. We can see differences in gender from infancy that are not related to socialisation. We have also seen similar things in closely related primates. Men and women are different and that is not just based on "muh social constructs" Or do you live in a world where men and women are the same except for junk? Because men and woman are clearly different. Fine, but I guess anyone not happy about it would just be a sexist right? What is it with you lot and failure to accept different opinions without labeling the person? I hope you enjoy it. Wait on while I make a patently false argument about how you hate men which is the only reason you want the change, then ignore anything you say about how you would be happy for female characters to swap sex. Nope you just hate men because of this specific example. |
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jul 17, 2017 12:29:48 GMT
Does anyone else want to give it a go? It doesn't appear to matter how much I dumb it down, he still doesn't understand what I'm saying. I'm sure that anyone else wouldn't be so blindly caught up in the specifics of the show to actually worry about how comparing a main character of a show suddenly being a female to another main character of a show suddenly being female.... In other words... anyone else probably isn't that stupid. Ah yes, who needs to take the specifics of the show into account, especially not that the main character regenerates into a different form at regular intervals. It's exactly the same sort of thing as Captain Kirk coming back as a woman. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 12:31:57 GMT
I'm sure that anyone else wouldn't be so blindly caught up in the specifics of the show to actually worry about how comparing a main character of a show suddenly being a female to another main character of a show suddenly being female.... In other words... anyone else probably isn't that stupid. Ah yes, who needs to take the specifics of the show into account, especially not that the main character regenerates into a different form at regular intervals. It's exactly the same sort of thing as Captain Kirk coming back as a woman. I've already said this. The Doctor is fixed as male for many people. The BBC introducing gender swapping doesn't change peoples perception. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 12:34:04 GMT
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 17, 2017 12:52:43 GMT
Ah yes, who needs to take the specifics of the show into account, especially not that the main character regenerates into a different form at regular intervals. It's exactly the same sort of thing as Captain Kirk coming back as a woman. I've already said this. The Doctor is fixed as male for many people. The BBC introducing gender swapping doesn't change peoples perception. Is it the BBC's fault if some fans had a baseless perception of the Doctor as always male? Especially when it's been already established that time lords can regenerate as different genders.
My dad gave up on Doctor Who because he didn't like that they started using younger actors like Peter Davidson for the role. He'd grown up with Hartnell and Troughton and thought of the doctor as an older grandfatherly type. For him the younger Doctor isn't how he conceived of the character and while he could tolerate the middle-aged Baker, Davidson was a step too far. And that was fair enough for him. Similarly if you don't fancy watching a female Doctor because you think of the character as male, then fine - don't watch it. But the BBC made a decision which is canon with the lore of the show and allows for a different spin on a character who has already had multiple different spins. I don't see why that's so wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 17, 2017 12:55:31 GMT
I'm sure that anyone else wouldn't be so blindly caught up in the specifics of the show to actually worry about how comparing a main character of a show suddenly being a female to another main character of a show suddenly being female.... In other words... anyone else probably isn't that stupid. Ah yes, who needs to take the specifics of the show into account, especially not that the main character regenerates into a different form at regular intervals. It's exactly the same sort of thing as Captain Kirk coming back as a woman. Jesus, Mary, Joseph... The point is that the specifics don't matter.... He could have run afoul of "The Witch Of Sandy Vagina Mountain" and was cursed by her with a sandy vagina.... something that I believe must have happened to you at some point in your sad life... and *POOF!* He became a She... All that matters... for the sake of this argument... and sanity.... is that the main character... infamously known for being male... is suddenly played by a female.. You being a "BUT IN THEATHON THEVEN, EIPTHODE THIXTEEN, IT WATH WELL ETHABLISGHED THAT THE DOCTOR COULD BE A HUMAN OF THE FEMALE PERTHWAZION AT ANY THECOND!!" dick is meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jul 17, 2017 13:09:10 GMT
tpfkar Vegas said:You guys have strange foci. The speech impediment does make a certain sense in a 70's game show trope sorta way.
I'M NOT UPSET |
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jul 17, 2017 13:13:46 GMT
Ah yes, who needs to take the specifics of the show into account, especially not that the main character regenerates into a different form at regular intervals. It's exactly the same sort of thing as Captain Kirk coming back as a woman. Jesus, Mary, Joseph... The point is that the specifics don't matter.... He could have run afoul of "The Witch Of Sandy Vagina Mountain" and was cursed by her with a sandy vagina.... something that I believe must have happened to you at some point in your sad life... and *POOF!* He became a She... All that matters... for the sake of this argument... and sanity.... is that the main character... infamously known for being male... is suddenly played by a female.. You being a "BUT IN THEATHON THEVEN, EIPTHODE THIXTEEN, IT WATH WELL ETHABLISGHED THAT THE DOCTOR COULD BE A HUMAN OF THE FEMALE PERTHWAZION AT ANY THECOND!!" dick is meaningless. Of course the specifics matter, you utter bellend. We've just had a female timelord for two whole years that had always been male before so it's not like people weren't aware it could happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jul 17, 2017 13:35:26 GMT
Of course the specifics matter, you utter bellend. We've just had a female timelord for two whole years that had always been male before so it's not like people weren't aware it could happen. homophobe! What? |
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jul 17, 2017 13:41:42 GMT
Surely this will lead to the end of civilization.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jul 17, 2017 15:14:13 GMT
I've already said this. The Doctor is fixed as male for many people. The BBC introducing gender swapping doesn't change peoples perception. Is it the BBC's fault if some fans had a baseless perception of the Doctor as always male? Especially when it's been already established that time lords can regenerate as different genders.
My dad gave up on Doctor Who because he didn't like that they started using younger actors like Peter Davidson for the role. He'd grown up with Hartnell and Troughton and thought of the doctor as an older grandfatherly type. For him the younger Doctor isn't how he conceived of the character and while he could tolerate the middle-aged Baker, Davidson was a step too far. And that was fair enough for him. Similarly if you don't fancy watching a female Doctor because you think of the character as male, then fine - don't watch it. But the BBC made a decision which is canon with the lore of the show and allows for a different spin on a character who has already had multiple different spins. I don't see why that's so wrong.
No, it's nobody's fault. And the BBC are free to do as they choose with their intellectual property. You are free to have an opinion, you are free to like the change. Just as I am free to dislike it. As are the many other people who don't like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 17, 2017 15:15:06 GMT
Jesus, Mary, Joseph... The point is that the specifics don't matter.... He could have run afoul of "The Witch Of Sandy Vagina Mountain" and was cursed by her with a sandy vagina.... something that I believe must have happened to you at some point in your sad life... and *POOF!* He became a She... All that matters... for the sake of this argument... and sanity.... is that the main character... infamously known for being male... is suddenly played by a female.. You being a "BUT IN THEATHON THEVEN, EIPTHODE THIXTEEN, IT WATH WELL ETHABLISGHED THAT THE DOCTOR COULD BE A HUMAN OF THE FEMALE PERTHWAZION AT ANY THECOND!!" dick is meaningless. you utter bellend. Only in the mind of a complete retard too much of a fucking loser that he can't look beyond the writing of a TV show.  - "We've jusht had a female timelord for two whole yearths that had alwayth been male!!" - "What a fucking retard!" Edit: And if the name of the show was "Doctor Who Isn't Doctor Who".... that might have more weight. (People have a little more give when it comes to side characters) "IN THEATHON THEVEN, EIPTHODE THIXTEEN, IT WATH WELL ETHABLISGHED THAT THE DOCTOR COULD BE A HUMAN OF THE FEMALE PERTHWAZION AT ANY THECOND!!" And, You're still doing it.... |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 17, 2017 15:25:15 GMT
Is it the BBC's fault if some fans had a baseless perception of the Doctor as always male? Especially when it's been already established that time lords can regenerate as different genders.
My dad gave up on Doctor Who because he didn't like that they started using younger actors like Peter Davidson for the role. He'd grown up with Hartnell and Troughton and thought of the doctor as an older grandfatherly type. For him the younger Doctor isn't how he conceived of the character and while he could tolerate the middle-aged Baker, Davidson was a step too far. And that was fair enough for him. Similarly if you don't fancy watching a female Doctor because you think of the character as male, then fine - don't watch it. But the BBC made a decision which is canon with the lore of the show and allows for a different spin on a character who has already had multiple different spins. I don't see why that's so wrong.
No, it's nobody's fault. And the BBC are free to do as they choose with their intellectual property. You are free to have an opinion, you are free to like the change. Just as I am free to dislike it. As are the many other people who don't like it. Well I suppose that's fair enough then. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 15:27:35 GMT
Why should I have to like it? Huh? Nobody said you "have to" like it. All I've said is that you have not, so far, been able to articulate any reason why you don't like it, and that observers are therefore free to draw their own conclusions as to your motivations. It seems like it's the important can in the conversation. Why not? But those differences are going to be no greater than the differences between being one man and a different man. What you are describing already happens with the Doctor - his behaviour and the way he approaches things changes from one body to the next, whilst the fundamentals remain the same. I genuinely see no reason why it is going to be any different this time. I'm saying that however she plays it will be "playing it like a woman" by definition, since she is a woman. But there is no difference between "playing it like a woman" and "playing it like a man". The two things are identical. In fact I don't see that the labels even make sense. What is "playing it like a woman" even supposed to mean? Women are all different, they would all play it differently. I understand it fine. What part of "you would have had to" do you not understand? Well, unless you can articulate some other reason then yes, pretty much. The closest you have come so far is an apparent belief that all women are one thing, all men are something completely different, and never the twain shall meet. You have it backwards. You're criticising me for attacking other people's opinions. Which is itself a criticism of my opinion. Either it's fine to criticise other people's opinions, in which case I get to do it too, or it's not, in which case you don't get to criticise mine. Pick whichever you like. If you believe that all traits exist in all humans then the whole "becoming a woman will change the Doctor into something else" argument goes right out the window, and you are left with no reason for your opinion at all. (And as I said before, that's ignoring the fact that even if that were true for humans, it doesn't make it true for Galifreyans.) Yes. Exactly so. I literally cannot think of any difference between men and women except for junk and other physical items. And I've asked you to name one, and you haven't. All people are different. But the differences between men and women are no greater than the differences between men and other men, or women and other women. I said before : there is no character trait that a man can have that a woman cannot. But let's be even more specific. Can you name any specific character trait that the Doctor has, which a woman cannot have? Anything at all? The Doctor is kind and caring towards others. Can a woman be kind and caring towards others? The Doctor is lonely. Can a woman be lonely? The Doctor is brave. Can a woman be brave? The Doctor is intelligent and knowledgeable. Can a woman be intelligent and knowledgeable? The Doctor is inspiring. Can a woman be inspiring? The Doctor lies. Can a woman lie? The Doctor is compassionate. Can a woman be compassionate? The Doctor is a tragic figure. Can a woman be a tragic figure? It seems to me that every single answer to those questions will be "yes". Do you disagree? Can you name any important aspect that I missed, anything at all, that a male Doctor could have and a female one could not? I'm betting that you can't. It would depend on the person. I'd ask this person if they could express a reason for their unhappiness. If they couldn't, then I'd certainly consider sexism to be a possibility. We can have the discussion as to why I welcome the change if you like, and unlike you I can articulate reasons why. So your comparison really don't work. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 15:31:00 GMT
No, it's nobody's fault. And the BBC are free to do as they choose with their intellectual property. You are free to have an opinion, you are free to like the change. Just as I am free to dislike it. As are the many other people who don't like it. And others are free to draw conclusions as to your reasons. |
|
