“He’s Gay and She’s an Alien”: Queer Identity and Gender in Doctor Who

(1)

2015

“He’s Gay and She’s an Alien”: Queer Identity and

Gender in Doctor Who

Sanne Meijer

Research MA Literary Studies Supervisor: Dr. Dan Hassler-Forest University of Amsterdam

(2)

Introduction

On 29 May 2013, popular culture and media website What Culture posted an article listing five actresses who author James Ramos thought should be chosen to play the role of the Twelfth Doctor in the British science-fiction series Doctor Who. Eligible candidates included Helena Bonham Carter, Julie Andrews, and Lara Pulver. However, a few months later, at the start of August 2013, the BBC revealed that they did not answer to any of Ramos’ ideas, or the dozens of other suggestions that were going around on the Internet, as Peter Capaldi was chosen to play the lead. While many were happily surprised with BBC’s decision of casting a lifelong Doctor Who fan and renowned Scottish actor as the Twelfth Doctor, disappointment was unmistakably felt amongst fans: For the fiftieth year in a row, the Doctor would be played by a man, not a woman. The discussion of a possible female Doctor is not something new. As early as the 1970s and 1980s there were rumours going around that a woman could be cast to play the Doctor. When, in 1990, there were several independent television companies who wanted to take over Doctor Who after the BBC had pulled the plug in 1989, one of them was considering casting a female Doctor. Ultimately, no other television company ended up producing the programme, until the BBC revived it—with a traditionally male Doctor—in 2005.

These discussions—which are still relevant today, even without the prospect of a new Doctor—are examples of how actively involved the audience is when it comes to subjects such as ‘gender’ in Doctor Who. In fact, over the last few years, people have become increasingly interested in the possibility of a female Doctor, which probably has a lot to do with a changing media landscape that calls for more female leads, and the fact that writers and producers have been deliberately hinting at the possibility of a female Doctor, who in turn respond to demands from their audience to show a more diverse gender representation in Doctor Who. By looking at the interaction between audience and producers, as well as how subjects such as gender and sexuality are handled within the programme, it will become clear that Doctor Who can be considered to be a dialogical work, which is explained by Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism as a work that “engages with and is informed by other works and voices, and seeks to alter or inform it” (Robinson, “In Theory Bakhtin”). In this context,

(5)

gender and sexuality are exemplary and reflective of this dialogue, as they have been unstable and shifting categories throughout the programme’s history.

As Brett Beemyn and Michele Eliason wrote in 1996, queer theory has “the potential to be inclusive” to subjects of identity such as sexuality and gender, which is exactly what this research seeks to do (165). Queer theory “take[s] an interest in the intersections of gender and sexuality” while viewing heteronormativity “as the crux of the problem” (Krolokke and Sørensen 18-9). Seeing as “one of the inherent goals of queer theory is to undermine heteronormative hegemonic discourses,” which is what I believe to be one of the key objectives that feminism and gay and lesbian studies have in common, incorporating both gender and sexuality in this research will prove to be fruitful (Goldman 179). In other words, the focus will be on both gender and sexuality in Doctor Who, because the combination of these two subjects will provide a more complete impression of a non-heteronormative discourse. In doing so, it combines Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism with Judith Butler’s concept of gender “as an ongoing discursive practice, … [which] is open to intervention and resignification” and linking this further to sexuality (“Subjects” 43).

This thesis considers Doctor Who not as a fixed, stable entity that adopts a single ideology, but instead views the programme as being in an ongoing process; in constant dialogue with both political and cultural affairs and with producers and audience, which results in a product of popular culture that can be contradicting and confusing at times, making it open to a wide variety of multiple interpretations. The fact that Doctor Who is discursively constructed can be directly linked to its gender expression, as the programme is open and dialogical about shifting ideas of gender and sexuality, which implies an understanding of gender and sexuality as unstable categories that are similarly fluid and dynamic, instead of fixed and permanent.

Doctor Who

Doctor Who is an extremely popular British television series that has developed into an important cultural icon for Great Britain and gained a large fan following worldwide. The programme revolves around a time-travelling alien Time Lord called the Doctor, who travels through time and space in his spaceship (The TARDIS1) together with an often human, and

1

TARDIS stands for Time and Relative Dimension in Space.

(6)

generally female, companion. The Doctor is able to regenerate into a different body as a way of avoiding death, which explains why Doctor Who has been able to run for such a long time —each time one actor stops playing the Doctor, somebody new will take over. The stories of Doctor Who take place both in the past and the future, on earth and on alien planets, and everywhere he goes he is protecting the good and fighting evil, which more often than not involves preventing a planet or civilization from getting exterminated.

The programme’s initial run was from 1963 until 1989. After that, the ratings went down and, aside from a TV movie in 1996, the series went on an almost twenty-year-long long hiatus. Nonetheless, the fandom of Doctor Who has always been large and passionate, and even when the BBC stopped airing the programme, the interest of its fans did not fade away. Fans, writers, and actors continued to create new stories on various other media, such as licensed book series, radio programmes, comic series, or the popular Big Finish audiobooks production. In 2005, Russell T. Davies revived the programme and adapted it so that it would fit current society, which proved to be a major success. Following Davies, Steven Moffat took over his role in 2010, when he became the executive producer of Doctor Who. In 2013, the series celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, making it the longest running science-fiction television series in history. It was widely celebrated with a variety of specials and documentaries and an anniversary episode that was broadcasted simultaneously in over 100 countries across the world.

Gender and Sexuality

This thesis follows Butler’s idea of gender as an unstable and ambiguous category that is always performative, claiming that our gendered behaviour is not natural, but imposed upon us by heteronormative, heterosexual discourse and influenced by normative ideas of gender and sexuality within society. She explains that gender is “always relative to the constructed relations in which it is determined” (“Subjects” 15). In other words, when Butler says that gender is performative, she means that “gender is not something one is, it is something one does” (Salih 55). Furthermore, as this research will focus largely on the representation of women and queer identities in Doctor Who, Butler’s opinion on the function of the term ‘representation’ is relevant: “on the one hand, representation serves as the operative term within a political process that seeks to extend visibility and legitimacy to women as political

(7)

subjects; on the other hand, representation is the normative function of a language which is said either to reveal or distort what is assumed to be true about the category of women” (Butler, “Subjects” 3-4). Thus, looking into the representation of gender and sexuality in Doctor Who, shows the marginalization of women, firstly, and, secondly, non-heteronormative sexualities, while at the same revealing the nature of these social constructs as fluid and discursive.

As I have already explained, this thesis focuses on non-heteronormative discourses in popular culture by looking at both gender and sexuality in Doctor Who, using queer theory. Despite that “one important aspect of queer theory is that it allows us to view the world from perspectives other than those which are generally validated by the dominant society,” there are certain groups of identity, even within queer studies, that are largely ignored; such as transgenderism and bisexuality (Beemyn and Eliason 165). Queer theory should take issue with the ways “in which we conceptualize queerness in its preservation of binary notions of sexuality” (Goldman 175). Therefore, this research will challenge heteronormative discourses associated with binary notions of gender and sexuality. In doing so, I will discuss the subject of gender fluidity by looking at non-heteronormative gender expression and point out the marginalization of a type of sexuality that does not fit the binary notion of homosexuality/heterosexuality, but exemplifies the idea of sexuality as unstable and flexible: bisexuality.

Outline

The first chapter will illustrate how the programme has developed over time in its female gender representation, while the subsequent chapters are focused on the current era specifically. When I discuss the representation in women in Doctor Who, I will mainly focus on the Doctor’s companion, who was often female. Besides his travelling companion, there are, of course, more female characters in the series that are worth discussing. However, the female companion is interesting to study in particular, because it has always been such an essential component of the series. This chapter will point out that, as Butler argues, “gender is not always constituted coherently or consistently in different historical contexts,” consequently “it becomes impossible to separate out ‘gender’ from the political cultural intersections in which it is invariably produced and maintained” (“Subjects” 6). This will

(8)

become clear by juxtaposing the representation of women in Doctor Who with the different waves of feminism.

The second chapter will discuss the ways in which Doctor Who has been challenging normative gender norms and promoting non-heteronormative ideas of masculinity by looking at how some of the male characters of the series perform their assumed masculinity. Thus, while the first chapter mostly focuses on how Doctor Who deals with stereotypes of femininity and womanhood, the second chapter will look into how it handles stereotypes of traditional masculinity. Furthermore, when discussing non-heteronormative identities in Doctor Who, I will also focus on characters that can prove to be representative of transgender identities.

The revived series of Doctor Who includes a wide variety of both minor characters as well as important recurring characters that are open about their homosexuality, and it frequently makes explicit references to homosexuality. However, a comparison between popular male queer characters and female queer characters in the third chapter will reveal how certain sexualities are marginalized. A 2010 study by the BBC, that shows in what ways queer people still feel marginalized on mainstream television, will be used to illustrate the position of LGB people in the current British media landscape. Furthermore, the outcome of the study will be compared to how Doctor Who deals with marginalized sexualities, such as bisexuality, and problems that arise with stereotypical representations. Furthermore, this discussion will focus on the reception of the series by looking at audience responses and the negotiations between audience and producers regarding the topics of gender and sexuality in Doctor Who, which shows that it is both a part of and challenge to a hegemonic heteronormative society.

(9)

Chapter 1 A History of Female Gender Representation in Doctor Who

guyplayfair asked:

If you could hug any Doctor Who writer, which one would you hug? I think personally I would go for Robert Shearman, he looks cuddly and that beard would probably feel nice rubbing on your head. Russell T Davies also looks quite huggable but his propensity towards suits and lack of facial hair might not make it as pleasurable as Mr Shearman.

neil-gaiman answered:

I would like to hug all the women who have written for Doctor Who since 2008. All of them! I would start with…

What, nobody? That can’t be right…. (goes off, puzzled).2

In November 2014, the producers of Doctor Who announced that Catherine Trennega is going to write an episode for the ninth season, which is a significant development in the programme’s history, because she will be the first female writer that the programme has had since 2008, and the second female writer since the series’ revival in 2005. In total, there have been 91 writers in over 50 years of Doctor Who, of whom 4 have been women (Massabrook, “Showrunner Adds Female Writer”). So, it is clear that the series has a weak history of female writers, which is remarkable since the BBC started off quite progressively by employing a woman, Verity Lambert, as its founding producer.

During the 60s, Lambert was a notable exception in the production world of television; “at twenty-eight years of age she was not only the youngest and least experienced producer at the BBC but also the only woman holding that position in the Drama Department” (Wallace 107). However, as Lambert left after two years of successful leadership, the series lost much of it original educational content and changed drastically in terms of its female representation, which is perhaps most noticeable in the altered role of the

2

From: http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/99410074296/if-you-could-hug-any-doctor-who-writer-which-one

(10)

Doctor’s companion. In the hands of the programme’s new producer Innes Lloyd, the Doctor’s companion began to shift from a fully developed character to a narrative device (Wallace 107). In his essay “‘But Doctor?’—A Feminist Perspective of Doctor Who”, Richard Wallace stresses that this was the choice of the new male producer, and in doing so implies that a correct representation of women on television requires women on production levels.

Because it still is the norm that these fields are male-dominated, people such as Wallace generally assume “that the images of women disseminated by the mass media reflect and express male concerns” (Fenton 84-5). Consequently, “if women were to gain positions of power on a large scale, the implication is that images will change for the better” (85). However, it is not necessarily the case that female involvement on production level equals correct gender representation. As Sue Thornham explains:

Film stereotypes are seen as the product of unconscious assumptions too deep-rooted to be changed simply by having more women in positions of power within the film industry, yet the ‘vicious circle’ of its cultural effects can, it seems, be broken by a combinational persuasion and stereotype correction”.3

Underrepresentation and misrepresentation of female characters on television seems to be a problem that is not solved by simply hiring more women on production teams. However, it also is not the case that a lack of female involvement on production levels is of no consequence, nor that it should be completely ignored. Instead, an increase of female involvement on production levels should be combined with fleshed out, non-stereotypical female characters in order to see visible changes in female representation on television.

As I am going to look at female representation across all of Doctor Who’s history, it is necessary to make the distinction between two different time frames: Classic Who, which refers to the series’ initial run from 1963 to 1989 and includes a stand-alone TV film in 1996; and New Who, the revived series from 2005 onwards. When looking at the portrayal of the female companion throughout the programme’s history, I will relate this to the different waves of feminist movements from the specific eras. In this way this chapter will uncover the series’ objectification of women that has come under pressure in recent years.

Classic Who (1963-1989 + 1996) and Second-Wave Feminism

(11)

The role of the companion during the early years of the series was simple: “the narrative function of the Doctor’s girl companion was to get into trouble, and [the Doctor’s] role was to get them out of it” (Britton 146), during which a lot of screaming was involved. The first few decades of Doctor Who seem to be representative of the criticisms that second-wave feminism had regarding the role of women in society during the 1960s and 1970s, while in later years the programme seems to respond to this critique by transforming some of its stereotypical female characters into a more realistic portrayal of women.

Feminist criticism in the 1960s and 1970s focused on “exposing what might be called the mechanisms of the patriarchy, that is, the cultural ‘mind-set’ in men and women which perpetuated sexual inequality” (Barry 117). Depictions of gender in film and television were criticized for perpetuating these hegemonic gender stereotypes where “women become everything men are not: where men are regarded as strong, women are weak; where men are rational, they are emotional; where men are active, they are passive; and so on” (Gamble i). It considered women as “an oppressed social group and … the female body with its need for sexual autonomy as a primary site of that oppression” (Thornham, “Second Wave Feminism” 27). Therefore, a television series that aired during this time and had a stable and recurring female character can prove to be an interesting research object in exposing objectification of the female body.

The Male Gaze

The ‘male gaze’ is a concept that was brought to the forefront by British film theorist Laura Mulvey, when she stated that “[o]ne of the major issues of the second wave feminist movement of the 1970s was how women were represented negatively as stereotypes and objects of the male gaze in visual conventions of both high art and popular culture” (Carson 94). She argues that, “in a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female” (Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure” 837). Sophia Phoca follows Mulvey’s argument of the male gaze when she explains that the “cinematic gaze is organized like a language, according to patriarchal codes and conventions, where masculinity is empowered through the act of looking, while femininity is disempowered by being reduced to passively being looked at” (Phoca 47). In other words, women in 1960s and 1970s film and television were only meant to be an object of sexual objectification. While the

(12)

male was expected to carry the narrative, women were only there to serve as a spectacle, a female, and passive, erotic source of pleasure.

I follow Thornham’s argument that film and television should not be seen as direct reflections of reality, but instead should be approached as a text; one that consist of “complex structures of linguistic and visual codes organized to produce specific meanings” (Thornham, “Feminism and Film” 77). Thornham explains that films are bearers of ideology: “that representational system … [that] appears to be ‘universal’ or ‘natural’ but which is in fact the product of the specific power structures which constitute our society” (ibid.) In this context, ‘woman’ and ‘femininity’, acquire their “meaning within a sexist, or patriarchal, ideology,” which is why she explains that it is of no use to compare fictional stereotypes of women with real life, since fiction and reality embody the same ideological structures. Instead, it is more productive to focus on how women are represented and what meaning is given to their portrayal of femininity. The discussion of the female companion in Classic Who will thus serve to illustrate how the programme objectified and stereotyped women, as well as show how, towards the end of the series’ run, there were a few people who actively tried to challenge these stereotypes, either undermining them or by imitation in the form of parody.

“James Bond and the Bikinied Lovelies”, Or the Doctor and His Companions

As the Doctor’s first companion, his granddaughter Susan, left the TARDIS, she was quickly replaced with a slightly older, more attractive version, and the function of the companion changed entirely: now they were primarily “meant to be gazed upon as sex objects” (Wallace 146). Britton and Barker explain that, while “society at large in the developed world engaged with feminism and strove towards some kind of gender equality, Doctor Who became more bare-faced in the way that it sexually objectifies young women through their attire” (153). In other words, Doctor Who came to be a perfect object for feminist criticism.

Former companion Nicola Bryant (Peri Brown, Fifth and Sixth Doctors) explained that the companion was there—aside from “being lovely to look at—“to ask a lot of questions, to make the Doctor look very clever, to let the audience know what’s going on, and to reaffirm the potently obvious” (Doctor Who: Ultimate Guide). There is one typical type of characterization, ‘the screamer,’ which fits the majority of the Classic Who companions. This

(13)

was a stereotype that the production team of Doctor Who was actively trying to perpetuate: “several Who companions … have since claimed that their auditions involved showing how well they could scream” (Wallace 7). Often these sexist characterizations have been attributed to the series being a product of its time. Thus, as the series aired from the 60s to the late 80s, it should not be surprising that the companions have continuously been treated as objects of desire for the male viewership.

During the 1960s and 1970s, women in film were primarily there to function as plot device and were often “displayed as sexual object,” and Doctor Who was no exception (Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure” 837). Bryant was asked a lot of questions about how she felt about wearing a bikini on the programme, to which she responded: “I felt fine wearing a bikini because I was swimming and I thought it stupid wearing a three-piece suit. But I was very intrigued by some of the shots that were put in, which I think other people enjoyed” (30 Years in the TARDIS). This particular scene featured close-up shots moving slowly from the top of her body to her bottom, before jumping into the water. Moreover, during the final episode of the Fifth Doctor, Bryant’s character Perri Brown showed a cleavage that upstaged Peter Davison’s performance right before his regeneration, which is an example of how, by depicting female objectification through the male gaze, a woman’s “visual presence tends to work against the development of a storyline, to freeze the flow of action in moments of erotic contemplation” (Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure” 837).

Towards the 1980s, however, when feminist criticism “switched its focus from attacking male versions of the world to exploring the nature of the female world and outlook, and reconstructing the lost or suppressed records of female experience” there were also some notable changes in Doctor Who’s female representation (Barry 117). For example, Romana II was an interesting character because she was a Time Lord herself, which means that she came from the same species and was therefore more on the same level as the Doctor, enjoying the same privileges and opportunities of character growth. However, Romana II’s relatively successful portrayal of being the Doctor’s equal was not because the writing had improved considerably. Instead, this was the result of actress Lalla Ward’s and costumer designer Jane Hudson’s efforts to avoid Doctor Who girl stereotypes, both in acting and clothing choices (Britton and Barker 158). Furthermore, while, as Butler has pointed out, “gender repetition may … enforce conservative culture,” it could also draw “attention to it

(14)

and hence parody that same conservative culture” (Phoca 50). Hudson and Ward seemed aware of this, when they showed an “insistent, not to say calculatedly excessive use of pink suggested a teasing attitude to stereotypes of femininity” (159).

Lalla Ward as Romana II

Towards the end of the series’ initial run, there were a few remarkable changes in terms of female representation, especially with the introduction of the second companion of the Seventh Doctor (Sylvester McCoy), Ace, who “was the antithesis of some of the earlier companions” as she was “a fighter and not a screamer” (Andrew Cartmel in Younger, “Ace Set the Template”). The way Ace was dressed was much more representative of what children of her age would wear at the time: she was “seldom parted from her rucksack, and clad in Dr. Martens AirWair shoes and an oversized black bomber jacket smothered with badges, … [her] appearance conveyed her aggressive, streetwise, tomboyishness” (Britton 157). While Doctor Who finally seemed to catch up with society and the feminist critique of film and television of the time, these changes happened around the time that the series was already way into its demise. Apart from the stand-alone TV film, it would be the last we would see of the Doctor and his companions for a long time.

(15)

When Doctor Who returned in 2005, the social landscape for feminism had changed significantly. While it is not the case that women were not being objectified anymore, the focus of feminist critique did shift slightly from an overly sexualized representation of women to redefining “feminism by bringing together an interest in traditional and even stereotypical feminine issues, while remaining critical of both narratives of true femaleness, of victimization and liberation” (Krolokke and Sørensen 17). This third wave of feminism understands “gender as a discursive practice that is both a hegemonic, social matrix and a ‘performative gesture’ with the power to disturb the chain of social repetition and open up new realities” (ibid.). In other words, while “buoyed by the confidence of having more opportunities and less sexism,” it is not implied that feminist critique is not required anymore, but instead it means that it is important to focus on different aspects of gender representation in order to uncover heteronormative, hegemonic discourses. In the case of New Who, female companion analysis primarily focuses on (a lack of) agency, independence, and a more fully developed character representation that does not diminish the female gender to one personality trait.

In New Who, the female companion generates a lot of criticism in terms of gender representation. Especially since the current showrunner Steven Moffat has taken over, online fan discussions have consisted of giving extensive close readings of episodes and characters that would show how sexist the writing has become. In “Sexism in Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who?” Michal Ray Johnson takes on a much more negative view on the portrayal of the modern companion than I will do in this thesis. He does, however, address the importance of “[acknowledging] the basis structure of the series” that I would like to repeat here:

Doctor Who is about a man. An extremely brilliant man who saves worlds. He pretty much

always has an assistant who is usually a woman. In this structure, it’s easy for gender inequality to occur—but that doesn’t excuse it. What it means is that writers must take greater care to avoid that inequality4_.

In other words, the basic structure of the series automatically makes it almost impossible to consider the Doctor and the companion as equals. Although I would not go as far as to say

4

For Johnson’s article on why Moffat’s Doctor Who can be seen as sexist see: http://www.ofdiceandpen.ca/2012/12/sexism-in-steven-moffats-doctor-who.html

(16)

that Doctor Who is inherently misogynistic, as Britton and Barker have done in Reading Between Designs, I do want to stress the importance of acknowledging that “a misogynistic culture is going to produce misogynistic artifacts [sic]” (Sandifer, “Definitive Moffat and Feminism”). In other words, as Doctor Who is produced in a society that is still not close to an equal representation of gender, you have to take into account that a product of this society will inevitably show some sexist elements. The series has not always been successful in its portrayal of women, precisely because it is not a utopian version of the modern world. Instead, it is in constant dialogue and “recognizes the multiplicity of perspectives and voices,” which means that it is both a representation of modern society, as much as it is a criticism of it (“Robinson, “In Theory Bakhtin”).

Participatory Culture and Dialogism

As Henry Jenkins explains in the conclusion to his book Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, fan culture used to be seen as “operating in the shadows of, in response to, as well as an alternative to commercial culture,” but with the invention of the Internet, “these consumers [have been brought] from the margins of the media industries into the spotlight (“Democratizing Television” 246). The Internet offers many new opportunities for interactivity, as Marshall Sella explains: while “television began as a one-way street winding from producers to consumers … that street is now becoming two-way” (“The Remote Controllers”). This newly emerged culture, which he calls participatory culture, “contrast with older notions of passive media spectatorship,” as contemporary audiences of media products such as film and television prove to be much more active and involved in the content they enjoy watching (“Worship” 3).

Doctor Who has many (female and queer) fans that are actively involved with the show, resulting in many fan activities such as keeping blogs, writing fan fiction, creating fan art, and going to conventions wearing cosplay5_{, experiences which they often share online.}

The discussion between audience and producers that follows out of this type of media consumption turns out to be important in the way new media is constructed: “rather than talking about media producers and consumers as occupying separate roles, we might now see them as participants who interact with each other according to a new set of rules” (ibid.).

(17)

This does not happen at random: a dialogical work such as Doctor Who “is designed to produce a response” (Robinson, “In Theory Bakhtin”). A dialogical text, as explained by Bakthin, can be confusing, ambiguous and contradictory, because it is in constant interaction with all social forces around it, as well as with the text’s past and potential future:

A dialogue of language is a dialogue of social forces perceived not only in their static co-existence, but also as a dialogue of different times, epochs and days, a dialogue that is forever dying, living, being born: co-existence and becoming are here fused into an indissoluble concrete unity that is contradictory, multi-speeched and heterogeneous.6

The fact that Doctor Who has such an active viewership that is vocal about issues of gender and sexuality is an example of the programme as a dialogical work, which depends on interaction between culture, politics, and audience.

An increasing awareness of gender inequality on television has led to many Whovians7_{discussing what position Doctor Who has within this debate. Interestingly, many}

disagreeing fans attack current executive producer Steven Moffat personally, as they believe the series (and thus, his writing) is sexist. Perhaps surprisingly, he encourages this criticism:

I think it’s important that there is a feminist critique of television because things that go unquestioned go unchanged and what goes unchanged becomes institutionalized and what becomes institutionalized becomes your fault. So, it should be questioned. I think some of the criticisms that are aimed at me personally are absurdly over the top and unfair, but then, who said the prosecution has to be fair? And it’s a case that needs to be prosecuted8.

In other words, Moffat acknowledges the fact that in order for there to be any progress in the representation of women on television, it is necessary that people actively question the content that gets produced. Moffat shows the purpose of a dialogical work as a work that is intended to produce response and in turn has to answer back.

6

Bakhtin 365

7

Whovians is the name that Doctor Who fans have given to themselves.

8

He made this statement on a podcast with the Swedish TV Dags: http://tvdags.se/artikel/nytt-avsnitt-av-tvdags-podden-meet-the-moffat

(18)

Doctor Who has made great advancements if you look at the series from an historical point of view, and Moffat’s statement suggests that Doctor Who is still in an ongoing process of improving the portrayal of female characters. As the voices criticizing Doctor Who and its female representation get louder, the creators behind the series seem to listen. This can be seen in the significant changes in the companions’ characters and storylines from 2010 onwards. Especially Amy Pond (Eleventh Doctor) and Clara Oswald (Eleventh and Twelfth Doctor) are pioneering characters, precisely because they form such as large contrast with the more classical companions.

The Role of the Companion 2005-2010

The Doctor’s companions of the revived series have undergone some drastic changes compared the Classic Who. Instead of just being there to look pretty, the companions are now capable of heroic deeds of their own and saved the Doctor as often as he saved them. All of the companions of the Ninth and Tenth Doctor have “a compelling depth of character” and are “[transformed] … from plot-motors into genuine foils for the Doctor” (McLaughlin 121-2). However, one of the biggest problems with the companions during these years is that they are all “tough women, each in their own way, but ultimately the show contains, even erases, their challenge to the Doctor’s masculine authority” (124). Travelling with the Doctor for each of his companions ultimately minimizes their agency and takes away their empowerment, which can be seen in how each of their journeys ended.

Rose Tyler (Companion, Ninth Doctor) eventually left the TARDIS, not because she made this decision herself, but because she got exiled to a parallel universe—twice. The second companion for the Tenth Doctor, Martha Jones, starts off promising: she is an intelligent young woman who studies to become a medical doctor9_{. However, she becomes}

infatuated with the Doctor, who is still heartbroken over Rose. In fear of “subsuming her personality in light of the Doctor’s vast experience and intellect and living a life of unrequited love,” she eventually leaves the TARDIS (Porter 255). Noah McLaughlin notes how her “greatest achievement may ironically be her absence from the TARDIS” (124). So even though it was Martha’s personal choice to leave, it is still telling that, while Martha saved the planet multiple times, her character could only come into its own by leaving the

(19)

Doctor’s side. In “Journey’s End”, Donna (Tenth Doctor) becomes half Time Lord half human, but her physiology was not able to handle a Time Lord consciousness and the Doctor had to erase her memory. This is problematic when you recall that in the same episode Rose ends up in her parallel universe with a human version of the Doctor. As Charlie Coile argues, the two clones are exactly the same apart from their gender “yet one keeps his memories and one cannot” (86). It is rather disheartening that the female gender is somehow considered the weaker of the two.

Although Russell T. Davies certainly introduced characters that had more depth and were able to enjoy more action than classic companions, the series has consistently taken away any agency these female characters might have. It is clear that at this point, Doctor Who is still very far from having a woman drive the TARDIS. When we move into the ‘Moffat Era’ of Doctor Who in 2010, this becomes more likely. Since so much changes at once—a new TARDIS, Doctor, and companion—it is almost as if the series starts anew for the third time. Fans often see this moment as a brand new chapter in the Doctor Who universe. Especially seeing as how the role of the companion changes quite drastically in the years following this moment, I am inclined to agree with this division. Therefore, I will continue by looking more closely at the characterizations of the companions Amy Pond (Eleventh Doctor) and Clara Oswald (Eleventh and Twelfth Doctor) and discuss some of the most important signs of progress that are visible in their characters.

The Role of the Companion 2010-2015

While Russell T. Davies introduced companions “who have distinctive personalities [and] may provide a bit of controversy, … [they] ultimately go along with the Doctor’s plans without much fuss”, the companions for the Eleventh and Twelfth Doctor, do not always blindly follow the Doctor and they are more than capable of surviving on their own (Porter 256).

Amy is, as described by Lynn Porter, “the feistiest companion since the 2005 reboot … [whose] independence, forthrightness (i.e. bluntness) and determination to have her own way attracted some viewers, but repelled those used to more ‘acceptable’ female companions” (Porter 253-4). She is also a controversial character because, while some might see her independence as proof why she is she the most feminist character the series has ever

(20)

seen, others see her as “being packaged by costume and camera angle as sex object” (265). This is also why many complained when Amy first appeared on their screens wearing a tight short skirt, while revealing to the Doctor that she works as a kissogram.

The series received a backlash of feminist critique, which surprised the actress of Amy, Karen Gillan. She explains that she does not understand the controversy; Amy’s dress is based on what young women of her age wear and her clothes are what she would wear herself. Amy is aware of the power of her own sexuality, and seems to be the type of woman who “[embodies] the twenty-first-century New Girl Order in which feminism is no longer in tension with femininity” (Amy-Chinn 70). Portraying a character that is assertive and confident about her sexuality is quite different than the over-sexualisation that we saw in Classic Who, where the way the companion dressed and looked was her only redeeming quality.

The dynamics between the Doctor and his companion are different from the moment he meets Amy, as she is much more independent than former companions and “will not just constantly stand around in awe of the Doctor” (Dickson, “Karen Gillan’s 2010 Interview”). This continues with the next companion: like Amy, Clara is not merely ‘the Doctor’s assistant,’ and when someone wrongly identifies her as such they quickly correct him or her:

Kate: Clara Oswald, your assistant? The Doctor: My Friend.

Cyberman/Danny: You’re his associate. Clara: I’m not. I’m his best friend.10

What highlights their independence even more is the fact that Amy and Clara do not have to be around the Doctor all the time: Amy eventually decides to settle down on earth and travel with the doctor part-time and when Clara acquires a teaching position at the Coal Hill School in London11_{and develops a relationship with her colleague Danny Pink, she decides to only}

travel with the Doctor on Wednesdays. Both Amy and Clara are able to “find a way to keep

10

“Death in Heaven”.

11

The Coal Hill School is a nod to the Classic series, as this was also the school to which the Doctor’s first companion and granddaughter Susan was enrolled, and it has appeared in several episodes from 1963 to 1989.

(21)

the adventure going and … fit all aspects of … [their] personality into one cohesive whole” (263).

Not Just a Strong Female Character

“I’m the Doctor. Doctor Oswald. But you can call me Clara.” — Clara Oswald12

Instead of mainly being there to get rescued and ask the questions, the Doctor’s companion is now able to develop into a character of her own and has a wide array of good qualities, as well as plenty of flaws. It is important to also show the character’s weaknesses, as defining a female character as ‘strong’ is simply not cutting it. Sophia McDougall complains about the phrase ‘strong female character’, because it shows an unfair characterization of men being strong by default, while for women it appears to be regarded as an exceptional trait. She writes, “Sherlock Holmes gets to be brilliant, solitary, abrasive, Bohemian, whimsical, brave, sad, manipulative, neurotic, vain, untidy, fastidious, artistic, courteous, rude, a polymath genius. Female characters get to be Strong” (NewStatesman, “I Hate Strong Female Characters”). While several decades ago defining a female character as strong might have been refreshing and constructive, since the majority of them were portrayed as the exact opposite (weak and deemed unimportant), now this description alone does not suffice.

Amy shows a few characteristics; she is childish, impulsive, and reckless, while also being passive and showing aggressive behaviour, which are not particularly character traits that are normally associated with women on television. This makes her characterization a step away from the stereotype of the overly emotional female. Clara also shows some characteristics that we have never seen in a female companion before, as she is extremely confident about her own personality—she knows that she is clever and capable of much, just like the Doctor. She probably resembles the Doctor in her personality more than any other companion. Steven Moffat even said, “if the Doctor were a young woman living in contemporary Britain, it’d be a bit like her” (Anderson, “Seven Moffat on Clara”). When Amy was able to drive the plot on her own, Clara is able to do so while taking on the role of the Doctor.

(22)

Another important character trait that shows Clara’s desire for having the control can be seen in the fact that she does not allow anyone to cross her boundaries. Even at the start, when the Doctor invites her to come and travel with him, she only agrees on her own terms. She tells him that she is only coming along as herself and not as “a bargain basement stand-in for someone else,” as she is “not gostand-ing to compete with a ghost”13_{; something that Martha}

only realized when it was too late. She is also not afraid to stand up to the Doctor when she feels he has wronged her, instead of quietly nodding along even when she does not agree with him:

Clara: Don’t you ever tell me to mind my language, don’t you ever tell me to take the stabilizers off my bike, and don’t you dare lump me in with the rest of all the little humans that you think are so tiny and silly and predictable! You walk our Earth, Doctor, you breathe our air, you make us your friends, and that is your moon too – and you can damn well help us when we need it!14

Clara made it clear that she does not allow anyone else making decisions for her but herself; directly telling the Doctor that he is patronizing her instead of treating her as an equal.

As we have seen, Doctor Who has progressively taken on a more equal representation of men and women. The companions for both the Eleventh and Twelfth Doctor get to be much more than ‘strong’ characters; they get to be emotional, manipulative, both insecure and courageous, and they challenge the Doctor more than ever. New Who, has increasingly been trying to break down the idea that men are strong by default and that you define a woman by just one word. Especially the last two companions have made a few big leaps as they started to move away from the limited role of the companion and instead live as if they are the protagonists of the story. Instead of being in constant awe of this extraordinary Time Lord, they get to be the Doctor sometimes.

Many years after the first episode aired, people are now able to recognize and speak up about the fact that the women on Classic Who were objectified, but since New Who is set in such a different media landscape, with Internet making immediate discussion with people from around the entire world possible, people are able to be much more vocal about their

13

“Rings of Akhaten”.

(23)

opinions. While the early years of the programme receives much of its criticism due to the fact that women were primarily there to be gazed upon as sexual objects, feminist critique of the last decade focuses primarily on the role that the female companion fulfils in the series, and the amount of agency that is associated with it. Women are now demanding equality in terms of character representations, which means that female characters should receive as much screen time, agency, and compelling storylines as male characters do. The programme is not just merely an object of its time; interaction between producers and audience makes it possible for Doctor Who to incorporate many different voices and opinions and respond to the past as well as the future, as Bakthin’s theory of dialogism explains that “everything is said in response to other statements and in anticipation to future statements” (Robinson, “In Theory Bakhtin”). In terms of gender representation, the female companion has undergone significant transformation when considering the changes between Classic Who and New Who, but especially the current era shows that Doctor Who is still an ongoing process, in constant dialogue with its social environment.

(24)

Chapter 2 Non-Heteronormative Masculinity and Gender Fluidity

Strax (speaking to Clara): Silence, boy!

The Doctor: That’s Strax, and as you can see he is easily confused. Strax: Silence, girl! Sorry, lad.

The Doctor: Sontaran, clone warrior race, factory produced, whole legions at a time. Two genders is a bit further than he can count.15

Strax is an alien creature that belongs to the Sontaran race, which, as the Doctor explains, is factory produced. As Strax does not seem to grasp the gender system constructed by the humans, it is implied that Sontarans are born neither male nor female. Thus, assuming Strax was born neutral, and therefore does not have “a translatable gender himself, he is unsure how to react around species in this way” (h2g2, “Doctor Who Enemies: Sontarans”). There are some people who understood the Doctor’s remark “two genders is a bit further than he can count” as if Doctor Who is advocating the idea that only two genders exist. However, I think that this is missing the point—Strax is having a difficult time understanding the concept of gender as a whole because his species does not operate on such a system. He has probably understood at one point that he is supposed to belong the male gender, and because all of his kind belonged to the same non-gender, he continuously applies the idea that everyone’s gender is equal to all other species. His inability to recognize gender correctly could indicate a rather progressive interpretation of gender as a social construct in modern society. In this regard, Strax’s inherent idea of gender being neutral ties in nicely with the concept of gender fluidity that I will discuss later in this chapter.

However, while for Strax Earth’s gender categories are reason for confusion, as he keeps confusing both Jenny and Clara for boys, this is primarily included for humorous purposes. In earlier episodes from both Classic Who and early New Who, the Sontarans have not been depicted as such an understanding species, but instead they have been known for appropriating misogynistic and sexist viewpoints in the past. When such comments are

(25)

done with less of a humorous twist, the Sontaran’s misogynism is suddenly blatantly obvious:

Linx: Girl? You have two species on this planet? …

Irongron: Oh, hell's teeth, have you no girls beyond the stars? No women to do the lowly work?

Linx: Ah, I understand. You have a primary and secondary reproductive cycle. It is an inefficient system, you should change it.16

Furthermore, the fact that the all ‘male’ Sontaran race is made up out of warriors who refuse to show weakness, seems to embody some of the stereotypical masculine gender roles, such as the idea that men are assumed to be aggressive, non-emotional, and only occupy specific work fields that are fitting for men (soldiers). As Judith Halberstam has pointed out in her book Female Masculinity: “although we seem to have a difficult time defining masculinity, as a society we have little trouble in recognizing this” (“Female Masculinity” 1). She explains that ‘heroic masculinities,’ such as we have seen in the Sontarans, “depend absolutely on the subordination of alternative masculinities,” which is why it is important to “recognize alternative masculinities when and where they emerge” (1,2). The characterization of the Doctor seems to be one of those alternative masculinities that does not always follow heteronormative gender expression.

As Emily Gray writes in an article explaining the concept of heteronormative gender roles, “heteronormativity is a term used by social theorists in order to discuss the way in which gender and sexuality are separated into hierarchically organised categories,” which means that as men are assumed to be superior to women, heterosexuals are assumed to be superior to homosexuals (or queer people in general) (Gender and Education Association, “What is Heteronormativity?”). She further argues that bisexual and transgender people are especially interesting to social theorists because they are “able to exist between gender and sexual categories of identity … [which] provides a counter argument” to assumed heteronormative ideas. The following chapter will therefore look at how Doctor Who has been promoting non-traditional ideas of masculinity while also discussing how the programme

(26)

has taken a turn into challenging our understanding that gender and sexuality are fixed. It will do so by taking a closer look at the debate about the Master’s sex change and the possibility for a female Doctor at the end of this chapter, and by discussing queer identity in Doctor Who in the subsequent chapter.

“Who Da Man?” Or, Masculinity in Doctor Who

Blogger Nathan Comstock, who is the editor for the television section of the website An Analytical Couch Potato, expressed his interest in the subject of patriarchy, and traditional masculinity that gets associated with it, in his post on “The Doctor and New Masculinity”. In this blog post he explains that, “when we talk about the patriarchy, we’re talking about the social and political system that defines roles for both genders,” that this system tells us that women should be submissive and men should be dominant, and how it is “okay [for women] to have feelings, but … [for men] the only acceptable emotion is rage”. This idea that men should be dominant and unable to show emotions is something that we do not see in the type of hero figure that we come across in Doctor Who. While The Doctor can easily be seen as a hero to many, he is nothing like the type of hero we see in a violent and womanizing James Bond or a muscular Super Man. Instead, his performance reminds us more of a goodhearted, goofy old man (a ‘mad man in a box’) who has a peculiar style of dress, is not afraid to show his emotions, and tackles problems with non-violence.

“I’m Saving the World, I Need a Decent Shirt”

The Doctor has never been the “embodiment of an traditional idealized masculine body” (Wiatrowski 140), nor does he particularly dress the way you might expect a typical action hero would dress himself. As Myc Wiatrowski writes in “Doctor Who?: Questioning the Traditional Masculine Hero,” the Doctor’s attire “complicates traditional notes of masculinity” (ibid.). The clothes that The Doctor wears have always been a defining characteristic—he rarely changes out of them (he only does so occasionally, for example when he has to attend a black-tie event) and each Doctor has his own style of dress that people can recognize him by. The first Doctor, played by William Hartnell, wore a simple black frock coat with a waistcoat and a shirt over a pair of loose fitting trousers. Some of the Doctors that came after him chose a more daring option: The Fourth Doctor wore an

(27)

extravagantly long scarf, the Seventh Doctor whore a vest covered in question marks, and the Fifth Doctor became known for wearing a piece of celery on his coat.

From left to right: Sylvester McCoy (Seventh Doctor), Tom Baker (Fourth Doctor), and Peter Davison (Fifth Doctor)

The Ninth Doctor is a marked exception to the Doctor’s tendency to choose a style of clothing that is very dandy-like and eccentric, since he is always seen wearing a simple black shirt, jeans, boots, and a black leather jacket. As Christopher Eccleston is meant to play a Doctor who is still traumatized and hardened by The Last Great Time War, his attire is in line with the kind of character that he is supposed to convey—a man who was confident and in control, barely showing any emotions. However, it turned out that this hardened personality was all a façade. It did not take long before his deceptive appearance gets dismantled and we are able to see the emotional baggage that he carries with him. As Claire Jenkins points out, the “very nature of a regenerating hero speaks to masculinity as fluid and in by portraying such different types of masculinities,” and Doctor Who seems consciously aware that masculinity is in flux (378, 386). The Ninth Doctor’s character “indicated a tougher yet more emotional man,” while the Eleventh Doctor “comes to represent another faced of masculinity as the trendy young hipster” (383). Besides the Doctor’s distinct clothing choices, his character challenges traditional forms of masculinity through his non-violent approach to problem solving, his ability to empathize with any living creature, and his comfort with being the side kick to his female companion.

(28)

Challenging Traditional Gender Roles

Whenever the Doctor meets a new alien species, his initial response is never to be afraid or act hostile towards them. Instead, he always seems fascinated and delighted by meeting all these different types of alien creatures. The Tenth Doctor is known for making remarks such as “you are brilliant!”17_{or “you are amazing!”}18_{and even when he encounters a deadly}

werewolf, his first reaction is “you are beautiful”19 . This fascination is characteristic to the New Who Doctor, as former Classic Who companion Carole Ann Ford (Susan, First Doctor) noted that this was not an angle the series used to take: “Sometimes I see Matt Smith’s Doctor look at these disgusting alien creatures in front of him and say something like, ‘Oh, you are beautiful’. It would have been so nice to say that occasionally, instead of running away shouting, ‘Aagh!’” (Morton, “It Destroyed My Acting Career”). Not only is the Doctor able to see the beauty in all, his ability to empathize is what makes him stand out: “he sees each creature as a unique creation with as much right to exist as any other” (Comstock, “The Doctor and the New Masculinity”). He approaches even his enemies with kindness, because he is often able to understand their pain and loneliness—due to his emphatic nature the Doctor is always willing to give the bad guy an opportunity to choose the right path.

Furthermore, The Doctor has always approached his enemies believing that any problems that might surface can be solved without violence. Instead of a gun, or any other object that can function as a weapon, he carries around a sonic screwdriver. His trusty screwdriver is able to get him out of a lot of difficult situations, but it will not do any physical harm (nor is it of any use against wood). People often ridicule him for his choice of ‘weaponry’, telling him “you’ve got a screwdriver! Go build a cabinet”20 or “who looks at a screwdriver and thinks ‘Ooh, this could be a little more sonic’?”21_{. However, it is telling for}

the Doctor’s character that he rather chooses to use a tool to solve his problem than an object that can harm or even kill another being.

The Doctor’s ability to empathize “allows him to solve problems non-violently, but even when he is forced to use violence it’s clear he does not relish it,” which can be read as an example of a “non-patriarchal masculinity [:] A male hero who overcomes his enemies by

17

“The Poison Sky”.

18

“The Impossible Planet”.

19

“Tooth and Claw”.

20

“The Day of the Moon”.

(29)

employing emotions other than rage” (Comstock, “The Doctor and the New Masculinity”). When he stands for the decision to defeat his biggest enemy, the Daleks, once and for all, he risks not only taking down his greatest enemy, but also millions of innocents. When the Dalek Emporer asks him “What are you? Coward or killer?” the Doctor replies with: “Coward. Any day”22_{. The Doctor wants to live his life by setting a positive example for}

others to follow instead of only doing more harm, which is certainly a sign of heroism. However, this is not the type of heroism that is formed by traditional ideas of hegemonic masculinity, but one that relies on the hero’s wit and vulnerability.

Finally, while the Doctor is often the hero who takes the leading role in stories, this does not mean that he is written as a man who deems himself superior to women, or anyone else that does not belong to his species for that matter. This shows that “sexism and misogyny are not necessarily part and parcel of masculinity, even though historically it has become difficult, if not impossible, to untangle masculinity from the oppression of women” (Halberstam, “Female Masculinity” 4). As a Time Lord who fights alien and non-alien characters that oppress (minority) groups and want to inflict their way of thinking of others (or, in the case of villains such as the Cybermen, make them exactly like them), The Doctor is not the one to impose the same kind of behaviour on others. Instead, as Matt Smith’s performance of the Eleventh Doctor especially shows, the Doctor develops a relationship with his companion that tries to put himself on equal terms with them as much as possible.

As the role of the companion changes over time into a full-fledged character that is able to carry the story on her own, it also becomes clear that the Doctor feels comfortable with the companion leading the way. This can be seen in the fact that Eleven’s companions Amy and Clara are often the ones to save him, instead of the other way around, which does not makes him feel ashamed or damage his ‘image’. Rather, the Doctor both realizes and acknowledges their strength and becomes aware that they work best as a team. In the end, the Doctor might be the hero of the story, but instead of him being a typically masculine type of hero he is more of a cerebral hero who does not approve to putting a man above a woman. The combination of heroism and vulnerability becomes representative of the male characters of Doctor Who, which moves away from the typical representations of traditional hegemonic masculinity that we so often see on television.

(30)

“I’m a Girl!”: Gender Fluidity in Doctor Who

As we have seen, current executive producer Steven Moffat is the one that gets a lot of negative attention in regard to his representation of women, which is partly due to statements he has made during interviews or on social media, which made people brand him as ‘sexist’23. However, a different argument could be that, as Philip Sandifer argues, “Moffat has created a Doctor Who that’s feminist enough to get criticized” (“Definitive Moffat and Feminism”). The characters that have been introduced in the last five years have gotten more positive attention from female fans than all that went before. This is seen best in the fact that on conventions cosplay of companions such as Amy Pond (Eleventh Doctor) and River Song24 (Tenth and Eleventh Doctor) skyrocketed from 2009 on. Even more striking is how many genderswapped cosplays there have been in recent years, from both New Who and Classic Who Doctors and companions (ibid.).

The majority of the characters seem to speak to women more than ever, regardless if these characters are female or not. Cosplay, especially genderswapping cosplay, can be an example a deconstructive gender practice; queer theory in action. The increase of these activities likely have to do with the fact that under the pen of Moffat, Doctor Who has introduced characters that display an open attitude towards gender fluidity. Furthermore, the very idea of the Doctor’s ability to change his body opens up new possibilities. As Halberstam argued in “Transgender Look,” “the potentiality of the body to morph, shift, change, and become fluid is a powerful fantasy in transmodern cinema” (Halberstam 76). If the Doctor can change his anatomy, it might even be possible that he will one day regenerate into a woman, which implies an understanding of gender as ambiguous and fluid.

Avoiding Stereotypes

23

If you would like to read more about the statements that Steven Moffat has made and how they could be interpreted, Philip Sandifer devoted a blog posts to this in which he argues that Moffat is, contrary to popular belief, a feminist: http://www.philipsandifer.com/2014/09/steven-moffat-is-feminist-and-you-are.html.

24

River Song is seen by many as a companion of the Doctor (or, his wife) but since she is not officially a companion she is not included in the analysis of the female companions.

(31)

As we will see in the chapter that will concentrate on queer identity, one of the most important factors of queer representation, or perhaps representation of any minority group on television, is that stereotypical writing of such the characters should be avoided. When Doctor Who included its first transgender character in the first season, it appeared to have failed to do so. The episode “The End of the World”, which takes place in the year five billion, introduces the character of Cassandra O'Brien.Δ17 (or, Lady Cassandra). Cassandra had gone through so many surgeries that by the time we meet her all that is left is a slab of skin with eyes and a mouth connected to a brain. It is also revealed that she once lived as a boy. Michelle Kerry explains in her article “Little Boxes Will Make You Angry” that Cassandra’s obsession with surgery is an offensive stereotype for transgender people: “male to female trans people are generally stereotyped as obsessed with surgeries, with low, raspy voices and somehow ‘othered’ from the rest of humanity”. Moreover, this obsession is directly linked to her villainous behaviour, which problematizes her characterization as a transgender woman.

Lady Cassandra in “The End of the World”

When Cassandra returns in the episode “New Earth”, the writers seem to have forgotten that they once established her character as having undergone surgery to become a female. In this episode her mind moves back and forth into both Rose’s and the Doctor’s body and when she inhabits the Doctor’s body, she seems oddly pleased by this

(32)

transformation: “Goodness me, I'm a man! So many parts. And hardly used.”25. When this is obviously included for comedic purposes, it seems unlikely for a transgender woman to be so thrilled to be back into a male body after undergone multiple surgeries to become female. Cassandra finally accepts her mortality when her force-grown clone Chip willingly lets her take over his body. Though his sex is never explicitly stated, Chip appears to be male and is played by a male actor, which further seems to suggest that the writers ignored the fact that Cassandra, although born with a typical male anatomy, identified as female. In other words, a seemingly progressive character was quickly turned into a stereotypical representation of female transgender identity and in the end this part of her identity was made completely invisible.

Although former executive producer Russell T. Davies did seem accepting of the idea that the Doctor could be female, he did not make it sound like this was something he thought should actually happen:

I am often tempted to say yes to that to placate everyone but, while I think kids will not have a problem with [a female Doctor], I think fathers will have a problem with it because they will then imagine they will have to describe sex changes to their children. I think fathers can describe sex changes to their children and I think they should and it's part of the world, but I think it would simply introduce genitalia into family viewing. You're not talking about actresses or style, you're talking about genitalia, and a lot of parents would get embarrassed.26

In other words, although making the Doctor female would be inclusive to a much larger part of society, and thus Doctor Who’s viewership, Davies did not think the BBC should hire an actress to play the part because it might make fathers uncomfortable. This completely dismisses the idea that exposing children to such progressive and inclusive ideas on gender identity could be beneficial and, as Michelle Kerry points out in her article on trans-representation in Doctor Who, it paints a completely wrong and stereotypical picture of transgender people. Being transgender herself, she writes how this statement is problematic “because it is based on the old stereotype that being transgender is all about the sex change … [which] is not true, plenty of transgender individuals are content to stop at Hormone Replacement Therapy

25

“New Earth”.

(33)

(HRT), mainly because this is actually the largest part of the treatment” (“Little Boxes Will Make You Angry”). Current showrunner Steven Moffat, however, has devoted some effort into raising awareness for a more fluid understanding of gender by writing into the Doctor’s history that regenerating into a woman is a serious possibility.

“Hey Missy You're So Fine, You're So Fine You Blow My Mind” From The Master to The Mistress

Starting with the Eleventh Doctor, there have been a few references towards the possibility of Time Lords to change their gender27. The most evident example, however, is from the Ninth season, in which we see the Master return in the form of the Mistress. The Master is, like the Doctor, a Time Lord from Gallifey. They have always had a special—though, admittedly, unhealthy—friendship, which developed into a love-hate relationship over the years. They used to be childhood friends back at home, but when the Master’s grew up he became rather obsessed with destroying the Doctor and planet Earth. Like the Doctor, the Master has always been known as a man and each of his generations up until the one “Dark Water” in series nine of New Who have been into a male body. It is in this episode that it is first revealed that the Master and the Mistress are the same person:

The Doctor: Who are you?

Missy: Oh, you know who I am. I’m Missy. The Doctor: Who’s Missy?

Missy: Please, try to keep up. Short for Mistress. Well…I couldn’t very well keep calling

myself the Master, now could I?28

Especially compared to how they handled the character of Lady Cassandra, Doctor Who has done surprisingly well in their characterization of Missy. As Anna Wiggins argues in a blog post on her personal history of Doctor Who and coming out as transgender, “the parallels to transgender experiences were handled with more grace than most media that is

27

When the Doctor was reminiscing about Corsair, a Time Lord he used to know and said: “Fantastic bloke. He had that snake as a tattoo in every regeneration. Didn't feel like himself unless he had that tattoo. Or herself a couple of times. Oo hoo! She was a bad girl!”

“He’s Gay and She’s an Alien”: Queer Identity and Gender in Doctor Who

2015