User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1451563-20180913002703/@comment-6032121-20181127102012

Amorkuz wrote: The "dominant/natural gender" theory always lacked in-universe background whereas there were several occurrences of various Doctors stating that gender is not a fixed concept for Time Lords (cf. the upthread quote from Series 10). The only argument put forward against them was that they might have been a joke or did not reflect on all Time Lords.

Again you overlook my interpretation that I've much argued upthread, that the Time Lords may not have a dominant gender, but that doesn't mean (unless one particular incarnation is non-binary) that they should be referred to as "they" when talking about them in general, because they have been a "he" or a "she", but would not ever, that we know of, identify as a "they". As I've said time and time again this is a separate argument.

And I don't think it's been proven that the Series 10 wasn't a joke. That doesn't mean much in the grander scheme of things, since the definitely-non-jokey quote from the comic is just as decisive, but I won't have the perfectly-true statemnt "the Series 10 quote is a joke" painted as just a straw-grasping argument.

Amorkuz wrote:

• Regarding prior references to the Doctor. After suggesting to wait for Series 11 and watching the episodes, one after another, I was being disappointed that nothing came up. But then I realised I was being overoptimistic.

Eh, I'm holding out a little hope. If "the Timeless Child" is something to do with the Doctor's distant past, as most speculation has it, we might get some juicy statements about the Doctor across-regenerations before the series' close. The chances may be slim but they exist.

Beyond these three points, thank you for the in-depth post and novel-checking!