User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-44988386-20200416234118/@comment-25117610-20200417224137
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
All due respect to User:Tangerineduel and User:CzechOut, but there's a few points I quite disagree, and I'll think it's fair to say that other will do the same. Namely:
- "Beyond the 20th and before the 20th it's never really made an issue of, DW universe wise."
- Well, The Eaters of Light was of course not out back when the discussion happened, but there we have a scene of Bill Potts discussing sexuality with a 2nd century Roman soldier, who is by any means anything but heterosexual. Even if he did not use the language for "bisexual" or "pansexual", he is still very much not "heteresexual".
- Even if we were to assume that it is only "made an issue of" during the 20th and 21st centuries - then what? I'm pretty sure that are several topics that were only "made an issue of" during certain periods of time and we still cover and have categories for. In fact, by their own post, it was at one point "made an issue of", which should be more than enough for us to cover it.
- "If the concept of LGBT existed in the DW universe we'd have a page for it, and we don't, cause it's really not something that's given a lot of thought as a defined concept."
- Well, this has since been proven false, largely. We now have pages (or coverage on other pages) for gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, queer, queer representation in Doctor Who, and even publications on the matter: Queers Dig Time Lords.
- "No letter in "LGBT" actually describes Jack Harkness or Jason Kane."
- Which, even if true, they'd still fall under the proposed [[Category:Non-heterosexual individuals]]
- "They're just very sexually active."
- That's... not even remotely what being LGBT is about, so it really should have no weight on whether categories are created or deleted
- "The other thing that worries me a lot about the LGBT category is its potential misapplication. If we put it on the page of someone who isn't actually LGBT, that's libellous."
- Which only means we must, as we do for every piece of information on this wiki, require sources for statements on articles.
