The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: LGBTQ Inclusion in Doctor Who – The Good

I may look at Torchwood later, but for now, we’re strictly talking about the mother ship.  When it comes to Who, there’s a lot of inclusion to talk about, which is a good thing in and of itself.  But of course, an important step in representation for a marginalized group is when there’s enough inclusion that simply existing no longer cuts it, and people start talking about quality.  I’m hoping that, as I write the next few Sunday Who Reviews, the good outweighs the other two.

First, we do have the simple fact that there’s a fair amount of representation to discuss.  It’s true that our only major queer characters, Jack, Vastra, and Jenny, are recurring, and I don’t see that changing – I can’t see them indisputably writing the Doctor as anything other than vaguely ace-ish and varying levels of heteroromantic, and with the show’s need for the main companion to be a sort of Everywoman to all viewers, it tends to avoid character wrinkles that make her stand out.  However, all three of those recurring characters have gotten some good play over the seasons, and there has been a fair amount of sexual diversity among one-shot characters.  The RTD era in particular has a nice practice of casual inclusion.

And for me, that’s one of the best things about Who’s LGBTQ track record.  Jack is a pretty revolutionary character and I adore him, and I love that Vastra and Jenny exist, but some battles are fought on smaller ground, and Who has excelled here.  I really like the Cassinis, the pair of little old married ladies from “Gridlock,” and William Shakespeare flirting with both Martha and the Doctor; I also enjoy Canton, the ex-FBI agent from the Silence two-part at the start of series 6.  Sometimes it’s just a nod or a throwaway line or two men dancing in the background at Donna’s wedding reception – tiny references that don’t have to be a Big Deal, because it’s just life.  It’s a big universe with plenty of room in it for queer people, and the show recognizes that they (mostly on the LGB front, let’s be honest) can be incorporated into the fabric of a story without it being some sort of crusade.

Not that all minor references to orientation are offhand.  Particularly during episodes set in the past, the show has addressed social discrimination and hardships faced by queer people.  Mentions of Roger’s secret relationship with Davenport the footman in “The Unicorn and the Wasp” are initially light and winking, but when confronted with the struggles of the closet, Donna comments, “1926 – it’s more like the Dark Ages.”  Additionally, though Tommy from “The Idiot’s Lantern” is never explicitly identified as gay, I find a strong ring of homophobia and gendered expectations in his fraught relationship with his old-guard father.  The talk about Tommy being a mama’s boy feels coded to me, and the discussion of “beating it out of him” is especially chilling.

Trans representation is admittedly thinner on the ground – the only clear character references are in “The End of the World,” when Cassandra mentions having been a little boy, and Susan the horse in “A Town Called Mercy.”  That said, there are a few instances where, in the future, it’s evident that people account for genders outside the traditional binary.  It’s usually when a crowd is being addressed, as in, “ladies, gentlemen, multisex, undecided, or robot” (“The Long Game”) or “ladies and gentlemen and variations thereupon (“Midnight.”)  I like that – having actual trans characters would obviously be better, but I like the acknowledgement that times change and society’s definition of “normal” thankfully changes with it.