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

Fortunately, there aren’t many queer-related moments in Who that are distasteful to me.  Also, each one is small, sometimes a single misfire in an otherwise delightful character.  However, they all annoy/disappointment/aggravate me, so I’ll give each my two cents of frustration.

At the top of the list are the Thin One and the Fat One from “A Good Man Goes to War.”  Having introduced themselves as such to Lorna, she asks about these gents’ names, and the Fat One replies, “We’re the Thin Fat Gay Married Anglican Marines.  Why would we need names as well?”  First of all, why wouldn’t you?  Presumably, you both got through a significant chunk life prior to being married or a marine, and there may possibly be more to you than a simplistic collection of labels.  It’s an unpleasant instance of othering, and it also reduces the couple to a throwaway joke.  What makes it even worse is that this is the 51^st century, the time of Captain Jack Harkness.  Sexual orientation is a non-issue and same-sex relationships wouldn’t stand out as unusual.  (And even if this wasn’t Who’s extremely sex-positive 51^st century, it’s still 3,000 years in the future – are we to believe that anyone is still going to be saying “gay married” then?)

Similarly, while I’ve said how much I like the Cassinis in “Gridlock,” I really dislike the moment where Brannigan jokingly calls them “sisters” and, when they remind him that they’re married, says, “Ooh, none of that modern talk!  I’m an old-fashioned cat.”  The Cassinis are far better-realized than the Thin One and the Fat One and generally treated as such, but this exchange is even worse than the one in “A Good Man Goes to War.”  Not only is it now 5 billion years in the future (our species doesn’t even have enough “past” for me to come up with a comparable “old-fashioned” example,) but Brannigan is a freakin’ feline alien who’s recently fathered kittens with his human wife.  And two women is too much for his delicate sensitivities?  Give me a break.

Next, there’s Oswin in “Asylum of the Daleks.”  Oswin is fun and I like her, but it’s annoying when, after saying that her first crush was named Rory, she course-corrects with, “Actually, she was called Nina.  I was going through a phase.”  First, the conversation makes no sense and feels like it’s only there to serve the going-through-a-phase “joke.”  Seriously, why is this line happening?  As for the line itself, it’s true that some straight folks experiment, and in a vacuum, it wouldn’t be so bad.  However, the media has a history of downplaying honest female/female attraction, and “going through a phase” has long been used to dismiss queer sexuality.  Plus, Who already had Vastra ogling the Doctor in in her inability to differentiate humanoid genders (glad that became a Strax-only trait) and the Doctor kissing Jenny on the mouth in a moment of relief/happiness.  Throw in “bisexual” Jane on Coupling and the muddle with Irene on Sherlock, and Moffat’s track record with female queerness leaves a lot to be desired.

Lastly, Susan the horse.  I’m sad to bring it up, because Susan the horse delights me, but this is The Ugly after all.  I love that the preacher’s horse is trans, but the Doctor’s continued use of male pronouns rankles.  I guess that saying “she” might have obscured the point, making the preacher simply look ignorant of his horse’s biological sex, but pronouns are so important in the trans community that it’s a poor trade.  And then, the Doctor caps with it, “He wants you to respect his life choices.”  “Life choices,” really?  That feels uncomfortably close to calling orientation/gender identity something that people “choose” – no thanks.  As with the Oswin line, the phrasing is problematically cliché, marring any good intentions the scene might have had.