#Rjalker watches Doctor Who

[rjalker]

You misgender the Meep? 🥺 [a pleading emoji with large baby-doll eyes]. Meep meep?

[rjalker]

Edit: Actually got to look at the credit this time! The actor is Tommaso Di Vincenzo!!

Original post:

PSA: that's probably an actual contortionist doing the crab walk, with David Tennant's face (very obviously) CGI'd over top. People can in fact actually move like that, and more. A lot of "impossibly moving" horror monsters are in fact played by real people who are actually moving that way. It's an actual profession and something you have to train for years to do.

Just like, for the record. Please appreciate that stuntworker's skill.

[rjalker]

yeah, Doctor Who has a canon trans character now, cool, great, but are we gonna talk about how blatantly transmisic the "male-presenting" statement is, or are we just pretend that biological and gender essentialism is fun and cool now?

Explain to me how the Doctor as played by David Tennant is "male-presenting" without being transmisic. Go ahead and try. I'll give you a hint: you literally can't. It's literally just transmisia and biological essentialism.

And this is why the terms "female presenting" and "male presenting" have been shit since their fucking inception as labels for you to apply to other people. It's literally just misgendering people masquerading as being progressive.

Once a-fucking-gain. Just because a man is playing the Doctor does not mean the Doctor is automatically a man, any more than a woman playing the Doctor makes the Doctor automatically a woman. That's not how gender works. That's literally biological essentialism and transmsia. Do we have to have this conversation again?

Or does Doctor Who think the only trans people who exist are ones who "pass" perfectly as the gender they identify with? Do these people think all trans people magically transform into "their real body" the moment they come out as trans? Do they think nonbinary people all use she/her or he/him pronouns and "look right" for those pronouns???

So did Russel T. Davies just, decide not to hire a sensitivity writer, or what? It's 2023, there's a fucking canon trans nonbinary character in the episode. How is this much transmisia still allowed to get to the final cut???

[rjalker]

Really irritating seeing so many people waxing poetic about how RTD just needed to bring back David Tennant / the Tenth Doctor to properly give Ncuti Gatwa a fresh start, and it would have just not worked somehow without bringing back David Tennant!!!!

as though every regeneration isn't a fucking soft reboot. As though people haven't been getting introduced to this show by whatever random episode is on TV when they turn it on. As though just letting the first Black man to play the Doctor literally just be the Doctor is an impossible task that wouldn't work and is absurd to think about -.-

It's not a fucking coincidance that the first regeneration to be hijacked by a previous incarnation is the one that's interrupting the regeneration into a Black actor. And none of the ~poetic~ excuses you people are pulling out of your asses to explain it away is gonna make it not racist.

Jodie Whittaker should have regenerated directly into Ncuti Gatwa. Bringing back David Tennant to interrupt the cycle while Russel T Davies writes MORE antiblackness into the show is just plan old racism. And wanting to pretend it's not doesn't make the racism magically go away.

"if you want Doctor Who to have consistent rules and plots that make sense, you're not really a fan (and therefore your opinions and criticisms, even of bigotry, are worthless)!!!"

And you're saying this to the people pointing out how racist this regeneration-hijacking is? That's called being racist!

Like, the whole fucking reason Doctor Who has lasted this long is because it's constantly changing and evolving! Every Doctor has to leave at some point! It's a tragedy and it's hope at the same damn time! Why does everyone want to pretend this is just impossible to continue right when it's a fucking Black man taking the role? I promise if you fucking think about it for two seconds without the David Tennant worshipping glasses you'll figure it the fuck out.

[rjalker]

Anyways, it's 3AM now, and I'm going to bed, but before I do, I want to say one last thing.

Sincerely, genuinely, from the bottom of my heart, fuck Russel T. Davies for introducing millions of cis people to "x-presenting" terminology, and in the most fucking harmful way possible too. I hate what is going to happen next in cis people's perception of trans people.

Hey cis people reading this? Do not ever, ever refer to anyone as "male presenting" "masculine presenting" "female presenting" "feminine presenting" or any other variation unless that person has explicitly asked you to beforehand. Please. If you care about trans people please erase these terms from your mind right now.

Dear trans peole reading this: The exact same thing goes for you. The Doctor as played by David Tennant is not "male-presenting" until the character fucking decides that on screen outloud. The Doctor as played by Jodie Whittaker is not "female-presenting". These are not terms you get to assign to other people, they are terms you can choose to identify with.

Do not normalize this language. It is literally just exorsexism and transmisia and misgendering pretending to be progressive. Do not legitimize that bigoted line by repeating this language. I will scream for all eternity.

[rjalker]

"you misgender the meep? you misgender the meep like transphobe? oh jail for you, jail for you for thousand years!!"

!

[rjalker]

anyways I sent this complaint to the BBC about the racism in The Giggle

I can't believe I have to spell this out for a professional broadcasting company, but making the first Black Doctor run around without trousers on, in nothing but his pants and a shirt, is not okay. The fact that the moment he exists he's also comforting the white Doctor is also not okay. This show has had a very bad habit of treating Black characters like disposable comic relief who only exist to support the white characters, and never has that been more blatant than with the new Doctor, played by Ncuti Gatwa. I shouldn't have to explain to you that it's a racist stereotype that Black people only exist to serve the needs of white people around them, not just physically, but emotionally. Black people, when not portrayed as violent thugs, are shoved into the role of "shoulder to cry on" and "therapist friend" constantly, most infamously with the "mammy stereotype", which you can open google and look for if you don't already know. The first Black Doctor should not immediately be falling into racist stereotypes by not only being upstaged by the most popular white Doctor to come before him, but literally made to cater to this white man's whims the second he starts existing, comforting and coddling him like a child, and all the while? He has no trousers on and is half naked, and literally stays that way for the entirety of his first episode. If you want this show to NOT be filled with nothing but antiblack stereotypes, you NEED to hire Black sensitivity readers to go over white people's work. This failure to do so in 2023 is making Doctor Who racist again, and it is unacceptable. You will not get any credit for hiring a Black person to play the Doctor if his entire run is filled with white people's favorite modern racist stereotypes. Learn what racist stereotypes look like, listen to Black people, hire Black sensitivity readers, and do better. It's going to be 2024 in just a few weeks. This is a requirement for your show not being racist. 

If you're also upset about the racism being showcased in literally just the first episode of Ncuti Gatwa's run as the Doctor, send in a complaint here and tell them to get their shit together.

[rjalker]

Russel T Davies says no!!!! We can't put David Tennant in Jodie Whittaker's outfit!!! (that was designed to be androgynous and worn by anyone) The press would never let us live it down!!! It would look so bad!!!! The new regeneration will just magically form new clothes out of thin air for no reason that will ever get explained!!!!

Also Russel T Davies: Anyways Ncuti Gatwa is going to be in his literal underwear for literally the entirety of his first episode playing the Doctor. Literally running around without pants on, with just his underwear and a shirt. There's nothing wrong with this picture at all.

[rjalker]

There's so much racist shit in the new Doctor Who episode and we're all just supposed to gloss over it and ignore it and pretend it's not there because hey!! The villain is acting like a flamboyant gay guy and doing a song and dance. So that makes all the racism okay.

[rjalker]

character: *explicitly states pronouns*

Fandom: he/him. He. Him. He/him. HE/HIM!!!! He's a him!!!!!

[rjalker]

Welp, since the OP turned off reblogs on the original post:

My original reblog:

Okay, I know RTD has fucked all of this up by using the words "male-presenting" in this way, but male-presenting is NOT a synonym for "looks like a man" or "wear's men's clothing".

Saying that butches could be considered male-presenting is just. flat out wrong. That is not what these terms mean.

You can IDENTIFY yourself as male-presenting or female-presenting. You cannot assign those terms to anyone else, which is one of the major things RTD did wring with this scene!

No one asked the Doctor how hea identifies, everyone just went "well you're played by David Tennant now so you look like a man so that means you're purposefully presenting yourself to the world as male" and that's not how this works! At all!

Trans women not being out or able to socially transition doesn't mean they're male-presenting.

"male-presenting" is not a synonym for "looks like a man" or "assigned male at birth" or "wears mens clothes".

It is not something you get to assign other people, it is strictly a self-identification term, saying that you are choosing to present yourself as male, or masculine, or whatever descriptor is being used.

And I'm not even going to bother getting into the whole "the Doctor was a woman (because Jodie Whittaker had the role) five minutes ago" because again, that's literally not how gender works. Looking like a woman because a woman is playing the character does not equal "the character is a woman now" when it's just been established in this episode that the Doctor is nonbinary.

You can, and should, point out the biological and gender essentialism in this scene. But you shouldn't be ignoring the fact that the Doctor is being misgendered by being assigned male-presenting by people who have not asked, and are literally just deciding that for themselves because they think the Doctor looks like a man.

Do not use "x-presenting" language for other people --including fictional characters, which as we can all see from the fallout from this scene makes people think they can do this to real people-- unless it's something that person self-identifies as.

Calling anyone "male-presenting" or "masculine-presenting" or "female-presenting" or "feminine-presenting" without them first telling you that's how they identify is literally just misgendering people but pretending to be progressive about it.

Which is the most fucking damaging impact of this scene. And I'm getting really tired of having to explain this over and over again when people have been talking about why these terms are not okay to assign to other people for years now. Russel T Davies just came along and fucked it all up by making people think this kind of misgendering is okay when it's not even remotely.

= = =

@daily-sloop-john-b:

Okay, I'm —ing confused.

@rjalkers-polls can you please send me where you're pulling the "presenting" definition from?

And what's the word(s) for referring to that outside shell to which onlookers ascribe a gender?

No animosity meant at all; you seem to have a very specific idea of it's usage, and I'm curious what community it comes from.

= = =

Me:

this isn't a definition you're going to find in any dictionary, because it's not an "official" thing in any way, it's what many trans and nonbinary people have been talking about over the years.

I can link some posts of people talking about it if that'll help.

in no particular order:

4 days ago

September 2023

June 2019

2 days ago

November 2021

December 2021

And there's a whole lot more on my blog but tumblr doesn't want to let me find them at the moment, mostly because I didn't think to create a tag specifically for it.

Try searching any of the variations on tumblr or google.

Before November 25th 2023 you'll find a mix of people using them as self-descriptors, people talking about how it's misgendering to be called it without permission, and a few people assigning them to other people thinking it's okay.

And now after November 25th 2023 you'll see a massive surge in people throwing these terms around willy-nilly in the most absurd and bigoted ways.

The proper way to describe people without assuming and assigning gender to them is to describe them in factual statements. Are they tall? Short? Fat? Thin? Long hair? Short hair? Big chest? medium chest? Flat chest? Light skin? Dark skin? Round face? Angular face? Eye color, ect.

And if you know someone's gender, you can call them by that. A man, a woman, a nonbinary person, an enby, ect. At no point is it necessary or okay to describe them as "x-presenting", because as I say above, that's taking your internal bias and saying it's something they're doing on purpose.

If someone calls me female-presenting because they think I look like a woman, that's misgendering. I'm not presenting myself as female, I'm literally just existing in a body that happens to have boobs, through no fault or choice of my own.

= = =

@walks-the-ages:

Here's a post I reblogged nine years ago that captures the essence of why using “x-presenting” language is misgendering; you’ll notice that the post makes no mention of x-presenting language, because that only really started popping up in the last…. hmm, maybe three or four years? It became a popular way to describe someone whose gender you didn’t know, but was thankfully shot down pretty quick when trans and nonbinary people pointed out this is just a new way of misgendering someone but trying to sound progressive, by looking at someone’s appearance and assuming that what you think they look like (aka, like a man, or like a woman, or androgynous) “must be!” what gender they are.

[ID: a text post by user Viciere, posted October 31st 2014, that reads: “if somebody wears a dress and copious amounts of makeup and has ass-length pink hair and they say they are a boy you call them a boy gender stereotypes are not an excuse for misgendering someone it doesnt matter what gender you think they “look” like. respect the gender they ARE.” End ID]

If you look at the tags and replies of many of the posts made about the “male presenting” line in the Star Beast, you will find countless, countless trans, nonbinary, and even cis people expressing how they have personally been misgendered by people referring to them as ‘x-presenting’ based purely on their clothes or their physical appearance, which is especially hurtful to trans and nonbinary people who already suffer from negative body image and body dysphoria, especially if they can’t afford or physically cannot safely get top or bottom surgery, wear a packer, or padded bra, or even safely wear a binder.

TL;DR: “X-presenting” language should only be used as a self-identifier, or exclusively for those who have given you express permission to refer to them as such. Using “x-presenting” language for someone you don’t know is the same as misgendering– if you don’t know someone’s gender, just ask :)

[rjalker]

Yeah, just saw someone on Reddit (IDK how to link to the specific comment) refer to Cassandra from Doctor Who as "non-human-presenting"

Proving without a doubt that literally none of the people assigning other people "x-presenting" terminology have any fucking clue what they're talking about.

Describing Cassandra. From Doctor Who. As nonhuman-presenting.

When she identifies as the only real fucking human left in the universe.

So can you people please just fucking admit that when you call someone X-presenting, you are literally just admitting that you're saying they look like a man or woman to you? Because that's what this shit has always meant when you assign it to other people and it's getting fucking absurd.

Calling the person who literally identifies so strongly with humanity that she considers all other humans to not be really human "nonhuman-presenting". Wow, it's almost like describing other people as "x-presenting" without their permission has literally nothing to do with their identity, and is just about what you think they look like!!!

Do not call people male-presenting unless they explicitly ask you to!

Do not call people masculine-presenting unless they explicitly ask you to!

Do not call people female-presenting unless they explicitly ask you to!

Do not call people feminine-presenting unless they explicitly ask you to!

Do not call people anything-presenting unless they explicitly ask you to!

Do not fucking call disabled people nonhuman-presenting unless they specifically identify as nonhuman! My fucking gods!

Please make sure everyone you know knows that doing this is blatantly transmisic and misgendering people. Please. for the love of gods.

[rjalker]

Is Rose a nonbinary trans girl on purpose, intentionally, or does Russel T Davies just think that all trans people, regardless of gender identity, are all inherently nonbinary by virtue of being trans?

[rjalker]

while i get what he was going for and it was definitely not as egregious as other examples. why does a trans character's introduction always have to include a "did you just assume pronouns?" gag. like again it didnt seem mean spirited here but like, idk its just such a common trope. really think Russel should've consulted an organization like GLAAD or talked to some trans people before writing. not the worst writing of a trans character ive seen but like its still very cis-flavored writing

Assuming this is about the "did you just assume he as a pronoun?" line, yeah.

Like, it doesn't make any sense. Rose is literally trans. Why would Rose not have asked the Meep's pronouns as soon as she met the Meep? Why would she not introduce herself to the Meep with her pronouns if she's then going to get mad at people for assuming pronouns?

If you don't want people to assume pronouns, you make a habit of asking people their pronouns! Why is anyone assuming the Doctor's pronouns besides Sylvia? There's a trans kid right there! Why aren't they all in the habit of introducing themselves with their pronouns to normalize it if she's going to go around telling people not to assume pronouns?!

It's just not how this works in real life. And isntead of making it a "haha trans people get mad you assume pronouns" joke that cis people can't get enough of, it should have been...literally just normalizing asking for pronouns.

Including asking the Doctor. Instead of just assinging he/him when played by a man and she/her when played by a woman.

But I guess even in 2023, with canon nonbinary trans character, leaving open the possibility that the Doctor might not be the gender society wants to assign to them is asking too much.

Sigh.

[rjalker]

Love how the Doctor Who fandom's like "Ohh yeah!!! This episode said trans rights!!!! That's why I'm gonna use he/him pronouns for the Meep, who, AS IT IS EXPLICITLY STATED, uses nameself pronouns!!!"

[rjalker]

not wasting this on a single Discord channel that's supposed to be about thinking critically but so far is just people making excuses, so:

You have to be aware of race when characters of color are involved, when being written by white people, especially white people who have been proven to be racist in the past. I follow a lot of Black activists who've been talking about this exact kind of thing.

It's not a coincidence that out of the two of them, it was the Black man who Russel T Davies chose to be half naked, while David Tennant, the white man, gets to stay fully clothed.

"Colorblindness" fails every meeting with reality, and if you want to be able to think critically and recognize racism in writing (and real interactions) when it's in front of you, you need to understand that race is always a factor, even if you think the joke being told is funny.

Russel T Davies was racist the first time he wrote for the show, and he's still being racist now. That is something you need to be aware of and keeping in mind at all times if you're going to claim to be thinking critically about the show.