A preference for the differences in how men and women interact, a continuation of pretty much the only constant between all of the performers to take the role to date, the story possibilities that change depending on whether it’s a male or a female in charge during historical periods (or even some future periods;…

Burn?

Open your mind.

No reason why the Doctor can’t, but there’s plenty of non-sexist arguments why the Doctor shouldn’t be, to do with dynamics, influence, expectation, story possibilities, and more. Do you identify as homosexual, heterosexual, cisgender or transgender? If so, you’ve already made a distinction between the genders based…

But you’d call someone who felt James Bond should stay male a sexist? That, as I’ve said before, is a stupidly low bar to hold for sexism.

There really isn’t any distance. You’re saying (and I quote) ‘solely for the reason that a woman is portraying the Doctor’, which means you are criticising a distinction in gender, which you do any time you identify as gay, straight, cis or trans. If you can do that, anyone else has the right to do that too. It…

In which case ‘showrunners’ is a much better term you already have access to. You went with ‘creators’ to apply an unearned entitlement to the showrunners, presumably because they agree with your opinion. That’s you using entitlement, not me.

...I wasn’t aware Sydney Newman or Verity Lambert were on record with regard to Jodie Whitaker’s casting.

Fictional people aren’t people.

Then what exactly would you define as a ‘sexist manner’? Because saying the Doctor should be a man/woman can’t possibly be more sexist than saying ‘I should be a man/woman’.

But, by that reasoning, simply identifying as either heterosexual or homosexual (or cisgender or transgender for that matter) would be sexist. Technically at the most ridiculously honed down definition it’s correct, but calling someone a sexist JUST for those preferences would be beyond stupid.

What is your definition of sexist here? The acknowledgement of differences in gender that might result in changes to the way a piece of art or social interactions work, or the oppression of a gender for malicious or selfish reasons? Because if you think the latter is the case for everyone who opposes a female Doctor,…

(Through the stupid Kinja I can’t tell which comment you’re responding to, so apologies if I’m referencing the wrong one):
Ah, but gender-swapping is deliberately changing something, which leaves it open to being a change for either the better or for the worse. That’s not the same as saying the gender doesn’t (or…

I haven’t actually noticed too much sexism in Chibnall’s writing compared to Moffat’s (I haven’t seen Camelot); Chibnall’s flaws to me are equally spread between the characters, along with the plotting, pacing, dialogue and imagination.

See my other reply in this section, beginning ‘Only as sexist as saying that a male actor should play James Bond, or a female actor should play Miss Marple.’ 

No, the opinion that the Doctor is a male character is not sexist, it’s just incorrect.

Only as sexist as saying that a male actor should play James Bond, or a female actor should play Miss Marple. Only as sexist as drawing ANY kind of distinction between male and female. And if you don’t think there is a distinction, ask any transgender person how they feel about the distinction being unimportant. Hell,…

What an original comment and thorough rebuttal. You’ve clearly earned your place in this conversation.

No, they’re not necessarily sexist. At least, no more than anyone who said the next Doctor SHOULD be a woman is sexist. Some might be, on both sides, but not all. Quit tarring an entire group with a different opinion than yours with the same brush, you’re not going to help anyone.

You know, if you ear-equivalent-of-squint, it kind of sounds like it could be a horror movie soundtrack, I’m thinking along the lines of Halloween or The Exorcist. If it weren’t so darn bubbly it might work.