I get it. You think that The Doctor should be a woman because a few little girls want that to happen, and for diversity's sake.
Well, it's more than just a few little girls (and what's with that? Only "little" girls? What about the women? And men? Why do you have to be so demeaning?
The way people were saying it was that girls needed/wanted a female Doctor, girls meaning pre-adults. So, that's where little girls came from, because people were basically saying that a female Doctor was "needed" for female children.
It's when you start throwing a tantrum and claiming the argument is that gender doesn't matter, that any character could be any gender.
That's not what's being said.
That's exactly what is being said. People keep saying that gender isn't an important trait of a character, that it can be swapped without effecting the character, and its really mind boggling. Now, there can be female characters
like the Doctor, just like it would be fine to, say, have female detectives that are similar to Sherlock Holmes, as long as they aren't actually gender swapped versions of established characters (which is one reason I avoid Elementary, the other being its a horrible Sherlock ripoff). Female characters can be anything male characters can, generally speaking. But, they can't actually
be a specific male character.
Almost never... well, we're getting somewhere...
I only didn't say never because I don't know every gender swap ever, and I don't know the differences between old/NUBSG Starbuck to say the swap didn't work with them. Still, I've never seen a good rule 63ing.
But, again, your logic doesn't quite follow... a character that literally changes personality every few years is somehow the same person, while if they have boobs, they aren't.
It's like the Doctor's example in Deep Breath with the broom. If you keep swapping out the parts, is it the same broom?
That's a good analogy. A female Doctor is removing both the handle and brush in that scenario.
I don't think anyone is saying gender isn't important. But, the key is: the Doctor's gender CAN change. It's built into the story.
Regarding gender, people are saying that sometimes gender isn't the CORE of a character. And with that I agree. Sometimes it just isn't.
Starbuck being a great example.
Except, isn't the female Starbuck basically nothing like the old version? I mean, I'm pretty sure you can say the same thing about all of the characters that are in both versions, but I have a hard time believing that the NuBSG starbuck is really anything like the old version, outside of possibly being the generic "insubordinate hot shot", which could have also applied to the old version (although I haven't seen enough of old BSG to be sure about that). I can't think of one character that I'm familiar with who is gender neutral and would work with a different gender. Sure, a different gender could have elements, but they would still be completely different characters.
Unless the showrunner starts legitimately talking about a female Doctor, then a female doctor is just the dream of some PC people,
PC people... gawd. It just sounds ridiculous, passé and incredibly reactionary.... but, go on...
I have no other way to say it. I guess I could say crazy people, but that's more insulting than I intend when I bring up PC people.
who also apparently disregard people who like their characters the way they are, and don't want them in PC hell just because someone thinks they should be.
You keep saying: like the characters who they are. So characters can't change? They have to be the same people they always are? There's no room for growth?
Is TV that much of a security blanket for you that it makes you really hostile to change?
How many times do I have to say it
I watch/read/hear about the characters I enjoy because of who they are. I have no desire to see radically different characters with the same name. At that point, they're not the same character, and I have no connection to them.Characters can change a bit, as in they can grow and evolve. But, that just means that events in their life can effect them. Gender swapping, among other things, means its not the same character. Its a reboot, and reboots mean the old character, the reason I'm watching/reading in the first place, is being thrown away. In this case, The Doctor would be removed for no real reason, and replaced by the PC people's brand new "diverse" character.
I have no connection to this hypothetical female character. She certainly wouldn't be the Timelord I like. She'd also be at a disadvantage compared to just a brand new female Timelord, because as I'm watching her I'd just be bitter about losing one of the great sci fi characters because of a few idiots who hate established characters if they don't fit their diversity quota. I have never been against the idea of a female Timelord, or giving one a spinoff. however, I will never support throwing away 50 years of history so that a new character can steal some name recognition.
The thing is, similar stuff has happened before, with other franchises. After what DC comics did a few years ago, I'm about as open to this BS as the average Star Wars fan is to seeing a Jar Jar focused spin off movie. I've seen a bunch of DC characters I loved ruined (although admittedly almost none by making them "diverse", but its still the similar idea of changing character traits, most notably darker, more a-hole personalities in DC's case), and I consider it the same thing with Doctor Who (well, i doubt it would become grim & gritty like DC comics, and it would probably be better written, but it would still remove the actual character from the franchise). A female Doctor would not be The Doctor, even if you can hand wave the gender swap away. She'd have the name, and they'd pretend she has the memories, but it wouldn't be the same. The change is too deep, and too essential.
What I hate is needlessly changing characters. "Diversity" is never a legitimate reason to change a character. That's what it all comes down to. I don't care if the character is mostly static (like, say, Superman) or a character has the capability to change a good deal (like The Doctor). Making a change, like rule 63ing a male character just because you can technically get away with it, is what gets on my nerves. He's been a guy since his creation, he should stay a guy. 
And I was talking about the companions thanke for taking my comment out of context, Mark Strictson is now a producer of domumentaries and even he has said being a companion opned no doors for him, Freema had to make eher own way as well, but Catherine Tate and Billie Piper were estabished names. But you can see the difference in the Karen Gillan and Christopher Eccleston, she had a part in The Guardians Of The Galaxy movie and they let her character survive, she's also got an American sitcom, whereas Eccleston was in Thor: The Dark World and most people didn't like his performance.
By that logic, if a little boy wants a male Wonder Woman, then DC Comics should be obligated to do it. Its only fair. Or, really, why have male characters at all? If a guy character staying a guy is so bad, there should just be none. Then again, even if every single character was suddenly made female, people would find some other "diversity" BS to complain about 
They'll be saying there should be no genders whatsoever. I mean, if genders are so unimportant to characters, every character should be genderless, then no one feels left out.
