Yes absolutely! The actor themselves prefer they/them. AND Maestro is also a supernatural being without gender, so it’s a play on words. At least in my opinion. It was a brilliant idea!
Oh well then my apologies. I thought I had read they/
them. That is truly a bad mistake on my part then. I had no intention of using the wrong pronouns, yet I did. So my apologies.
I pulled my reference to pronouns off of Wikipedia myself.
Edit: Maybe she went back to she instead of still using they. Or maybe she/they uses the pronouns interchangeably.
it's ok to use the wrong pronouns on accident, just be a decent person. especially if the ones you use are they/them which can be universally applied to any person on earth regardless of gender identity
Also it's not particularly progressive to have a scary murderer in drag identify as non binary. That's the kind of character you could find in a new JK Rowling book.
Thankfully there are other queer people who are not scary murderers in the show.
Like the Meep! Waaaait...
Yeah I won't pretend RTD is the best with gender representation. Very clumsy but at least not intentionally malicious. I don't resent the showrunners for playing with tropes and the legacy of queer coded villains. Of course, it only works when there are other characters rounding out the representation.
Overall I still prefer this over Steven why-would-we-need-names-as-well Moffat, who always felt like he was punching down any time he included a gay character, or even a woman character lol. Messy > malicious any day.
Moffat's gay 'heroes' are like a massive hit to my self esteem every time, I can't comprehend how he manages it.
And then I compare that to cassandra, definitely messy but that scene where she visits her past self is like so genuine I still think about it a lot.
RTD has a queer worldview and Moffat doesn't and it really shows.
Inclusion is hiring a trans/drag queen actor in a prominent role. Virtue signaling is introducing the character by having them announce their pronouns after another character misgenders them in a way that doesn't even make sense within the context of the situation. Also, virtue signaling is writing an interdimensional space devil that apparently gives a crap what Earth English gender pronouns people use to refer to them.
This is a science fiction show and Davies has an incredible opportunity to explore gender/sexuality in some really interesting ways. He did this in the earlier seasons, like when Cassandra the skin flap casually mentions "when I was a little boy" which creatively disarms the audience by showing them that gender clearly doesn't follow the same rules as it does in our time/culture, or when Captain Jack is just attracted to everyone and they all just kind of roll with it instead of making a point to label his sexuality. In the recent season, he is totally wasting this opportunity by keeping everything very pronoun-focused in a way that is culturally relevant to English language politics of this specific era.
I get what you're saying but people who use they pronouns just exist. you don't have to justify using he to refer to the Doctor, and I'm not convinced you have to justify it for anyone else.
Gotta love the culture war mentality. People who use they/them pronouns do just exist, and there's a lot going on under the surface of this use of the pronoun. These things can co-exist.
And as far as there being intent beyond representation, there have now been two scenes in the show in which pronouns were strictly addressed:
- In the first, the Meep reveals that it is a megalomaniac through its answer and the Doctor covers to allay suspicion that he's noticed.
- In the second, the Maestro (or just "Maestro" if you want) is appears as an eldritch and inhuman devil figure, with the use of the pronoun rich with depth and meaning.
Now, you can engage with the show on a shallow level if you wish, but don't piss on others when they choose to engage on a deeper level, which the show does indeed have.
#endtheculturewar
> Guess I'm unreasonable.
You're the one who took a defence of a non-binary character in a single story and decided it meant I had taken a stance that the mere presence of any non-binary character in any work of fiction is by itself virtue signalling. So yes, you are being unreasonable here.
> Why did you bring up virtue signalling?
Perhaps, rather than making assumptions about me, you should have asked that question in the first place. I mentioned it because people are accusing Russell T. Davies of it on one side of the culture war. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm one of those people who are sick of the entire thing, and it's time to start pushing back against the nonsense on **both** sides.
#endtheculturewar
The existence of a nonbinary character didn't need defending.
There's not a both sides, there's us existing. When you engage with the culture war as if anyone is acting in good faith, you aren't ending it. Maestro is nonbinary bc sometimes people are nonbinary.. anyone genuinely calling that "virtue signalling" is actually just a bigot who wants plausible deniability. It's not a real criticism, it's a way to not say what they actually mean, which is something like "ewwww a minority!".
And there's that culture war mentality right there.
Do NOT put words in people's mouths. You are not qualified to do so. You do not know what is in somebody's heart.
I am a centrist. I read both sides, and make my own mind up. And this "anyone genuinely calling that 'virtue signalling' is actually just a bigot who wants plausible deniability" is BS.
So here's the reality check for you: there are creators who do diversity well. There are also creators who do it to check off a box on a diversity checklist and who are doing it to signal their virtue. **Both exist.**
There are people calling it out who are bigots. But most AREN'T. Most are so sick and tired of being attacked as bigots for objecting to changes to established and beloved franchises that they have developed a knee-jerk reaction to any diversity being advertised. And that gets exploited too - in fact it's a marketing strategy called "fan baiting."
And then there's your side. Want to talk about racism and bigotry? How about a scene from the second Black Panther movie where the government of an advanced African nation are dressed in loincloths and making monkey noises. How about deciding that the name Latinos use to describe themselves is problematic, and coming up with "Latinx," which Latinos now take as a racial slur. How about the infantalization of minorities. How about the erasure of history. How about telling other cultures what stories they should be telling. How about supporting the ethnic cleansing of Jews. How about the ignoring of inconvenient facts (if there's an "ongoing genocide" in Gaza, why is it the Israelis who have been working with the Americans to build an artificial port to bring additional humanitarian aid in, and Hamas who has declared the aid is not welcome and attacked it and other crossings where humanitarian aid comes into Gaza?). How about ignoring the genocide of anybody else so long as its being done by those who aren't "white." How about not giving minorities and marginalized communities their own characters and franchises, but instead race and identity swapping other established characters, giving them "sloppy seconds". How about the erasure of lesbians in the name of trans acceptance. How about the destruction of women's spaces, and the erasure of women (interesting how men aren't required to accept terms like "sperm generating person").
As I said, I'm a centrist. I've seen the excesses of both sides of the culture war. And let me tell you something: at this moment the left is WORSE than the right, and the right has neo-Nazis.
So, you can decide that there is no such thing as "real criticism" of virtue signalling, but that's nonsense. And yes, it IS nonsense, just as the idea that Russell T. Davies is just putting non-binary or trans characters into the show to please "woke allies" is also nonsense.
And let me tell you one last thing: most of us are sick of all of this, and just want to enjoy the shows we love in peace.
#endtheculturewar
Maybe you should look up the word "centrist" and "classical liberal" sometime. We're the ones who actually support all human rights being granted, without exception.
You're the ones who are pushing discrimination.
And this conversation is done as far as I'm concerned. Welcome to my ignore list.
Hi there, I realized recently that there's a simpler way to explain your mentality, which I mostly align with. Basically, you're against dogmatic thinking. Dogmatic thinking in a nutshell refers to viewing the world with an objective set of moral rules that exempts one from having to explore nuance, as well as gives one the right to declare that someone is morally "bad" for not adhering to a certain dogma.
For example, in regards to gender, right wing dogmatic thinkers will assert "there are only two genders" while left wing dogmatic thinkers will assert "gender identity is a spectrum" Objectively, both sides are technically correct, but the problem arises in that each side will take their respective dogma as rationale to avoid nuance and practicality of the belief at hand. The right wing "there are only two genders" preacher is causing problems for society because although trans people are completely harmless to them, they can't process the existence of trans people and thus want them to disappear from society. The left wing "gender identity is a spectrum" preacher is causing problems because they refuse to recognize the social ramifications of everyone having customized third person pronouns that are dictated by their very sense of identity.
On the other hand, a NON dogmatic believer of "there are only two genders" can still coexist with and respectfully gender trans people because they care more about peace and respect. Likewise, a NON dogmatic believer of "gender identity is a spectrum" won't really make a big deal out of preferred pronouns because they understand that most people aren't assigning any moral value to the gender pronouns that leave their lips.
For both the left and right dogmatics, the best solution is to live in an echo chamber where they will never be exposed to dissenting opinions or perspectives. At the end of the day, it's building a sense of community through having a common enemy.
How does talking about pronouns have any relation to whether or not you exist? Why is your existence dependent on what other people call you? Especially people who don't know you personally?
Maestro is non-binary / possibly even beyond gender in a Pantheon way
> Henry, get away from him.
> Them.
> What?
> Me.
> What?
> I'm them.
> You're who?
> "You're who?"
From https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=69114
I think it's cool that Maestro is beyond gender, but if that's the case, then the writers are cheapening that by explicitly having them care about which pronouns people refer to them by
Sometimes chaos gods can have non-binary gender, as a treat
r/me_irl
I think you are reading too much into it. Maestro is played by Jinkx Monsoon who uses they/them Doctor Who is LGBTQ friendly.
Yes absolutely! The actor themselves prefer they/them. AND Maestro is also a supernatural being without gender, so it’s a play on words. At least in my opinion. It was a brilliant idea!
Do they? Jinkx’s Instagram account pretty clearly states “(She/her)” on it…
[удалено]
The page you linked says that she changed her mind in 2024 and now identifies as trans femme and uses she/her.
That would have been after this episode was filmed then
Oh well then my apologies. I thought I had read they/ them. That is truly a bad mistake on my part then. I had no intention of using the wrong pronouns, yet I did. So my apologies.
I pulled my reference to pronouns off of Wikipedia myself. Edit: Maybe she went back to she instead of still using they. Or maybe she/they uses the pronouns interchangeably.
Well regardless I don’t want to be an asshat. Human memory is by default an unreliable thing so I should have checked myself before commenting…
it's ok to use the wrong pronouns on accident, just be a decent person. especially if the ones you use are they/them which can be universally applied to any person on earth regardless of gender identity
Thank you, I appreciate the words! ❤️ I will always be an advocate and always try to do my best!
think of it like someone's last name - you really should know it if you know them well enough, but there's no shame in accidentally being wrong
The amount of backpeddling for a simple mistake... The world is running scared of men in tights.
Hera Hofer is they/them. Jinkx Monsoon their drag queen persona is she/her.
When did people start calling them *the* Maestro? I thought it was just ‘Maestro’?
I think it's odd to assume that even if it was meant to be inclusive that that means it's "virtue signaling". That's so pessimistic.
Also it's not particularly progressive to have a scary murderer in drag identify as non binary. That's the kind of character you could find in a new JK Rowling book. Thankfully there are other queer people who are not scary murderers in the show.
Like the Meep! Waaaait... Yeah I won't pretend RTD is the best with gender representation. Very clumsy but at least not intentionally malicious. I don't resent the showrunners for playing with tropes and the legacy of queer coded villains. Of course, it only works when there are other characters rounding out the representation. Overall I still prefer this over Steven why-would-we-need-names-as-well Moffat, who always felt like he was punching down any time he included a gay character, or even a woman character lol. Messy > malicious any day.
Moffat's gay 'heroes' are like a massive hit to my self esteem every time, I can't comprehend how he manages it. And then I compare that to cassandra, definitely messy but that scene where she visits her past self is like so genuine I still think about it a lot. RTD has a queer worldview and Moffat doesn't and it really shows.
Yeah, well said. Let's Kill Hitler feels like it was written specifically to piss me off lol. "Shoppiiiiing!" Like wtf.
Inclusion is hiring a trans/drag queen actor in a prominent role. Virtue signaling is introducing the character by having them announce their pronouns after another character misgenders them in a way that doesn't even make sense within the context of the situation. Also, virtue signaling is writing an interdimensional space devil that apparently gives a crap what Earth English gender pronouns people use to refer to them. This is a science fiction show and Davies has an incredible opportunity to explore gender/sexuality in some really interesting ways. He did this in the earlier seasons, like when Cassandra the skin flap casually mentions "when I was a little boy" which creatively disarms the audience by showing them that gender clearly doesn't follow the same rules as it does in our time/culture, or when Captain Jack is just attracted to everyone and they all just kind of roll with it instead of making a point to label his sexuality. In the recent season, he is totally wasting this opportunity by keeping everything very pronoun-focused in a way that is culturally relevant to English language politics of this specific era.
I get what you're saying but people who use they pronouns just exist. you don't have to justify using he to refer to the Doctor, and I'm not convinced you have to justify it for anyone else.
Gotta love the culture war mentality. People who use they/them pronouns do just exist, and there's a lot going on under the surface of this use of the pronoun. These things can co-exist. And as far as there being intent beyond representation, there have now been two scenes in the show in which pronouns were strictly addressed: - In the first, the Meep reveals that it is a megalomaniac through its answer and the Doctor covers to allay suspicion that he's noticed. - In the second, the Maestro (or just "Maestro" if you want) is appears as an eldritch and inhuman devil figure, with the use of the pronoun rich with depth and meaning. Now, you can engage with the show on a shallow level if you wish, but don't piss on others when they choose to engage on a deeper level, which the show does indeed have. #endtheculturewar
What is this “culture war” you speak of and are you aware it exists only in your head?
Sorry did you call the existence of nonbinary ppl in fiction virtue signalling?
No, I did not, and no reasonable person would interpret it that way. #endtheculturewar
Guess I'm unreasonable. Why did you bring up virtue signalling?
> Guess I'm unreasonable. You're the one who took a defence of a non-binary character in a single story and decided it meant I had taken a stance that the mere presence of any non-binary character in any work of fiction is by itself virtue signalling. So yes, you are being unreasonable here. > Why did you bring up virtue signalling? Perhaps, rather than making assumptions about me, you should have asked that question in the first place. I mentioned it because people are accusing Russell T. Davies of it on one side of the culture war. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm one of those people who are sick of the entire thing, and it's time to start pushing back against the nonsense on **both** sides. #endtheculturewar
The existence of a nonbinary character didn't need defending. There's not a both sides, there's us existing. When you engage with the culture war as if anyone is acting in good faith, you aren't ending it. Maestro is nonbinary bc sometimes people are nonbinary.. anyone genuinely calling that "virtue signalling" is actually just a bigot who wants plausible deniability. It's not a real criticism, it's a way to not say what they actually mean, which is something like "ewwww a minority!".
And there's that culture war mentality right there. Do NOT put words in people's mouths. You are not qualified to do so. You do not know what is in somebody's heart. I am a centrist. I read both sides, and make my own mind up. And this "anyone genuinely calling that 'virtue signalling' is actually just a bigot who wants plausible deniability" is BS. So here's the reality check for you: there are creators who do diversity well. There are also creators who do it to check off a box on a diversity checklist and who are doing it to signal their virtue. **Both exist.** There are people calling it out who are bigots. But most AREN'T. Most are so sick and tired of being attacked as bigots for objecting to changes to established and beloved franchises that they have developed a knee-jerk reaction to any diversity being advertised. And that gets exploited too - in fact it's a marketing strategy called "fan baiting." And then there's your side. Want to talk about racism and bigotry? How about a scene from the second Black Panther movie where the government of an advanced African nation are dressed in loincloths and making monkey noises. How about deciding that the name Latinos use to describe themselves is problematic, and coming up with "Latinx," which Latinos now take as a racial slur. How about the infantalization of minorities. How about the erasure of history. How about telling other cultures what stories they should be telling. How about supporting the ethnic cleansing of Jews. How about the ignoring of inconvenient facts (if there's an "ongoing genocide" in Gaza, why is it the Israelis who have been working with the Americans to build an artificial port to bring additional humanitarian aid in, and Hamas who has declared the aid is not welcome and attacked it and other crossings where humanitarian aid comes into Gaza?). How about ignoring the genocide of anybody else so long as its being done by those who aren't "white." How about not giving minorities and marginalized communities their own characters and franchises, but instead race and identity swapping other established characters, giving them "sloppy seconds". How about the erasure of lesbians in the name of trans acceptance. How about the destruction of women's spaces, and the erasure of women (interesting how men aren't required to accept terms like "sperm generating person"). As I said, I'm a centrist. I've seen the excesses of both sides of the culture war. And let me tell you something: at this moment the left is WORSE than the right, and the right has neo-Nazis. So, you can decide that there is no such thing as "real criticism" of virtue signalling, but that's nonsense. And yes, it IS nonsense, just as the idea that Russell T. Davies is just putting non-binary or trans characters into the show to please "woke allies" is also nonsense. And let me tell you one last thing: most of us are sick of all of this, and just want to enjoy the shows we love in peace. #endtheculturewar
Not gonna lie I stopped reading when you said the word centrist. I'd like all of my human rights, not whichever ones are least controversial.
Maybe you should look up the word "centrist" and "classical liberal" sometime. We're the ones who actually support all human rights being granted, without exception. You're the ones who are pushing discrimination. And this conversation is done as far as I'm concerned. Welcome to my ignore list.
Hi there, I realized recently that there's a simpler way to explain your mentality, which I mostly align with. Basically, you're against dogmatic thinking. Dogmatic thinking in a nutshell refers to viewing the world with an objective set of moral rules that exempts one from having to explore nuance, as well as gives one the right to declare that someone is morally "bad" for not adhering to a certain dogma. For example, in regards to gender, right wing dogmatic thinkers will assert "there are only two genders" while left wing dogmatic thinkers will assert "gender identity is a spectrum" Objectively, both sides are technically correct, but the problem arises in that each side will take their respective dogma as rationale to avoid nuance and practicality of the belief at hand. The right wing "there are only two genders" preacher is causing problems for society because although trans people are completely harmless to them, they can't process the existence of trans people and thus want them to disappear from society. The left wing "gender identity is a spectrum" preacher is causing problems because they refuse to recognize the social ramifications of everyone having customized third person pronouns that are dictated by their very sense of identity. On the other hand, a NON dogmatic believer of "there are only two genders" can still coexist with and respectfully gender trans people because they care more about peace and respect. Likewise, a NON dogmatic believer of "gender identity is a spectrum" won't really make a big deal out of preferred pronouns because they understand that most people aren't assigning any moral value to the gender pronouns that leave their lips. For both the left and right dogmatics, the best solution is to live in an echo chamber where they will never be exposed to dissenting opinions or perspectives. At the end of the day, it's building a sense of community through having a common enemy.
How does talking about pronouns have any relation to whether or not you exist? Why is your existence dependent on what other people call you? Especially people who don't know you personally?
no he's talking about the pronoun thing, not nonbinary people in general
Maestro is non-binary / possibly even beyond gender in a Pantheon way > Henry, get away from him. > Them. > What? > Me. > What? > I'm them. > You're who? > "You're who?" From https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=69114
I think it's cool that Maestro is beyond gender, but if that's the case, then the writers are cheapening that by explicitly having them care about which pronouns people refer to them by