Queerbait and Doctor Who: Trial of a Time Lady

[@NobodyNobody310]

Hearing a Dalek say “this is a gay woke agenda” sent me

[@K.Arashi]

Every time I I read a alt-right comment from now on, it's gonna be in Dalek voice

[@morenicginiusthegreat4227]

@@K.Arashi At the end of the day, the Daleks are basically far right nut jobs in small tanks.

[@Bella_The_Chef]

@@K.Arashii mean they literally are fascist buttplugs so it’s not far a leap

[@Chief]

Love the use of old clips and fake argument between the two 'sides' - such a thoroughly well written and executed video :)

[@PowerSpirit50]

Though I couldn't tell which side stands for which. They seem to switch?

[@yepthatsegg3604]

Bringing up good omens as an example of queerbaiting made me nervous, because as a nonbinary person who often presents femme i enjoyed that Gaiman explicitly stated their lack of gender, even if they both present as masc and are generally referred to as male. i still dont consider the ineffable husbands perfect representation, but it was representation i enjoyed that made me feel seen. Im glad you brought it around to explain the complexities of queerness, and how limiting the “queerbaiting” label can be :)

[@yepthatsegg3604]

I still wish we could get nonbinary/agender rep outside of nonhuman characters though :,) i find the way people tend to filter queer stories through the lens of robots or aliens or angels fascinating, but after a while it’s a bit tiring only being able to see people like me in characters that are explicitly “other”, yk?

[@Thehouseoffail]

Generally speaking, GO gets a pass because it was a revolutionary level of representation when the book was written. At this point, confirming anything would remove a lot of decades old theories about the book. Some people will gain representation, but many more people will lose it. And because the director has openly stated that he does not deserve any recognition or praise from the community.

[@snyhmr]

that and alongside the fact that ineffible husbands are allowed to be read as a queerplatonic/aroace relationship.

[@Hekateras]

@@snyhmr So are House and Wilson. So are a million buddy cop duos from the 90s. All sorts of character duos are "allowed to be read" as QPR when the evidence for it is in the form of absence of evidence for anything else.

[@snyhmr]

@@Hekateras the difference is, for good omens it was confirmed to be done deliberately. i know this kinda topic is a muddy, grey area that this video itself talks about. there's a lot of contension between gay people and aro/ace people when it comes to same gender relationships that are deliberately not exclusively portrayed as romantic. the difference is, in good omens, the relationship between ineffible husbands was meant to be portrayed as deep love and partnership between each other, but it wasn't restricted to the romantic kind, because they wanted to portray that that type of deep connection isn't just exclusively romantic. you CAN read it as romantic like most people do. nobody's stopping you. but you're free to do that as much as gay aro/ace people are also allowed to read it as an aro/ace thing.

[@DodgeThatAttack]

Counterpoint: it wasnt queerbaiting, they were just so bad at characterisation that the whole thing crashed and burned

[@tlsmith7585]

it's already bad enough to throw us scraps and expect thanks for it. doing that after the (male) doctor was kissed by a man 18 years prior and after we had a canonically lesbian companion who actually got to date women, that's something else. i'm glad to have 15 now. i really would have loved if we got enough time to explore yaz's feelings both for the doctor and for women in general - every queer character in doctor who seems to already know who they are and be comfortable with themselves, it would be amazing to see someone actually coming to terms with realising they're queer.

[@chasm6091]

The Good Omens part of this video somehow managed to age like fine wine and milk at the same time.

[@skyboy7244]

For me, queerbait has always been a “know it when I see it” kinda thing, rather then depending on a concrete and technical exclamation

[@akaony]

Yeah you kinda can tell when the show runners are doing it purely for the pink quota

[@PaintSplashProductions]

And that’s not even getting into the differences between Queer Baiting and Queer Coding. People get those two confused a lot

[@tommynazer1800]

@@PaintSplashProductions As a guy who has no idea what either are, what are they? XD

[@PaintSplashProductions]

@@tommynazer1800 Queer-baiting is basically trying to get views and attention for hinting at a character being LGBT when they are or never will be (look at BBC’s Sherlock for example), Queer coding is when the creators are making the characters lgbt and will make it canon later on (like in a later season or movie, game etc) or due to things like homophobia or the laws of the country they are in they can’t say it explicitly (look at a lot of media made previous to gay marriage being legal). One is made with scummy ideals and money in mind, the other is wanting to make rep happen and skirting around the things that are blocking them

[@tommynazer1800]

@@PaintSplashProductions okay so how is dr who queer baiting? (Not asking in a rude way. I stopped watching purely based on terrible writing, direction, acting, characters, and the rest of what made the 13ths doctors run a shit show) so i never really watched enough to notice the queer bait

[@victoriawalker7792]

Much like the actual Trial of a Timelord, I did not predict how this was going to go. Unlike Trial, this was brilliantly coherent.

[@f-zilla7347]

I like Season 23 but I do agree that the trial scenes take up too much of the story.

[@blinkfilms1]

I cannot believe that doctor who pulled a destiel confession. Oh my god.

[@tlsmith7585]

it's wild to realise that it was even worse than the destiel confession. at least castiel got to say "i love you" and did it of his own will without a straight man butting in

[@alicesophie123]

Whether it is queer baiting or not, it is done terribly! In the later seasons Yasmin and the doctor are constantly arguing and lying to each other and don’t seem to get along at all and then we’re suddenly supposed to believe that they’re this perfect example of a lesbian couple.

[@matt0044]

I mean... that does tend to be afforded to most straight couples in the sense that they start out bickering and being hesitant to be 100% real with the other.

[@matthewchurch7057]

This is exactly my stance. We were told in the final episodes of the run that the Doctor and Yaz had attraction towards each other... But literally none of the writing in any episode ever showed that. So many opportunities They don't kiss at the end, they don't even hug at the end. There is absolutely nothing there that should convince anyone that those two characters loved each other, and that's just as bad as classic queerbaiting. It's not enough for characters to state they have feelings for each other when there aren't any actions that justify or solidify it

[@Whiteythereaper]

This is pretty much the gist of it. 13 spends the entirety of her incarnation lying and being completely closed off to her companions, but the writers wanted to generate Twitter/Tumblr stan hype because they wanted to emulate US Teen drama, and kept making Yas pine after The Doctor worse than Martha did with 10

[@noizetv4240]

Well written. Doesn't feel like a person talking to themselves in a room, it feels like a genuine play of sorts. Good on you.

[@ryanratchford2530]

Haven’t finished the video yet but need to write this so it can get out of my head. You can queer bait the possibility that characters might be queer. Or you can confirm that but still fail to depict a queer relationship-this is the far more important thing. We want more normalised depictions of queer relationships treated just like hetro relationships. 13+Yaz baited the possibility of a relationship; confirmed their identities to be queer in a total of 2 or 3 scenes; but failed to depict any queer interactions of substance. Show don’t tell.

[@shangc2781]

Yeah, I get this but as someone whose ace the idea of "depicting a queer relationship" is a bit fraught for me. How does a sexuality like mine get depicted? Is it not a real queer identity because it is inherently defined by an absence, etc. I've been burnt more than a few times by fandom on this front

[@ryanratchford2530]

@@shangc2781 little woman did ace in the context of a reaction to society’s except actions of thinking you “need” a relationship really well I think. But it doesn’t even need to be a focal point of the story. Good representation never needs to be the focus. Just needs to be present and authentic. Just depicting queer identities however members experience them.

[@sothisishowusernameswork.2043]

Is one of the scenes you're counting where the doctor says "Not a bad date am I?" to yaz? or where yaz carries the doctor back to the tardis?

[@alexjames7144]

​@@sothisishowusernameswork.2043 Surely asexual representation more than anything else needs to be explicit. Having the character outwardly state their disinterest or better yet use the word asexual would be a good start. Good writing would also include situations where their asexuality is relevant, like having a relationship or being hit on in a sexual way.

[@sothisishowusernameswork.2043]

@@alexjames7144 Are you entirely sure this is the right comment you are replying to? Not to say that in a mean way, just I was listing examples of stuff that could mean they are gay.

[@alien.complex]

I also feel like it should be mentioned that Doctor Who has plenty of other explicitly queer relationships, whether it be in the main show or in spin-off media (primarily Torchwood). The defence that society still is homophobic is true, but if it were such a concern, then how did we end up with characters like Captain Jack Harkness all the way back in 2005, and not only that, but a kiss between him and the male-presenting Ninth Doctor? And for a far more recent example, Jack kisses Graham in Series 12 whilst presuming that Graham is the Doctor! It's nice that Chibnall decided to make Thasmin a reality after it became clear that a significant portion of his audience interpreted the Doctor and Yasmin's relationship as the beginnings of a queer one, but it ends up being queerbaiting when he sets it up for two episodes and then completely drops it in time for the finale. It certainly doesn't help that he brought back both Ace and Tegan (both of whom have been confirmed to be sapphic, either in expanded media or paratextually) and then has the former flirt with Graham and the latter only mention ex-husbands. I sincerely do not believe that Chibnall had any ill intent when doing this, but it really serves to sour the perception of Thasmin as written by him. Anyways, great video! I thoroughly enjoyed how it was formatted, it was a ton of fun whilst still conveying arguments on both sides clearly. You've definitely earned a new subscriber.

[@psych0536]

in 2005 the showrunner was Russell T Davies, a gay man, who knew how to do genuine representation, creating characters not tokens, and characters with a greater purpose than checking boxes for pandering

[@Scarfgirl]

@@psych0536 Yep, that's the difference. A lot of queerbaiting accusations are more a natural consequence of having hetero writers trying to do representation w/o checking with anyone queer to see if they got it right or not. To me queerbaiting is more when writers try to write queer that's lowkey enough it won't turn away any of their straight audience (i.e. homophobes). Doctor Who has had cases of both since restarting, of course, which is a shame since they mostly nailed it on their very first try.

[@toolatetothestory]

Exactly. Jack was an amazing character and tbh, I enjoyed Torchwood more than Dr. Who.

[@nychthemeral]

Pulling up to this after the Rogue/Doctor kiss... I think that was Russell T Davies 'fuck you' the Castiel level relationship that was Thasmin.

[@agendergorgon1005]

Thanks for making this! I've an aroace mate who was hoping thasmin was gonna be turned down for aro reasons and both of us ended up a bit :/ with how the specials had it go. Loved the framing, working in the judge. And Valeyard's sadness at being behind Omega in the queue only gets funnier now we've had everyone's favourite destroyer back.

[@RileyHarrisVFX]

Doctor who 2005: Queer character introduced, makes affections text instead of subtext, and a kiss between queer characters in 4 episodes Doctor Who 2023: Character is introduced, falls ass backwards into queer representation after a failed will they won’t they with a cis character, spends 3 years with subtextual representation, made text with 2 episodes left, and the only action taken is maybe an neck nuzzle. If queer relations can be made clear and apparent in 2005, why can’t there be the same representation in 2023.

[@Whiteythereaper]

Because in 2005, the showrunner was a Gay man who vitally understood how to make genuine gay content that feels real and in-line with the version of characters he's designed. I know this comment is much later but obviously we've seen a more explicit version now with the character of Rogue and a much more gender-non-conforming and openly pansexual version of the Doctor that is much more emotionally healthy and able to allow himself to feel attraction and love and just enjoy life

[@PlurCo]

Because in 2005 Rose also called the doctor gay and the villain of the second episode was a transfeminine stereotype.

[@ooooneeee]

Meanwhile Good Omens season two was explicitly wonderfully gay and so was the recent Doctor Who episode "Rogue".

[@EyeMapache]

I absolutely loved this video! The framing device of the whole court that incorporated old clips from the show was so creative! Have not seen an episode of Doctor Who in my life but I was hooked throughout :)

[@ofMindandHeart]

As an ace Good Omens fan, thank you. For many GO fans the ambiguity is part of the beauty of it. Crowley and Aziraphale can be read as masculine, nonbinary, genderfluid, agender; as gay, aroace, alloace, alloaro; as sexless and madly romantically in love, as a qpr, as fucking since Eden; or as many other possibilities too numerous to list. Neil has specifically said “I wouldn't exclude the ideas that they are ace, or aromantic, or trans.” It can feel like a safer space to project our identities onto when we know the creator isn’t going to invalidate us for it. I remember a genderfluid GO fan once saying they felt Crowley was the best genderfluid representation they’d ever seen, and how good that felt for them. They got backlash for that, from people who only count representation if it’s explicit and said it was “sad” that they felt represented by a work that wasn’t explicit about it. Moving toward a more nuanced view of what makes representation worthwhile would certainly be a good thing. It does feel like with real people it’s more important to be careful about accusations of queerbaiting than with fictional characters. Real people can queerbait, but there’s a balance between not wanting to be duped and respecting that celebrities are people with a right to privacy, and to have identities that don’t necessarily fit in neat little boxes. The desire to define queerbait as a media-only term is grounded in wanting a world where creators and actors aren’t pressured into outing themselves, and that’s a legitimate concern. It’s not just that fans need to remember bisexuality exists (though they absolutely need to do that); fans need to accept that they won’t necessarily be able know or guess people’s identities and need to be okay with that.

[@blinkfilms1]

Crowley good omens literally is the reason I know I'm feminine nonbinary. Sure they don't unpack gender theory in the text and unravel the intricacies of his presentation, but we see him explicitly be himself in different masculine and feminine forms throughout history, based on vibes. That's representation, and it changed how I view myself and my body. It was immensely empowering to see someone not in drag, just genuinely as a different gender but still themself. That's representation.

[@RenaissanceRockerBoy]

Crowley was one of the people who started my trans guy gender journey lmao

[@Hekateras]

As an ace person and a fan of GO the book who did NOT like the show, here's where you're misrepresenting the "it's queerbaiting" position. It's not about whether it's explicit - for the most part. (Warning, this post gets long.) The actual reasons many feel it's queerbaiting: - The TV show retains book moments of in-universe homophobia (such as Aziraphale being called actual gay slurs) and adds some new controversial material like them being mistaken for a newly broken up couple as a joke. This video already explains why "mistaken for couple as a joke" is not unambiguously a progressive element. - The show adds new scenes that reads as deliberately UST-ish, like Crowley slamming Aziraphale to the wall. - At the same time, the show adapts OUT scenes that read as more unambiguously tender or physically affectionate, most notably Crowley taking Aziraphale's hand just before they face Satan. (Read the book!!!!) - (In general, retaining specifically gay slurs and microaggressions but refusing to confirm canonical gayness isn't necessarily queerbaiting, but like... it's not a great look.) - There is explicit heterosexual rep in the story (Newt and Anathema; hell, Madame Tracy and Shadwell) but no explicit gay rep. Having explicitly gay characters to contrast Crowley and Azi with would be a way to convey that they're not gay, but still definitely queer. The show does not do that. - As a result, you end up with an ostensibly "queer love story" that fails to establish its queerness overly enough that it stops being easy to dismiss. (Again, having them hold hands LIKE THEY DO IN THE BOOK WRITTEN DURING THE AIDS EPIDEMIC would have gone a long way towards fixing that. I'm not saying they adapted it out out of homophobia - seeing as they seem to have adapted out Crowley resurrecting the dove out of sheer cluelessness/apathy - but whatever the motivation, the end result is weaker for it.) - Neil Gaiman's "I wouldn't exclude that they're ace or trans or nonbinary" quote wasn't in a vacuum. It was specifically in response to a Twitter user asking if they were gay. So he DOES exclude that they're gay (that's implicit), but doesn't exclude that they're [smattering of other queer labels]? The explanation is also a poorly thought-out mess, because surely "they're not human men so they can't be gay" should hold for the other labels too. Yeah I don't feel great about that supposed rep. - Neil Gaiman has been inconsistent when talking about the ship. He has both talked about it as "a love story" and supported a Twitter fan's assertion that it's a nice example of a deep platonic friendship that you really don't need to read romance into. He has also stated that fans can interpret the text however they like... but still made sure to softly shoot down the idea that they're gay. - Neil Gaiman has been a tad too self-congratulatory and smug about he way he wrote their relationship, challenging fans to spot a "secret" hand-holding scene in the show, and fans can't seem to agree on where it was (as mentioned above, the canonical hand-holding during the dramatic climax of the story was adapted out!), which by itself is already VERY baity. He also responded to a fan's (polite!) criticism of the lack of overt love confession by glibly saying that he'd hoped the various Ho Yay-y lines he wrote knock kissing or hand-holding out of the park. Glibness or arrogance from a straight writer about the writing of queer rep in response to a queer fan's criticism is not a great look. Is "queersplaining" a thing? It kinda is now. - (Really, if Neil Gaiman just didn't say anything on Twitter, there'd be almost no accusations of queerbaiting, I assure you. Literally most of it is happening because after release he kept saying shit like this: twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1168947785883951109?lang=en ) Some final thoughts: TV-only fans who aren't aware of the exact things Neil has said on Twitter and the context in which he said them, and who haven't read the book (I imagine most show fans haven't, that's the way it usually is with adaptations), and who only heard through word of mouth of Neil confirming something on Twitter, could be forgiven for thinking "Is it queerbaiting?" is a silly question. The evidence for it being queerbaiting, as you see, relies mostly on analysing what was adapted out or in, and Neil dancing around the issue on Twitter while raking in accolades. (And yeah, in the context of the above, lack of being explicit rep really doesn't help.) So that explains why "most" fans seem to think that or why TV GO is popular with the queer and specifically ace communities. My position is very much not uncommon among the old book fandom. But we tend to grumble among ourselves so as not to spoil people's fun. Also, every time I as an ace fan have tried to talk about my dissatisfaction with it, I've been slammed with hyperbolic nonsense like "It's valid even if they don't have hard sex onscreen!" Or they point to irrelevant things like unrelated queer rep Neil has supposedly done. Neil is a fandom darling right now, so it's impossible to criticise him for anything without fans taking it extremely personally. Whatever its flaws, TV!GO IS a good story with definite queer vibes, and I'm happy for the people who could find something in it. I'm just tired of being told that if I'm not happy with it as queer rep, it's because I'm one of those fans who just wants to cancel progressive media for being imperfect and for whom nothing is ever good enough, or that I'm spitting in the faces of nb people or other aces or whatever. Nah, it has very real elements of queerbaiting and personally as an ace I'm not happy with handmedown "rep" I seemingly only got because "asexual, trans, or nonbinary" was more nonthreateningly abstract to the author than "gay". (Does he know gay ace people exist, I wonder?)

[@ofMindandHeart]

@@Hekateras I don’t expect to change your mind. I think you are coming at this from the position of being pretty cynical of Gaiman. Yes he has said people can read them as friends/nonromantic. He also *has said people can read them as gay.* He’s consistently been of the position that readers/viewers can read the characters however they want. I don’t perceive Gaiman as trying to shoot down the gay interpretation more than other interpretations - that’s just the one he gets asked the most. His position has always been very consistent: he himself does not view any angel or demon as matching any human label, but he is thrilled when readers/viewers see themselves in the characters, whether that’s in terms of neurodivergency or gender or sexuality. I also fundamentally disagree with your premise about overtness. If we only count queer rep as valuable when it is so overt that straight-cis-allos can’t deny/dismiss it, then we are letting the obliviousness of non-queers determine what stories we value. And non-queers can be quite oblivious. You’re right, Good Omens is not that overt. But there are multiple ways something can be valuable. This was why I brought up genderfluid fans who see themselves in the way Crowley approaches gender - that affirmation and validation they feel has value. We can acknowledge that Good Omens *didn’t* accomplish overt representation or the benefits that come from that, while also acknowledging it *did* accomplish letting some very underrepresented subsets of the community see themselves represented. Aziraphale’s journey in the show is very queer coded. He goes from attempting conformity with the other angels, who treat him as other and mock him for his otherness, to rejecting heaven and its rules in a way that’s celebrated by the narrative. The homophobia he experiences is a part of that queer coding. I don’t think removing those elements - and thus making him/the adversity he faces less queer coded - would make the show better. It makes sense for you to be disappointed about the show. It wasn’t what you wanted it to be. I’m not saying you should like it, or that your disappointment isn’t valid. I get that the fandom is likely overrun with show-focused fans, and that your position is getting misrepresented and strawmanned. I appreciate that you’re trying not to ruin people’s fun. My one qualm is that it sounds like you think the fans who are happy about the show are only happy due to naive unawareness. We’re not. Yes, I read the book (before watching the show). I know the changes, including the loss of the handholding at the climax in exchange for a visual of them both supporting Adam. Yes I know the context of the twitter thread. When someone asked him to “acknowledge that in human terms they are gay/bi/pan” he responded by saying not to exclude the the idea that they are ace or aro or trans (web.archive.org/web/20190804161510/twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1137370226931228672 ). The idea that the options he listed are in addition to the options in the previous tweet is implied. And yes, I know Gaiman considers “You go too fast for me” more emotionally impactful than a kiss or handhold. I happen to agree with him, and so do others (ofmindandheart.tumblr.com/post/186428083399/lovetourmaline-kedreeva-greenbergsays ). You can feel differently! But us finding that scene compelling isn’t because we somehow don’t know better or that we forgot handholding exists - it’s because we genuinely found it more compelling. It’s possible to look at Gaiman’s comments/changes through a thoroughly cynical lens and feel disappointed. It’s also possible to see all of this as it is and feel legitimately joyful. Both are valid ways to feel. Neither requires a lack of awareness.

[@foxesofautumn]

If we didn't live in a society that bent over backwards not to show queerness I could be happy with undercurrents and subtleties but we don't. They're just used as shields by studios and producers who are afraid of losing money so the fact that, in 2019, even creators who are not homophobic are still trading in plausible deniability makes me frustrated.

[@laurel1745]

As a media studies major who read Ng’s essay for class I admit I let out a little cheer when you brought it up! I think you really defined queer baiting well in this video and I applaud you for taking the time to come at it so thoroughly both from a fan perspective and an academic one. Also super enjoyed your acknowledgment of ace people connecting with the ineffable husbands, that part of the queer community gets overlooked so often in analysis and I think it really adds a lot to the conversation! I think queer coding without follow through actually does lead to a lot of aromantic or asexual coding unintentionally, which could be a whole other video topic on its own :)

[@natalieshark]

I remember when Thasmin became canon thinking “Where the hell did that come from?” I’m a queer person myself and never picked up on any subtext. Mind you I spent a lot of that era trying to forget what I had just seen.

[@CodeAndGin]

When the episodes were fresh in my head, for better or worse, I would have been able to point out every single instance of subtext. Twas very scant tho, and frankly the writing was so bad that I wasn't sure if it was subtext or just bad text.

[@alexjames7144]

I feel like the bad writing and god awful acting didn't help

[@confused.pigeon]

That's my main issue - I made myself watch every single episode, in hopes that it'd improve, and the only reason I even thought it'd be an option is because I saw it online. I saw *no* sign of Thasmin prior yo the specials, so it just felt forced and rushed, to me - like a cash grab bc Chibnall realized the fans wanted it

[@Tk-nf2xd]

36:56 well that didn't take long to not age well

[@NickNamesOfGod]

"LIKE! SHARE! SUBSCRIBE! LIKE! SHARE! SUBSCRIBE!" Daleks have never been more terrifying.

[@mhawang8204]

The algorithm is the Daleks on Earth… seems fitting

[@linkjourney422]

Who’s hear after that Rogue episode

[@fastfuriousgamer6228]

Which rogue?

[@krissp8712]

I like the "encouragement/discouragement" definition!

[@chaycollins]

The inquisitor is saphhic queerbait. What a fantastic essay! And I don't even care for Doctor Who that much

[@icarusxedits]

Good Omens def surpassed the queerbaiting now

[@Raven-Woods]

This is fantastic! You’ve really managed to succinctly and elegantly state the ideas that led to my own realization that we need to change the definition of the term as the media depictions of queerness changes

[@myxomatoad2]

Having just watched the Trial of a Time Lord season, I must thoroughly applaud the writing and editing of this video. Well done!

[@jdmj707]

I wish we had more seasons of torchwood. I had some issues with the writing in that show but I absolutely admire how unabashedly full of love it was, including queer relationships

[@tantryl]

Gaiman queerbaiting. His worst crime. When this video was published.

[@Togekab00m]

This entire video was a joy to watch, i can't believe how much you committed to the bit. You actually changed my mind on queerbaiting re both celebrities and explicit representation, bravo. Count me as impressed!

[@thetaaaa]

Holy shit how does this only have 7k views, definitely one of the best DW video essays AND fandom dissection videos I've seen in awhile. Also, not sure if the RP accent is an affect or not, but either way it's incredibly crisp and very pleasant to listen to.

[@ClassicallyAwkward]

This video is so good, its insane. Its so well-structured and adds much needed nuance to a very polarized conversation.

[@bowlerhatfilmsandreviews2778]

This was an excellent video; super well thought out, balanced, insightful and to top it all off you got Darkel to admit that she is aware of Johnlock. Superb

[@pancakepete]

I loved how you mentioned Alex and Rowan’s videos!! it was like all of my worlds were colliding it was great

[@ceryllake2486]

A truly excellent analysis with legitimately convincing points on both sides, not to mention the very entertaining TOTL theming. Top notch stuff, very enjoyable!

[@nickdoofenshmirtz1351]

Awesome video! It’s rate to have such a well researched video essay with fair commentary on the argument as a whole to reach a well-reasoned contention!

[@rennythespaceguy7285]

Finally, all of superwholock has a queerbaiting plot

[@PlatinumAltaria]

In a world with actual queer representation; even IF something isn't legally queerbaiting it's still quite pathetic. There is no reason for something as basic as a character relationship to be ambiguous unless you are hiding it to avoid criticism. This is a post-Owl House world, crumbs will no longer suffice! There is no "hetero coding", so there should be no "queer coding" either. Also I'm truly impressed that people managed to ship two characters with the blandest characterisation possible. They're barely even on screen but people still want them to kiss; we've achieved MorMor levels of power.

[@Spider-Man_234]

@PlatinumAltaria Did you watch the video? He says at 26:37 “insisting that only explicit representation counts doesn’t encourage visibility, it just conditions creators to find more creative ways of queerbaiting”. He further argues that queerbait is exploitative and should be fought against but not all queer stories are explicit. It leaves less room for asexuals, aromantics, non-binary people, and other non-conforming queer identities.

[@veggiet2009]

I will start this video by saying, yes, this was queerbait, but i think more than that it simply was a wimpy weak story thread.

[@imaginaryguide1895]

I just found you from the algorithm, and this is one of the clearest, most dialectic videos I've seen in a while. Instant subscribe.

[@Spider-Man_234]

This video’s existence crushes me, bc it shows that putting the Doctor on Trial is a PHENOMENAL concept… were it only executed properly in the actual show.

[@jannyjan90]

Think this shows how the Queer communitys desperation for representation makes it so easy for shows and creators to queerbait with little to no actual effort actually being needed. And how quick the community is to look for queerness in everything that they will often take little things and blow them up to more than was offered. Thasmin was a classic example with little reference other than a throw away comment to begin with, setting the queer desire off and then the community wanting it so much that they went into it to satisfy the community.

[@towerbunga]

Props for arguing with both *yourself* and also bouncing off of a literally non-existent person with the inquisitor whilst formulating a well structured argument. Really great vid!

[@mightyquin6831]

gotta say, I've watch trial of a time lord for the first time recently, so this is the perfect format for me to be tight something at this moment and time of my life, so thanks for the engaging video, I learned some interesting stuff. 10/10

[@shaghayeghtehrani6285]

The heavy edition makes your videos so exhausting to watch and follow

[@Sara-mp6gh]

I follow the commandment of the dalek and leave a comment for the algorythm but also to Express how Well this Video was researched and Made, thank you!

[@Foxy02016]

Very good format by providing points and counterpoints, without showing much bias

[@A6by]

One of the best video essays I've ever seen. Can't believe I'm not already subscribed - I certainly am now.

[@eyeballjay]

I don't even care about Dr Who and haven't watched it since I was a kid and David Tennant was in it but this and your arguments were so so interesting and held me from start to finish. Having said that part of my brain can't get over 16:48 "why does the music sound like the captain switching off the fasten seatbelt sign" lmaooo like what WAS that.

[@Kahfon]

The Daleks made me post. I really like your way of telling apart queerbait, it made looking at things a little less confusing for me! Thanks!

[@ShinyVaati]

Fantastic and insightful argument. I think you summed up my own feelings about Thasmin (and queerbait in general) in ways I hadn't even fully grasped myself. Also the use of Trial of Timelord to structure this is probably the best thing I've ever seen in any Doctor Who related analysis. The Darkel cuts cracked me up everytime!

[@henriquebastosbernardoni3630]

I confess that I'm a bit more of a purist in regards to terminology and I prefer a more solid distinction between queerbaiting and queercatching, but I think your argumentation was 100% on point. I feel we all can agree that the grand issue is how we still lack (by a huuuuuuge margin) sufficient queer representation. Maybe we wouldn't be discussing the nuances of whether so little so late should recieve laurels if we all of the alphabet soup were more present in media. But, as always, loved the video! I haven't ever watched a single episode of Doctor Who, but still clicked on this video the moment I saw the notification. I've said this before and I'll repeat: this channel deserves way more viewers than it currently has!

[@prof.evilpictures8696]

So glad that Good Omens season 2 was so wonderfully explicitly queer

[@temporaryrock]

came for the commentary, stayed for the valeyard loved the way this was put together

[@K.Arashi]

I feel like I learned some things and my mind has been expanded! Subscribed!

[@Hawkatana]

Ngl, I heard that as "Big Finnish", and thought you were joking about a cabal of Finland's finest trying to make every language as incomprehensible as Finnish.

[@jasonhill8506]

Season 2 of Good Omens should change people mind on queer baiting

[@miriam8376]

i say this as a queer person-i get very wary of canon queer pairings. they tend to be boring AF, because either the story is so concerned with good rep that it stops offering conflict and flawed, realistic humans or the writers rest on "queer" as the main characterization and so the pairing has the emotional complexity of a puddle. teen wolf is a great example of this. Derek and Stiles are well-characterized, the actors have excellent chemistry, theyre both really attractive, and there were good reasons to keep them apart so as to build the drama. the actual canon pairing we got? Danny and twin #1? "queer" was their primary character trait, they had very little screen time to show why they would like each other at all, they had zero chemistry, and we never knew either of them well enough to care about what they would do. the unfortunate reality is that sometimes i prefer queerbaited ships because they get the better storytelling, because they get STRAIGHT storytelling. And straight storytelling (especially straight romance) is full of misery and complication and breakups until finally you get a kiss at the end. This can be good romance. But forcing happy endings and kisses on screen where they look like good rep but actually contradict the genre/tone/themes/character development in existence isnt good rep. its catering. All Rose and Ten got was a possessed kiss and a whole lot of sexual tension, but that straight-baiting Will they or won’t they relationship stuck with me a heck of a lot longer than any canon queer relationship since Willow and Tara.

[@blinkfilms1]

SO REAL AND TRUE!!! I fucking love dean and Castiel's love story in supernatural, even though it was (at least from 2010-2016) heavily queerbaited. Their story isn't compelling because two gay guys kiss, (there are plenty of canon queer characters on supernatural to varying degrees of success, none I care much for for the reasons you state above) destiel is compelling because it's about A LITERAL ANGEL choosing to sacrifice his relationship with heaven and GOD HIMSELF to live on earth with his best friend. That's compelling as fuck!!!! It's not about where they are on the queerness spectrum, it's about the story they tell (religious trauma, generational trauma, familial trauma, repression, and how those effect your found family relationships) and how that resonates. Also it's hot.

[@bsteven885]

Now if you want an example of queerbaiting, the 1990s TV series Xena (the Warrior Princess) is where it's at! It aggressively hinted that Xena's relationship with her female companion was more than platonic, but never confirmed it.

[@roachno.24]

watching the good omens section after season 2 makes me very happy about progress (i still hc them as ace tbh)

[@thatplayerone5002]

I would argue it’s not "baiting" because of a few reasons. Firstly, this isn’t the first time we have had a queer main character in who. Not even a queer companion, I mean we literally JUST finished with Bill right before Yaz comes into discussion at all. Secondly I think that their arc, however bittersweet it ends, is an arc that makes sense. Especially looking back into the doctor’s history. Thirdly, and most importantly I might add, they did deliver on it. Yaz literally admits to loving the doctor, and as a queer person, that sort of forbidden love is very much an aspect of the LGBTQIA+ community. It isn’t as cookie cutter as many are used to, but it still is very much playing that card. Bitter endings like the one we had received are extremely common, as well was that time between the ending of the second to last episode and the finale. It’s the doctor admitting to, as 12 would put it, having a "duty of care" for Yaz, but not giving in to her emotions because she’s scared, and that fear succumbs to her. She falls victim to it, having enjoyed some time with Yaz, but being too afraid to lose her that she steps away. Lastly, I would argue this kind of representation is the kind I myself strive for. It doesn’t give off "I’m so gay" in the same way many other shows, films, books, and media have. Instead, it brings it’s representation back down, almost asking itself "why am I treating this any different then a straight story?’ It isn’t a queerbait, because, as queer as they are for HAVING that love for each other, the arc between them wasn’t about queer love, nor was it hinted at, it was stated openly by Yaz that she loves the doctor, and I don’t see their story as a queer love story, I see it as a love story. It’s pure, obsessive, not over the top. The only two queer things about their love is they are both in cis women’s bodies, identifying as women, loving each other, and hesitancy. This wouldn’t have been straight baiting if it was a male doctor at the time, but my argument falls into place with "Yaz loves the doctor. That’s not baiting."

[@BarbaraYaga]

"Supernatural sn't materially different from Xena" Xena & Gabrelle kissed on the mouth a bunch of times & got married. It's a bit different than superhell.

[@armenianrussian]

I am surprised that, when you mentioned that T.a.t.u. girls were 14, when they auditioned, you didn't mention that in one of their music videos one of the girls was forced to masturbate on camera. Not pretend to masturbate, mind you. But really masturbate. Although, it may be the case with KZbin monetisation. I'm not sure.

[@kate_g-s2s]

_* sighs with disgust *_ well, russians...

[@JamesWoodall]

There were some things I didn't say about t.A.T.u because of KZbin monetisation. But I didn't know about this one. 😬😬😬😬😬😬😬

[@alicec1533]

@@kate_g-s2s ? tf u mean 'well, russians...'

[@armenianrussian]

@@JamesWoodall oh. Well… now you know.

[@fellinuxvi3541]

​@@alicec1533 I think it means exactly what it seems to mean.

[@LilayM]

Damn, that's nuanced. Good job!

[@okay3666]

it’s insane you aren’t a bigger channel given how good quality your videos are

[@naomistarlight6178]

I think of the song "I Kissed a Girl" as about Katy Perry doing queer baiting of herself or the persona of herself she was trying to market at the time. She wanted to market herself as "bisexual means WILD and up for anything!" but she was straight, so she made the song carefully worded so that if you pay attention to all the lyrics, you know it's about simply a straight girl experimenting with kissing another girl. But the marketing strategy surrounding the song was "gay anthem".

[@SamyulDavis]

Yeah, you got a life-long subscriber from that, brilliant arguments

[@elliottowen-griffiths948]

Brilliant video with excellent points, I particularly enjoyed the discussion of queerbaiting in celebrities, not as people but as marketed products

[@edb2863]

I adore this. So well structured and written, really has depth and bredth Instant sub

[@minigrinpins2528]

the good omens part aged like milk lmfao

[@dontbelasagne]

i haven't finished the video yet so will update this with any changes necessary but as first thoughts, what makes me feel like Thasmin is a more egregious form of queerbaiting was just how awfully toxic Thirteen made her relationship with every companion - especially Yaz. it's been shown so many times in nuWho already how affection for The Doctor is simply dangerous and leads to awful things for all involved, and specifically centres around The Doctor being selfish because they didnt want to be alone, they wanted to retain that fresh outlook on the universe their friends provide. But for Thasmin it more or less was Yaz being head over heels obsessed with The Doctor being this heroic and escapist figure, followed by The Doctor being mean spirited or belittling. I'm all for queer characters being messy, but the disconnect from Thasmin being projected as this cutsie space romance compared to what actually happened on screen doesnt sit right with me as a queer individual. edit: oh you put it perfectly. it's not that there was an absence of queerness with Thasmin, it's that the representation was not substantial enough to view the writer's decisions with levity. the characters themselves weren't inherently queer, but rather given queer attributes as a way to pursue a potential storyline if it ever had a chance to breath, and unfortunately the show decided too late to give Thasmin any opportunity to exist without the need for retroactive changes or paratext that only worked if you subjectively decoded the acting choices in that way.

[@sadwasdead5065]

i know nothing about dr who. i have not seen it. i clicked as fast i could.

[@iroc]

I subbed after the last video and if I wasn’t already, I would have subbed after this one! Another banger and fabulous addition to the discourse. Love the Socratic presentation and bi lighting (it pleases me to no end that there is now a visual vocabulary for queer coded breadtube video essays 😂). Homophobic [spoilers] at the end omg 💀 I’m dead lmfao Edit: became a patron! ✨

[@benedictcooper3131]

Genius. Iconic. Perfect. Engagement.

[@lys6295]

It is quite funny and fitting to use the 'And they were roommates' vine as an example since it was later made known that she was talking about two men.

[@Futurebound_jpg]

Damn yaz asking for more time with her is so sad :( first companion to ask for that straight up who got dumped without reason.

[@arubinojr5670]

Queerbait but they forgot the bait at home, along with the pole. In fact, they were fishing with their hands and a basket but then their glasses fell in and were eaten by a large queer fish.

[@scarlettdamante4945]

That musical intro was incredible, you got all the doctor who theme song "shapes" but somehow a different sound. Alternate reality Doctor who, genuinely loved that; good job.

[@PeakeABoo]

Yaz was shot down by 13 because 13 was going through so much and was a time of identity crisis for Doc too. So it was poor timing and she says as much to Yaz as she lets her down gently. Them fighting, was due to Doc wanting to protect the humans, and Yaz wanting to protect Doc because serve and protect is her job job and she takes it seriously. Like Yaz is fighting the walls 13 has put up, not Doc. Not Queerbaiting, just a messy, complicated situation.

[@PeakeABoo]

I cannot believe that even at the half way point, I agree with the Valeyard.

[@TalysAlankil]

not the hatsune miku quote sdflkjdslkfjsdkl

[@SunniestAutumn]

Your honor, I would like to submit into evidence the scene Yaz has with whatsername in Haunting of Villa Diodati, where she refers to having a "Special person" she likes. Clearly this is ambiguous enough to be a textbook example queerbaiting.

[@Char10tti3]

Add in the complexity of things like creaties liking comments and posts on Twitter and it really does throw in a while other layer of interaction and intention while allowing them to keep ambiguity and plausible deniability of any confirmation happening

[@blinkfilms1]

You always make fantastic videos, but this is my favorite. Your explanations are empathetic and articulate, and the style is incredible. I can't wait to see what you make next. (But I'd still pick destiel over thasmin every time, @ me)

[@luminousbanjo]

This is a great video and almost redeems Trial of a Time Lord.

[@abbeyj]

James this was such a fun video, you never disappoint 😊

[@DiamondzFinder_]

Damn. A very well made video with very well made arguments. Well done!

[@jalix9574]

i love this video so much. it's just so clever. and if a dalek tells me to comment for engagement, well,

[@Scarfgirl]

I'm two minutes in, and this is already the best video essay I've seen on KZbin.

[@Coco21212]

I loved the Thasmin storyline as it was but I also find this nuanced presentation fascinating. If I'm honest I still don't think Thasmin was queerbait, but I now understand why people do and I sincerely respect this opinion.

[@RobertHargrave]

Really top quality discussion of a complex theme - as always

[@AlexDevallez-xi2ns]

I'm afraid I'm not going to make much sense but my main issue with the concept of queerbaiting, is that it has always been subjective and if often use, in fandoms, as a way to win a debate rather than discuss a complex matter. Thasmin is one example but not the only one of course. You either "win" by saying it's objectively queerbaiting (and therefore bad) or by saying it's objectively not (and therefore good). There is also the fact that we end up wasting more time debating the concept itself, proposing alternative concepts like queercatching (that is not uninteresting but to my knowledge hasn't caught on). There is a nuanced conversation about it that tends to be lost or at least made less visible (that is partially covered by your video). And it's specifically because I'm tired of spending more time trying to figure out what queerbaiting means this week or what it should mean instead of having actual conversations on the very complex question of queer representation in 2023 that I no longer want to use this term. I have to say though your points about the evolution of this concept are very interesting for someone who kind of missed this evolution and probably didn't get what half the debate was about in the first place.

[@ryanratchford2530]

Yeah I was thinking this throughout the last year of specials.

[@carolinemcgovern4488]

My god I love the setup and framing device!

[@bluevortexpng1211]

this is such a creatively made video! glad i watched another video essay on the 6th doctor's run that gave me enough prior knowledge to understand the references to trial of a timelord, lol. i know that the fans that asked for thasmin are surely happy with the showrunner keeping an ear out and listening to them but when it's in a show that has done much more explicit queer representation before (i.e., jack harkness and all of torchwood, vastra and jenny, bill potts) i think we can all collectively expect better of it. the valeyard character in this video bringing up ten and donna's running joke compared to the scene in arachnids of the uk is interesting to me. because what made ten and donna's joke a "joke" was the idea that these two were so flat out not interested in each other and that's what made their friendship so good (and also why ten needed someone like donna so much). the man-presenting alien and the woman that are clearly very close with one another are not a couple despite people (who ascribe to cishet amatonormative societal norms) thinking otherwise! and this kind of dynamic even speaks to aroace viewers of the show like myself whose close friendships are often assumed to be romantic. meanwhile the joke about thirteen and yaz is just "are these two women a couple? maybe they look like it, but no". and something like that is queerbaity at best and rooted in a homophobic sentiment at worst, i think. bc it's not a pushback against cishet/amatonormative societal norms like the ten and donna running joke is. it's exactly like the examples of queerbait shown in the video-implying but not willing to commit

[@deliquescencemusic]

Ha! The last minute Chibnall Bait n Switch strikes again. Citation: three seasons of Broadchurch.

[@GodAlmightyHimself]

I love your Doctor Who ripoff intro sequence. In my mind, it establishes your authority as a higher tier of fan than the average viewer.

[@SpecialInterestShow]

Thank you for saying that queerbaiting CAN involve queer characters! We all know Lance and Keith from Voltron were one huge queerbait, but Shiro was too! Shiro was confirmed gay, and part of his backstory was tragically losing his boyfriend, iirc. But does this come up much? Nah, only a few times, rarely. Then at the end they just married him off to some dude we barely had even seen in the show! People talk a lot about Klance being blatant queerbaiting, but in some ways I find the Shiro queerbait worse since they somehow still queerbaited A CANONICALLY QUEER CHARACTER! Man I swear, it was like Voltron: The Legendary Queerbaiters

[@foxesofautumn]

Basically, queer characters deserve the same representation straight characters get in that work/world/canon. If straight characters can kiss, so can queer ones. If straight characters can have sex then so can queer ones. If straight characters can be explicit in their romantic entanglements verbally, so can queer ones. That's the bar and it's hardly ever met.