The internet, of course, seems to bring out the best and worst in people - and often a lack of tolerance of various different hues. Take for instance a thread on one of the main Doctor Who forums which addressed Russell T Davies and the gay references that crop up from time to time in his show. This weekend's episode Midnight, had a female character (Lesley Sharpe in excellent form) making a passing comment that her ex-partner was a she'. No big deal or plot point, but in an episode about paranoia and intolerance, perhaps subtely apt.
On the almost inevitable Who forum thread in question anyone referring to this as an example of RTD's 'gay agenda' was called homophobic. Idiot that I am (and you think I'd know better by now) I felt I needed to add my 2c worth: suggesting that I did notice that RTD does add those flourishes from time to time, but it was MORE important as to how an episode worked as a whole; that this wasn't an 'evil agenda' but simply a writer returning to themes that interest him, vaguely or directly. My critique just noted that sometimes such references were important, sometimes not important but organic to the script and other times... well, yes, COULD feel more clumsy and unnecessary.
Apparently the fact I needed to comment at all in a way that doesn't, allegedly tow the 'Russell T Davies' sexuality isn't remotely referenced in his work and why should it be worthy of note even if it was?' line means I'm now one of the forum's 'intolerant homophobes' who just don't get that gay people don't have a choice about their sexuality, are proud to be gay (but don't want to be defined by it) and are tired of being persecuted for it and why is it that 'no-one says every straight couple in a drama is an example of a hetrosexual agenda' etc etc etc).
For the record, I love shows that take science-fiction as a way to look at modern issues in a fantastical but relevant way. Who, once purely a kids-and-parents show is still accesible to those demographics but does now have an undeniable, more earthy, aware quality (same-sex relationships, promiscious Captains, interspecies realtionships, double-entendres etc) than you'd have found in Tom Baker's era. I don't mind that at all, but a lightly disguised reference to oral sex in one episode and The Master not '...having a beard unless you count his wife' line do sometimes jar just a tad and are not imagined references - they're deliberate additions and therefore deserve the same right of critque as any other part of the show.
There's an interesting discussion to be had about recurring themes, controversial issues and writers' styles in general, but while one side makes claims of dangerous subversive agendas, another sees persecution in any criticism made and people can't get harmlessly bored by one aspect without suffering from some sort of innate prejudice, then it seems we still have a long way to go before the geeks inherit the Earth. Shoot the show in HD, don't shoot the messenger!
In the meantime I'll enjoy the fact that one forum sees me as intolerant and another sees me as annoying politically-correct. I must be doing something right.
