Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-44988386-20200416234118/@comment-38288735-20200823021822

I support the idea of the two categories as OncomingStorm proposed. I do see some benefits of an article that could provide more context to complicated cases but fear it would end up needing to be too detailed to be functional.

In terms of the non-het category, since works of fiction rarely take the time to have every character identify their own orientation, I do not believe that Farty's position of requiring self-identification is realistic. I think it would better serve our desired purpose of showing representation to include any character who clearly shows non-hetero attraction unless they are clearly shown later to be rejecting that attraction as having been something like "a phase".

In regard to Disoriented's distaste for this idea, I think it's important to remember that we are discussing fictional characters and not real people. We certainly do not live in a world where a list could exist of everyone's orientations without it leading to persecution, but, as these characters are fictional, they cannot be harmed by this list existing, and the list can be used to show the representation displayed throughout many parts of the Whoniverse.

My only other thought is that it's probably for the best if we don't include any characters in either category that can naturally change their sex, as the entire concept of the sexes is then altered. It just becomes too debatable, in my opinion.