Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-44988386-20200416234118/@comment-44988386-20200417003722

OncomingStorm12th wrote: Specially because sexuality has sometimes been written very differently in the DWU when compared to the real world (and even in the real world, it's quite hard to apply a nice little label to others), it not simple or right to say that, for example, River Song is bisexual, because she can be pansexual, or yet another term that's purely in-universe. But we know for sure that she's not heterosexual, so would clearly apply to her, even if  or  don't.

I'm of the opinion that, unless we get a direct quote of character X identifying character Y as (or, better yet, when we can, narration or character Y outright saying they're) "gay", "bisexual", "lesbian" or any other labels, that they're simply put under a category like (which would then house all the other, more specific categories).

A similar treatment could and should, of course, apply to gender identities (with the base category being something like, which would then "house"  ,  , and others that could apply) - disclaimer: I'm not the most qualified person to decide on this terminology, and categorisation, being cisgender, so if there is a better alternative, please do let me (us) know.

I'd be fine with that as well, I'd just like to see the categories be put in some form. Your version is also more streamlined and probably better than mine. Although I disagree with the "they must state their identity to be placed in a more specific category part". For example, Angstrom never states her identity, but we can clearly see she is a lesbian due to her actions and things she states.