Contradictory Canon FAQ
Here's my general stance on a few controversial and/or contradictory canon points (because Doctor Who has *so many* canon contradictions.) I certainly won't hold anyone else to them, because there's usually as much evidence for one view as the other and I've no need to force everyone to conform to my whim (especially since my whim has been known to change when new information comes out or someone gives an explanation I like for a contradictory canon point I'd previously dismissed.)
tl;dr: I'm not trying to establish a rulebook that other people must follow, I'm just writing up a guide so people know where I'm coming from if these issues come up and give a brief explanation for *why* I choose one option over the other.
Q1. Live birth or LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMS.
A1. Looms. But usually loomed as children/infants. (see "The Sounds of Drums," various references to the Doctor's childhood in both New and Old who.) Looming an adult is possible but rare. Why I choose looms is because even if one doesn't follow the expanded canon that says that Gallifreyans were cursed with sterility, the Time Lords are certainly technologically capable of controlling reproduction and the idea that they *would* fits in nicely with their general anti-nature stance (seen most clearly in "The Invasion of Time").
Also, on a feminist note, I find the idea of a culture that has detached reproduction from any notion of sex or gender to be interesting.
Q2. Can Time Lords change sex when they regenerate?
A2. My stance is yes but it's uncommon. The idea has been tossed about in Whovian circles for decades. At least some BBC folks involved in Classic Who quite seriously contemplated the possibility of having the Doctor regenerate into a woman.
Also, if they're changing every cell in their bodies, there's no good reason why they couldn't. Men and woman really aren't that biologically different. Genetically, a brother and sister are more alike than the sister is to any other non-family female or the brother to any non-family male. Male and female fetuses start with all the same organs and the cells of sex organs only start specializing as male or female well into fetal development. In short, if Tom Baker can turn into Peter Davison, there is no rational reason why it should be impossible for regeneration to alter a Time Lord's sex. But since there's no canonical example of it, I'll accept that, for whatever reason, it's fairly rare. In my headcanon it has about the same rate of incidence as intersexual births in humans. But since the difference between gender roles is minimal, it's a matter of curiosity but not much remarked upon beyond that. NEW WHO EPISODE 6.3 MADE IT TOTALLY CANON.
Q3. Can Time Lords change species when they regenerate?
A3. Canon says yes. At least superficially. I think all the internal structures remain the same (two hearts, respiratory bypass, etc.) and the standard regeneration is to basic Gallifreyan but a Time Lord who has a great control over their regeneration process (eg Romana) can make sure that the cell change produces blue skin or forehead ridges or any other superficial change of appearance that could make them *appear* like another species even if they're still genetically Gallifreyan.
Q4. Are Time Lords asexual?
A4. It's been argued that the Doctor is asexual (sometimes romantic, but still asexual), but I think it's very very hard to argue that Time Lords as a species are asexual, unless one tries to claim that the Master's marriage to Lucy was sexless. And aside from the Master in the TV series, in Gallifrey canon alone there's Andred's marriage to the (earthy and passionate human) Leela, Hallan being successfully seduced by a human and making out with her, Jenartis being super creepy and making rape-like threats to Romana, Braxiatel and Romana I hitting on each other... Time Lords being asexual isn't supported by Gallifrey canon at all, and not really by TV canon either. Not even classic canon (which is, after all, where the Leela/Andred romance started). *Individual* Time Lords can certainly be asexual, but as an absolute biological fact of the whole race? It seems unlikely.
THAT SAID. Time Lords hate nature and love repression. I think there's a HUGE cultural push towards asexuality. Which they can do because they don't need sex to reproduce (see "Looms"), and because they have more control over their autonomic functions than humans do including, presumably, things like arousal.
So biologically? Not asexual. Most are physically capable of having and enjoying sex. But culturally? Repression is the rule. And Time Lords are very very good at repressing.
Q5. Was Gallifrey destroyed in the Second Great War in Heaven, by the Dogma Virus, by the Last Great Time War, or what?
A5. Yes. I've always assumed that the War in Heaven and the Time War were two different time lines. After Gallifrey IV, I'm fairly convinced that the Dogma Virus is part of yet another time line. In short, Gallifrey gets destroyed a lot of different ways in a lot of different time lines.
Headcanon time: I have a totally headcanon theory that because the Time Lords established the rules for time travel and because they borked up the universe by breaking those laws a lot, that space-time is contorting to actively try to wipe them out as if Time Lords were a disease to the universe. So Gallifrey gets destroyed in many different ways in many time lines. And the only way it can survive is to either not develop time travel or to develop it differently and use it more responsibly.
Q6. What sort of animal was the evolutionary ancestor of Gallifreyans?
A6. Not primates. Nine's insult of "stupid apes" is a strong indication of such. Gallifrey IV gives some more clues. Gallifreyans who drink vampire blood are shown to regress into a primitive state. They call these regressed Gallifreyans "Hounds." So I'm guessing vaguely canine. (Shades of vampires vs werewolves there.) Also, aspirin toxicity in mammals (which is canon for Time Lords) is associated with a disabled gene that only occurs in hypercarnivores--in particular cats, northern elephant seals, and brown hyenas.
In my headcanon, I favour somewhat hyena-like ancestors, because Gallifreyans used to be matriarchal, and because the combination of strongly hierarchical but also independent is a bit like hyena clans. And I like the idea of something that's not quite a canine and not quite a feline but a bit like both. A mid-sized, agile, four-legged, furred predator that has no direct Earth analogue.
More wildly crazy headcanon is that their evolutionary ancestors had manes or ruffs around their necks that they puffed up for display. So the strange, giant collars that modern Time Lords wear came into fashion because somewhere very deep in their hindbrain, their primitive subconscious associates a massive circle around the neck and head with dominance.
tl;dr: I'm not trying to establish a rulebook that other people must follow, I'm just writing up a guide so people know where I'm coming from if these issues come up and give a brief explanation for *why* I choose one option over the other.
Q1. Live birth or LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMS.
A1. Looms. But usually loomed as children/infants. (see "The Sounds of Drums," various references to the Doctor's childhood in both New and Old who.) Looming an adult is possible but rare. Why I choose looms is because even if one doesn't follow the expanded canon that says that Gallifreyans were cursed with sterility, the Time Lords are certainly technologically capable of controlling reproduction and the idea that they *would* fits in nicely with their general anti-nature stance (seen most clearly in "The Invasion of Time").
Also, on a feminist note, I find the idea of a culture that has detached reproduction from any notion of sex or gender to be interesting.
Q2. Can Time Lords change sex when they regenerate?
A2. My stance is yes but it's uncommon. The idea has been tossed about in Whovian circles for decades. At least some BBC folks involved in Classic Who quite seriously contemplated the possibility of having the Doctor regenerate into a woman.
Also, if they're changing every cell in their bodies, there's no good reason why they couldn't. Men and woman really aren't that biologically different. Genetically, a brother and sister are more alike than the sister is to any other non-family female or the brother to any non-family male. Male and female fetuses start with all the same organs and the cells of sex organs only start specializing as male or female well into fetal development. In short, if Tom Baker can turn into Peter Davison, there is no rational reason why it should be impossible for regeneration to alter a Time Lord's sex. But since there's no canonical example of it, I'll accept that, for whatever reason, it's fairly rare. In my headcanon it has about the same rate of incidence as intersexual births in humans. But since the difference between gender roles is minimal, it's a matter of curiosity but not much remarked upon beyond that. NEW WHO EPISODE 6.3 MADE IT TOTALLY CANON.
Q3. Can Time Lords change species when they regenerate?
A3. Canon says yes. At least superficially. I think all the internal structures remain the same (two hearts, respiratory bypass, etc.) and the standard regeneration is to basic Gallifreyan but a Time Lord who has a great control over their regeneration process (eg Romana) can make sure that the cell change produces blue skin or forehead ridges or any other superficial change of appearance that could make them *appear* like another species even if they're still genetically Gallifreyan.
Q4. Are Time Lords asexual?
A4. It's been argued that the Doctor is asexual (sometimes romantic, but still asexual), but I think it's very very hard to argue that Time Lords as a species are asexual, unless one tries to claim that the Master's marriage to Lucy was sexless. And aside from the Master in the TV series, in Gallifrey canon alone there's Andred's marriage to the (earthy and passionate human) Leela, Hallan being successfully seduced by a human and making out with her, Jenartis being super creepy and making rape-like threats to Romana, Braxiatel and Romana I hitting on each other... Time Lords being asexual isn't supported by Gallifrey canon at all, and not really by TV canon either. Not even classic canon (which is, after all, where the Leela/Andred romance started). *Individual* Time Lords can certainly be asexual, but as an absolute biological fact of the whole race? It seems unlikely.
THAT SAID. Time Lords hate nature and love repression. I think there's a HUGE cultural push towards asexuality. Which they can do because they don't need sex to reproduce (see "Looms"), and because they have more control over their autonomic functions than humans do including, presumably, things like arousal.
So biologically? Not asexual. Most are physically capable of having and enjoying sex. But culturally? Repression is the rule. And Time Lords are very very good at repressing.
Q5. Was Gallifrey destroyed in the Second Great War in Heaven, by the Dogma Virus, by the Last Great Time War, or what?
A5. Yes. I've always assumed that the War in Heaven and the Time War were two different time lines. After Gallifrey IV, I'm fairly convinced that the Dogma Virus is part of yet another time line. In short, Gallifrey gets destroyed a lot of different ways in a lot of different time lines.
Headcanon time: I have a totally headcanon theory that because the Time Lords established the rules for time travel and because they borked up the universe by breaking those laws a lot, that space-time is contorting to actively try to wipe them out as if Time Lords were a disease to the universe. So Gallifrey gets destroyed in many different ways in many time lines. And the only way it can survive is to either not develop time travel or to develop it differently and use it more responsibly.
Q6. What sort of animal was the evolutionary ancestor of Gallifreyans?
A6. Not primates. Nine's insult of "stupid apes" is a strong indication of such. Gallifrey IV gives some more clues. Gallifreyans who drink vampire blood are shown to regress into a primitive state. They call these regressed Gallifreyans "Hounds." So I'm guessing vaguely canine. (Shades of vampires vs werewolves there.) Also, aspirin toxicity in mammals (which is canon for Time Lords) is associated with a disabled gene that only occurs in hypercarnivores--in particular cats, northern elephant seals, and brown hyenas.
In my headcanon, I favour somewhat hyena-like ancestors, because Gallifreyans used to be matriarchal, and because the combination of strongly hierarchical but also independent is a bit like hyena clans. And I like the idea of something that's not quite a canine and not quite a feline but a bit like both. A mid-sized, agile, four-legged, furred predator that has no direct Earth analogue.
More wildly crazy headcanon is that their evolutionary ancestors had manes or ruffs around their necks that they puffed up for display. So the strange, giant collars that modern Time Lords wear came into fashion because somewhere very deep in their hindbrain, their primitive subconscious associates a massive circle around the neck and head with dominance.