idk where i’m going with this but when i see irene adler’s original appearance compared and contrasted with moffat’s version with the implication that it’s more progressive, it bugs me??

basically even though I LOVE irene adler, her original appearance should not be held up as an example of feminist writing. imo that extends to comparison to the mess that happened in scandal in belgravia, though that also essentially missed the point of her character outside any political context. she is THE woman, literally “eclipsing her sex.” that seems positive (and is positive b/c she’s a badass) but eclipsing her sex!! combined with the emphasis placed on holmes’ very male-gendered scientific mind, literally compared to a machine that (lady) emotion would only interfere with, it’s like idk. even as a person who’s a fan of sherlock holmes in many incarnations, i can see that a big part of it is about glorifying exceptional white dudes. the only thing steven moffat did was just one-up that by missing the point of irene adler, which is that even though she’s an “exception,” it’s still a subversion that she beats holmes and he more than admires her for it.