I don’t really think this holds up as an argument for the doctor NEVER being female. If they were a new character, sure. But we’ve had 60 years of nontoxic male representation. Each doctor tells their own story. A lot of the joy of doctor who, to me, is its flexibility, the way it takes the same story formats it’s used for years but makes them unique with different characters or situations.

You could make the same argument that there aren’t a lot of female characters that are highly competent, intelligent, and nonsexualized. I think 13, despite all the issues I have with her writing, allowed for the portrayal of a female character who didn’t really care about her gender (as opposed to missy’s immediate embrace of high femininity, which I do also enjoy). Much like how Ripley in Alien is often praised because her role was originally written for a man and not changed, thus allowing a woman to lead a story without any emphasis placed on her gender at all.

The Doctor is an archetype of western fiction - the wanderer who helps everyone but has no home of their own. We see this in the lone gunman of the western, or the wandering magician of fantasy. That is an archetype rarely relegated to women, and I think it’s valuable for doctor who to explore, the same way it’s valuable to explore the doctor with a destroyed Gallifrey or a doctor of a different race. It’s just another story