Elizabeth I may have been non-binary, claims Shakespeare’s Globe

ExDancer

How do we know that Q Elizabeth 1st used those actual words at Tilbury? Is there a written copy somewhere?
All we really know is that she made a rousing speech to the troops.
Any suggestion of her having claimed to have masculine tendencies could have been incorporated later (probably by a man)

Yes, it's in the British Library.

How do we know that Q Elizabeth 1st used those actual words at Tilbury? Is there a written copy somewhere?
All we really know is that she made a rousing speech to the troops.
Any suggestion of her having claimed to have masculine tendencies could have been incorporated later (probably by a man)

Doodledog

When she said ‘I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman’ Elizabeth was dispelling the fears of her subjects by addressing those fears at the beginning of the speech, to stop them from getting in the way of people listening or believing the rest. It is a common technique, still used by politicians today.

As people were used to men being rulers, and as Elizabeth was a woman (regularly and routinely inspected by physicians) she could get them onside by comparing herself to what they were used to. People like familiarity and routine, and are better able to be persuaded to do things with which they are familiar, so assuring them that she had ‘the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England, too!’ was telling them that she was as good as the men who usually ruled, not that she literally had male body parts. Appealing to familiarity is another persuasive technique which is still used today.

It was a good speech, often analysed in English and Social Science classes, but was not meant to be taken literally. Yes, there is no way of knowing whether this was the body that Elizabeth wanted, but that speculation is entirely separate from the speech itself, and AFAIK there is no evidence at all that she thought she really was a man.

And this, well said Doodledog.

Witzend

To me it’s almost comically ludicrous that anyone should hitch their trans/gender bandwagon to the body of Elizabeth the First, who knew perfectly well that marriage would inevitably mean a loss of her power and influence.

This as well.

SueDonim

The same is happening with Joan of Arc. It’s a great way to deny women exist and erase us from public life.

Indeed it is.

Since no one was alive at time that Elizabeth 1 was alive no one knows. Sounds like fanciful, wishful thinking. No one knows!

I’ll ask again. Given that evidence, isn’t it wrong to misgender her. Why are those so determined to have their chosen gender recognised so disrespectful of others?

The longer you stay on these threads () the more you will realise that questions like this never get answered. They are ignored, and answers are replaced with picky 'Gotcha!'s based on perceived 'mistakes' in your posts. An attempt at shutting down the conversation? You Decide.

Whenever I hear this speech I am reminded of an extract from Mrs. Dale's Bedside Book 1951, which I gave to my grandmother, aged five. Mrs Dale's mother, an imposing lady, was chosen to deliver this famous speech in a local pageant. She rode up on a white horse, and overcome by the sight of her assembled army delivered the opening lines in ringing tones:
' I know I have the body of a feak and weeble woman.....'

I always read it as that, even now.

In private, away from her titles and responsibilities she chose to be called “Lady”.

We also know from poets of the time that she found “mistress” ( not in the modern sense) an acceptable form of address by those less intimate.

When settlements overseas were named after her she chose feminine names - Virginia being one.

The evidence of history shows us her personal as well as her public choice was to be regarded as a woman.

I’ll ask again. Given that evidence, isn’t it wrong to misgender her. Why are those so determined to have their chosen gender recognised so disrespectful of others?

Well put Doodledog.
I know I’m cynical, but it’s possible that the Globe is also saying this to attract more custom by using this controversial and unproven statement.
The media was full of “It’s the End for the Globe” during lockdown.

When she said ‘I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman’ Elizabeth was dispelling the fears of her subjects by addressing those fears at the beginning of the speech, to stop them from getting in the way of people listening or believing the rest. It is a common technique, still used by politicians today.

As people were used to men being rulers, and as Elizabeth was a woman (regularly and routinely inspected by physicians) she could get them onside by comparing herself to what they were used to. People like familiarity and routine, and are better able to be persuaded to do things with which they are familiar, so assuring them that she had ‘the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England, too!’ was telling them that she was as good as the men who usually ruled, not that she literally had male body parts. Appealing to familiarity is another persuasive technique which is still used today.

It was a good speech, often analysed in English and Social Science classes, but was not meant to be taken literally. Yes, there is no way of knowing whether this was the body that Elizabeth wanted, but that speculation is entirely separate from the speech itself, and AFAIK there is no evidence at all that she thought she really was a man.

Oldwoman70

Well of course these "women" were trans/non-binary - a woman couldn't possibly have done the things they did unless they were really male. After all "real women" would have been kept pregnant and in the kitchen!!!

Or had their heads chopped off as the male sharks were circling!

Exactly FarNorth body dysmorphia is different and covers a very wide range of conditions. Nobody treats the dysphoric anorexic by reinforcing their body image and encouraging starvation. There are cases of people deliberately blinding themselves because they feel they should have been born blind. No doctor should perform surgery to achieve that aim. There is a lesbian on twitter who constantly gets told byTRAs that her body dysmorphia would be cured by transitioning to a transman. It wouldn't. She's a happily married butch lesbian who just gets distressed by her body, but doesn't want to change it or deny her female sex. For all the parallels that are drawn with homosexuality the aim of transgender ideology sometimes seems to be to remove it from the table. 'Genital fetishes' just one of the slurs aimed at lesbians who do not include transwomen or any penis bearer as a potential partner.

VioletSky

It would be defined by the feeling of being in the wrong body FarNorth

You know, having girl parts and wanting boy parts instead.

At the very least, as surgery is not obtainable or safe for everyone.. being able to be seen as and accepted as the other sex

So while a trans person may tell you, yes I have the body of a woman that doesn't mean they have the body they want or they would not identify as trans.

And arguments about biological reality will fail here as they eventually did with gay people.

It's not a choice, it's not a mental illness it who they are on a basic level that science has shown may very well have roots in biology..

Is it just me or does anyone else have dejavu?

.

"It" being gender dysphoria, I still don't understand why that would happen if 'gender norms' had been completely done away with, as you suggested, VioletSky.

How would it work to be able to be seen as and accepted as the other sex if there were no gender norms?

It seems to me that the feeling you describe would be similar to types of body dysmorphia where people believe, for example, that they need to have a limb amputated.
Those are treated as mental health issues with the aim of helping the person to accept the body that they have, in order to relieve their distress.

I don't have déja vu as I haven't seen this angle mentioned before.

FarNorth

VioletSky

Lathyrus I don't think you have been on the trans threads long?

There is so so so much context you don't know

Generally I avoid them but dipped a toe thinking this was an interesting one and cos I respect Gagajo

.

VioletSky that is quite a rude remark to Lathyrus and could be construed as a suggestion that s/he shouldn't post in 'trans threads' i.e. an attempt at silencing.

Well actually I did see it as exactly that.

The thing is biological reality will exist even if everyone on this thread says the magic words. Biological reality exists separately from any beliefs I may hold. Thats the problem.

Well of course these "women" were trans/non-binary - a woman couldn't possibly have done the things they did unless they were really male. After all "real women" would have been kept pregnant and in the kitchen!!!

VioletSky

Lathyrus I don't think you have been on the trans threads long?

There is so so so much context you don't know

Generally I avoid them but dipped a toe thinking this was an interesting one and cos I respect Gagajo

.

VioletSky that is quite a rude remark to Lathyrus and could be construed as a suggestion that s/he shouldn't post in 'trans threads' i.e. an attempt at silencing.

And arguments about biological reality will fail here as they eventually did with gay people
Did gay people want to be the opposite sex? Rather, they wanted the right to be with the same sex without having to change their “biological reality”, which actually they didn’t claim could happen anyway.
The comparison of gay with trans is unhelpful and quite unkind to gay people and also to those trans who have no wish to broadcast the fact that they are trans, nor claim that they can change the biological reality of their sex.

Which arguments about ‘biological reality’ failed when used about gay people, VS?

We keep hearing parallels drawn between the historical troubles of gay people and those of transpeople, and as one is about sexuality and the other about so-called ‘gender’ I remain unconvinced that they exist. But nevertheless I’m not sure I know what you mean by ‘biological reality’ being used by homophobes.

eazybee @ 00.10 Nell Gwynn: 1650 - 1687, Moll Davis: 1648 - 1708, Aphra Behn: 1640 - 1689, Mrs. Siddons: 1755 - 1831, Perdita Robinson: 1757 - 1800, Dorothy Jordan: 1751 - 1816

It was illegal for women to act on the English stage until 1660 therefore, unless Nell Gwynn, Moll Davis & Aphra Behn went on stage in the years that they were ctually born (which I know they did not) they, like all other women of the time, had to wait until 1660, after the Restoration of King Charles II. Mrs. Siddons, Perdita Robinson. Dorothy Jordan were all born over a century later!

Therefore my post at 19.13 wasn't a wild statements on here presented as facts it was, and remains, a historical fact.

It would be defined by the feeling of being in the wrong body FarNorth

You know, having girl parts and wanting boy parts instead.

At the very least, as surgery is not obtainable or safe for everyone.. being able to be seen as and accepted as the other sex

So while a trans person may tell you, yes I have the body of a woman that doesn't mean they have the body they want or they would not identify as trans.

And arguments about biological reality will fail here as they eventually did with gay people.

It's not a choice, it's not a mental illness it who they are on a basic level that science has shown may very well have roots in biology..

Is it just me or does anyone else have dejavu?

GagaJo there is no need for anyone to feel 'silenced' on GN threads.
No-one can prevent another from posting.

Galaxy

Thanks Rosie. Although if I get banned I am blaming you

I'll come join you on the naughty step, spent half my childhood there figuratively speaking ??

FarNorth

^What are you going to say if society does away with gender norms completely and gender dysphoria still exists?^

How would gender dysphoria be defined, without gender norms aka stereotypes?

.

Are you still here VioletSky?

I quoted you and asked a follow-up question.
I genuinely don't understand how gender dysphoria could exist if gender norms / stereotypes had been done away with.
Can you explain what you mean?

In theatre, which is art is precisely the place that women had to present as men in order to be seen and heard; did you not know that vs? The stage was deemed to be "too dangerous for a woman; it was an abomination" and so, any woman who wanted to act, was forced to present as a man and faced ostracism if she persisted. Gwyneth Paltrow perhaps?
Um, er.... Nell Gwynn, Moll Davis, Aphra Behn, Mrs. Siddons, Perdita Robinson. Dorothy Jordan.?
Elizabeth's sexuality has been extensively discussed and not a shred of evidence to suppose that she was raped, gave birth, was trans sexual or non binary or had any lovers at all. A great many men wooed her in search of rewards and favours (Seymour was investigating her property with a view to marriage following the death of his wife when he was charged with treason) because of her position as Queen and her ability to award favours and rewards; she relished male company and flattery, but first and foremost she was Queen and nothing impeded that.. She had only to look at the example of the witless Mary, Queen of Scots to see the results of sexual improvidence, or Catherine de Medici to see the abuse meted out by her husband.
So many wild statements on here presented as facts; so insulting to such an intelligent and courageous woman who achieved so much after a genuinely traumatic childhood.