MRA = Men's Rights Activists. Also linked to violent right wing hate groups.
Linking trans supporters to MRA groups is very offensive.
A thread for people who have been on GN a long time
Good Morning Sunday 12th July 2026
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Elizabeth I may have been non-binary, claims Shakespeare’s Globe
(386 Posts)“I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman,” Elizabeth I once said to rally her troops to face the Spanish Armada, “but I have the heart and stomach of a king”.
And was a non-binary person too, according to academics working for Shakespeare’s Globe, who have cast doubt on the gender identity of one of England’s greatest queens.
Elizabeth I has been presented as possibly non-binary in an essay published by the theatre, which refers to the female monarch with the gender-neutral “they/them” pronouns.
The essay was written by a “transgender awareness trainer” in defence of the Globe’s decision to stage a new play featuring a non-binary Joan of Arc, but both the play and the essay have raised concerns that famous females are being written out of history.
The essay claims: “Elizabeth I… described themself regularly in speeches as ‘king’, ‘queen’ and ‘prince’, choosing strategically to emphasise their female identity or their male monarchical role at different points.”
This appears to reference the most famous speech attributed to Elizabeth, her 1588 address at Tilbury in which she braced the nation for battle with the Spanish, saying she had the “heart and stomach of king” and “a king of England too”.
‘Historical women adopted a male identity’
The essay on the Shakespeare’s Globe website, written by Dr Kit Heyam, suggests that historical women were not only rebels for performing what were considered typically male tasks, but also in some sense adopted a male identity.
Dr Hayem writes in regard to Elizabeth I as an armour-wearing military leader: “Inhabiting that social role and dressing in the clothes associated with it, while living and working among men, may not just have felt like gendered defiance: it may have had a profound impact on their sense of self.”
The essay defends Shakespeare’s Globe announcing a new play titled I, Joan, in which Joan of Arc is represented as non-binary. The teenage warrior, famed for leading the French against the English in the 100 Years War despite being a woman in a patriarchal society, has been given the pronouns “they/them” in Globe promotional material for the production.
Dr Hayem’s essay for the theatre argues that while historians have stated that Joan wore male armour out of “practicality” during her campings, “they” may have had “deeper motivations” related to “their” identity.
Author JK Rowling signalled her bemusement that Shakespeare’s Globe would be portraying Joan of Arc as non-binary by liking a Twitter post which read: “Coming next: Napoleon was a woman because he was defeated at Waterloo.”
‘Famous females will be written out of history’
Feminist thinkers have raised concerns that casting doubts on the womanhood of prominent women because they defied gender norms, and did supposedly “manly” things, will effectively write many famous females out of history.
Philosopher Dr Jane Clare Jones said: “This is a really great example of the inherent gender conservatism in gender identity ideology. Traditional gender conservatism says that men must do ‘manly’ things, and women must do ‘womanly’ things.
“Gender identity ideology reverses that and then we end up with the idea that anyone who does ‘manly’ things must be a man, and anyone who does ‘womanly’ things must be a woman.
“This is how we end up in a situation in which historical women who have performed traditionally ‘masculine’ roles end up being re-categorised as ‘trans men’ or ‘non-binary’ or ‘not-women’ in some way.
“This is a really regressive message to be sending out, especially to young women.”
‘A regressive ideology’
Joan Smith, author of the feminist volume Misogynies, said: “Women and girls are entitled to reject stereotypes without losing our sex.
“We didn’t have enough female role models to start with, we have spent decades rediscovering women artists, authors, leaders. And now a regressive ideology is trying to take them away.”
Born in 1533, Elizabeth I became England’s longest-serving female monarch until Queen Victoria, and was famed for overseeing the emergence of the country as an international power during her 44-year reign.
Named the Virgin Queen, she never married or had children despite this being the expectations of her contemporaries.
uk.news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-may-non-binary-claims-171338852.html
Why not rise above a perceived insult and make your points GagaJo? This is a thread you started, after all, and you've said almost nothing in its 11 pages.
Good point, and one that happens time and again. We are accused of shutting down debate, but there is rarely debate on these threads, as asking questions is seen as 'demanding' or 'hectoring', and if answering is beneath peoples dignity debate or any sort of discussion is all but impossible.
GagaJo
MRA = Men's Rights Activists. Also linked to violent right wing hate groups.
Linking trans supporters to MRA groups is very offensive.
Ok, and I acknowledged that. But 'trans supporters' suggests that those who don't agree that TWAW are not supportive of transpeople, and I would definitely dispute that. Suggesting that I (for instance) am not supportive of transpeople is offensive to me, as I am.
It is tricky, and I don't think that (other than with 'cis' which is very different) anyone is setting out to be offensive. Can you give us a non-virtue-signalling term that would not offend you and also describe you in a way you find acceptable.
Rosie51
Glorianny
Galaxy
Sorry are you saying that those women who dont have children arent living a female life.
I'm comparing the life lived by Elizabeth 1 - childless, marriageless, but a life of power, with Bess of Hardwick who had many children, several marriages but who still managed to control many things and left her great house. If you don't like the word "female" feel free to replace it.
So somehow Elizabeth 1's life was 'lesser' than Bess of Hardwick's? Lots of women decide that marriage and/or children are not for them, it doesn't make them non-binary or lesser women. Goodness there are some women who regretfully don't get to make a choice, nature can be unobliging, they are still female, women not non-binary. I thought we had gone past 'barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink"
No I didn't say anyone's life was lesser I said different. The assumption seems to be on this thread that Elizabethan women were doomed to a life of subservience if they married. I was simply pointing out that Bess lived a different life. Marriage actually gave her wealth and social mobility. She certainly wasn't. your average woman but then neither was Elizabeth.
It doesn't matter what sort of life they have, all female people are women.
FarNorth
It doesn't matter what sort of life they have, all female people are women.
Even the ones that don't want to be FarNorth? Isn't that a bit like saying some women's views are acceptable but some women's aren't ? And once you start down that slippery slope who decides what is and isn't acceptable or what is or isn't the right sort of woman?
Yes, even the ones that don't want to be, because it's physical fact.
I don't really want to be old, but I am because that is physical fact.
It's the same thing.
FarNorth
Yes, even the ones that don't want to be, because it's physical fact.
I don't really want to be old, but I am because that is physical fact.
It's the same thing.
So if someone decided that women who are seriously underweight can't be women, because their periods have stopped (that's a physical fact) would that be OK?
Or is it just your personal conceptions that are worthy of consideration?
So if someone decided that women who are seriously underweight can't be women, because their periods have stopped (that's a physical fact) would that be OK?
Has anyone actually said that tr?
This is a familiar detailing question.
Derailing not detailing.
Whether women have periods, ovaries, uteruses or breasts, whether they are anorexic, average build or obese is irrelevant, as is their 'presentation. If they have female gametes they are female.
Men can dress like women, walk and talk like women, 'live as' women (whatever that means), but if they have male gametes they are male.
That is not about personal conceptions (or beliefs). It is about biology.
Glorianny it may be news to you but all women eventually stop having periods. It's nature's way of signalling that they are no longer 'mother material'. It doesn't mean they are no longer of the female sex, no more than any woman who has never had a period is not of the female sex. That is decided by chromosomes.
Like FarNorth I'd rather not be old but the science indicates my years spent on this earth confirm that I am. Yes I'd hope for at least another 20 years, but all that means is I'll be even older ? I can 'identify' as my inner 20 year old all I like, but every cell in my body screams "that's a lie!!"
Can't a woman be powerful and a leader because she's a woman? This Transgender Awareness Trainer, who pays her wages. It's a load of tripe. What about all the famous historical brave women, the list is endless, lots if them married with families. To say they were not women is offensive. Show me any transgender person test can reproduce naturally.
Missing the point much?
As Doodledog says ‘It is down to biology’ ?
Mollygo
So if someone decided that women who are seriously underweight can't be women, because their periods have stopped (that's a physical fact) would that be OK?
Has anyone actually said that tr?
This is a familiar detailing question.
No it's simply an example of what could be used once someone decides anyone has the right to decide how others are designated. You may think someone is a woman that person may so. You have no right to insist they are a woman.
That should be "disagree" not "so"
Biology determines whether or not someone's a woman or a man.
What I think has absolutely no influence on biological reality. Saying the magic words doesnt change that reality.
We are biologically what our genes make us.
We can change our appearance, we can, in this country ate least, live more or less as we want. We can even, now, change some of our genetic structure if we happen to have been born with a genetic problem.
But we can’t change our sex. Not yet anyway. We don’t have the science for that.
Why is that so hard to grasp.
Genital organs are mostly male type or mostly female type or pin between very male and very female. Assigning binary biological sex to individuals can lead to atrocities like surgical 'correction' for very young children.
Have you heard the stories from the detransitioners caleo if you are worried about surgeries.
Are you talking about dsd? That used to happen but medical science has moved on.
Genitals are a bit of a red herring.
It’s your genes that determine whether your male or female and you can’t change that chromosome.
If people with DSDs were the only ones involved in 'trans' identities there'd be little problem.
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »