“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
To add to MaizieD's post, there are also rumours that Elizabeth may have been sexually abused by her step-mother's husband, Thomas Seymour, as a young girl.
He did want to marry Elizabeth after his wife, Katherine Parr, died in order to gain power and control but was charged with treason and executed by his own brother.
That could have contributed to Elizabeth's aversion to marriage.
volver
As far as I'm aware, being female doesn't preclude a person from being non-binary. Except among those with an axe to grind, clearly.
As far as I'm aware , non-binary people claim to be of no sex at all.
FarNorth
volver
As far as I'm aware, being female doesn't preclude a person from being non-binary. Except among those with an axe to grind, clearly.
As far as I'm aware , non-binary people claim to be of no sex at all.
Not quite.
Non-binary people are usually not intersex: they're usually born with bodies that may fit typical definitions of male and female, but their innate gender identity is something other than male or female. It isn't as hard as you might think to be supportive and respectful of non-binary people, even if you have just started to learn about them.
transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-non-binary-people-how-to-be-respectful-and-supportive
Everybody is always very insistent that if you are born female, you can't become male. So female people can be non-binary. Simples.
What do you understand by 'innate gender', then?
So the thing is my beliefs are that gender is an oppressive thing that is damaging to both men and women, fairly standard feminist belief until a few years ago, so it goes against my beliefs to embrace gender.
Doodledog
What do you understand by 'innate gender', then?
Nothing. Never thought about it.
volver
Doodledog
What do you understand by 'innate gender', then?
Nothing. Never thought about it.
Ao the quote you claim is 'Simples' hinges on a term you don't understand and have never thought about?
You're doing it again Doodledog. You are focusing on a phrase I didn't use, which hasn't appeared in the article I posted, and telling me I'm basing my ideas on a statement that you have invented for me that I never used. Why do you do that?
It's right there in the italicised quote you posted.
You are focusing on a phrase I didn't use, which hasn't appeared in the article I posted
Being non-binary is not the same thing as being intersex. Intersex people have anatomy or genes that don’t fit typical definitions of male and female. Most intersex people identify as either men or women. Non-binary people are usually not intersex: they’re usually born with bodies that may fit typical definitions of male and female, but their innate gender identity is something other than male or female.
This is in the article you posted.
oops FarNorth I hadn't refreshed the page, you've already made the point.
volver
You're doing it again Doodledog. You are focusing on a phrase I didn't use, which hasn't appeared in the article I posted, and telling me I'm basing my ideas on a statement that you have invented for me that I never used. Why do you do that?
I don't.
See above. Simples.
Oh, so it is. Sorry.
I guess I just don't obsess about labels the way some people do.
Nice try, but it’s not about labels. ‘Some people’ are not obsessing about labels - they are questioning the notion that anyone would ‘identify’ as non- binary 600 years ago when the concept did not exist. Non-binary status is entirely conceptual, so could not have been something that Elizabeth could have been without realising it. She could have been ill and not been diagnosed, had psychological issues that had not been named yet, or have inherited a condition that has only been discovered since her death (eg the Kell Syndrome that is now being considered as a reason for her father’s rages and difficulty in fathering a healthy male heir); but without a grasp of ‘innate gender’, the concept of people being ‘assigned a gender’ and a climate of sexual politics in which it was possible to believe that the two were at variance she could not have ‘been’ non-binary any more than she could have ‘been’ a Sikh or a New Zealander. Not quite so ‘Simples’ after all.
How can anyone make sense of such nonsense and thats all this is, if people think such things there's no point in trying to reason, because they can't.
Thank goodness there are people like J.K.Rowling who won't be bullied, yes bullied, into such nonsense and speak the truth.
Allsorts
How can anyone make sense of such nonsense and thats all this is, if people think such things there's no point in trying to reason, because they can't.
Thank goodness there are people like J.K.Rowling who won't be bullied, yes bullied, into such nonsense and speak the truth.
Yes. This.
volver
Oh, so it is. Sorry.
I guess I just don't obsess about labels the way some people do.
It's the main point of your 'simples' post, not a label.
How could an 'innate gender identity' exist unless it was based on the prevailing conventions for one's sex?
Meaning it's not actually innate at all.
For instance, Joan of Arc's rejection of 'women's clothing' is seen (by some) as evidence of her being non-binary . Yet a woman, nowadays, who wanted to wear the type of 'women's clothing' expected of Joan, would be thought quite strange.
No-one would see it as an essential part of her female identity.
volver please explain what an innate gender identity is, if I'm wrong that there is actually no such thing.
Here's 'paediatric gender-affirming pioneer' Diane Ehrensaft explaining how a baby communicates their trans identity before they can talk.
(3 mins)
www.dailymotion.com/video/x7kqndw
In my opinion, this is ridiculous.
Please stop haranguing me about definitions of phrases, it's not my responsibility to define particular phrases you have chosen to focus on.
This whole debate seems to me to be indicative of the wider attitude some people adopt when it comes to this topic. An academic has postulated that a historical figure may have considered themselves in a certain way, and that is a valid discussion to introduce. Some people think this means something it doesn't and are determined to pretend that women are being erased from history and it's all a big plot.
volver your 'simples' post hinges on that phrase.
If you don't understand it, I don't know why you posted it and claimed it as simple.
VioletSky you have wondered if transphobic talk at home has contributed to bullying.
Perhaps also trans-supportive talk from people who don't understand what they are saying could lead to the type of bullying you described, where pupils are told they must be trans - for foolish reasons.
Oops, wrong topic.
I thought I was on VS's bullying thread.
The point is valid, tho.
No, as often happens on social media, you've got the wrong end of the stick. Maybe even the wrong stick.
Focussing on one tiny part of something instead of the whole. Seeing things which aren't there and getting quite indignant about it. It's indicative of this whole topic but maybe others who think like me have just given up posting. That's what I'll do, I think...
Please stop haranguing me about definitions of phrases, it's not my responsibility to define particular phrases you have chosen to focus on.
Is it new for 2022- or am I just noticing it more?
It’s the new strategy on GN! To say something and then when somebody queries what is meant by that, to tell them it’s not your job to explain it or ‘go and Google it’.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
