“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
I suppose in a way it is a pity that there was no ambiguity about her sex at birth, it might have saved her mother's life. As you say Germanshepherdsmum we will never know the truth.
Given that in those days a linen shift was worn in the (occasional!) bath, it may have been possible for Elizabeth to avoid being seen completely naked by her ‘ladies’. A physician examining her would have had a duty of confidence. We know she had periods as one suitor enquired as to ‘her courses’ and the inventories of her clothes included the then equivalent of sanitary belts. In the absence of some undiscovered manuscript we can never know the real truth, can we?
As you say Ilovecheese there was little, if any privacy and one of the things that would have been checked was her monthly cycle in the hope that if she had conceded to marry, she'd have been able to produce an heir.
Germanshepherdsmum
I always thought the combination of never marrying and her insistence that her body should not be embalmed raised interesting questions. She was obviously considered female at birth (any reasonable doubt would surely have seen her raised a boy), but who knows how she developed? There is no actual evidence of her ever having had a sexual relationship, merely rumour.
Yes, that is an interesting question but I think there would have been rumours about any abnormalities, there was very little privacy for a queen. Ladies in waiting would have gossiped and word would have spread, surely in a hotbed of gossip like a court.
I didn't know that about her wishes about not being embalmed, that is interesting.
Glorianny
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
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.
The difference seems to be that I wouldn’t feel the need to insist someone is a woman unless for some obscure reason they asked me and my first question in response would be “Are you female?” But you evidently feel you could use it since you say in your post could be used.
I have seen so many worse examples of the italicised part of your rather convoluted speech used by TRA et al telling people what they are or are not.
I always thought the combination of never marrying and her insistence that her body should not be embalmed raised interesting questions. She was obviously considered female at birth (any reasonable doubt would surely have seen her raised a boy), but who knows how she developed? There is no actual evidence of her ever having had a sexual relationship, merely rumour.
The whole thing sounds a bit fishy to me. ?
DSD = difference of sexual development
Genitals are a bit of a red herring I'm not sure why Lathyrus but that really made me laugh 
.
What are DSDs?
If people with DSDs were the only ones involved in 'trans' identities there'd be little problem.
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.
Are you talking about dsd? That used to happen but medical science has moved on.
Have you heard the stories from the detransitioners caleo if you are worried about surgeries.
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.
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.
What I think has absolutely no influence on biological reality. Saying the magic words doesnt change that reality.
Biology determines whether or not someone's a woman or a man.
That should be "disagree" not "so"
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.
As Doodledog says ‘It is down to biology’ ?
Missing the point much?
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.
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!!"
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.
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.
