Derailing not detailing.
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
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.
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?
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
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?
It doesn't matter what sort of life they have, all female people are women.
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.
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.
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.
MRA = Men's Rights Activists. Also linked to violent right wing hate groups.
Linking trans supporters to MRA groups is very offensive.
Rosie, I am not a scientist of any sort let alone a geneticist. I
Scientific American is reputable and peer reviewed.
GagaJo
Yet another GC way to insult. Trying to link feminist women that hold a different opinion to you with a violent, hate group.
Just out of interest, those GN members that believe this, how many grass roots feminist groups have you given physical support to? Or is this just another example of keyboard warriors at work?
.
GN members who believe what, exactly?
Something to do with a hate group? Which hate group?
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.
Me too, Lovetopaint.
Don’t tell me that we are going to be subjected to books galore on this subject. Fed up to the teeth with all this gender, woke etc. that is dealt out to us on a daily basis.It all started with a genuine desire to provide equal life opportunities for both men and women. As in most causes it has got out of hand and is ridiculous. For example why on earth is an actress only to be named as an actor. Both work for the entertainments industry and when discussions take place surely it is helpful to determine whether we are talking about a female role or a male. Soon we will not be allowed to call a girl getting married a bride or the male a groom. Fed up with it all.
volver
Just an aside...
I'm now getting banner ads on Gransnet for I, Joan at the Globe. ?
Me too 
. They are pushing out the interesting-looking Gunpowder Plot ones.
This is tedious and happens every time. You insult someone, rubbish opinions that differ from yours, try to score some sort of self-accredited 'points' by referring to feminist credentials, and when people retaliate you storm off.
If you don't want to be called a TRA (which is fair enough, as some of them are violent thugs, and I don't think anyone on these threads thinks that anyone else is a violent thug), and at least one person (trisher?) doesn't want to be called an ally, what would you prefer that doesn't grab the moral high ground ant paint the gender-critical as unsympathetic? You have out and out refused to stop calling women 'cis', so there is more than a little hypocrisy here, but if you give us a term that you would be happy with, I will use it if it isn't virtue-signalling.
I'm sure we all take a break from posting at times, but blaming others for our own reasons for 'disengaging' from threads is childish.
I don't discuss my private life (or anything else that might identify me) online, so won't be disclosing what I do that lifts me out of your (insulting) 'keyboard warrior' generalisation. I have never understood why 'some people' seem to think that they are the only people on GN who are politically or socially active - how arrogant can you get?
MRA = men's rights activist .
But men already have all the rights they could possibly need, so what we're seeing now is Men's Demands.
It's very sad that young women are calling themselves non-binary and thinking it's enlightened to claim that historical women were also 'non-binary', instead of recognising the reality of those women's lives.
Just an aside...
I'm now getting banner ads on Gransnet for I, Joan at the Globe. ?
OK- but you insulted first GJ.
Ok.
As always, the same members resort to the same tactics when it comes to trans threads.
Insults to drive away those with opposite opinions.
As with the others that you insult, I'm out.
GJ Kettle calling the pot black.
Yet another GC way to insult. Trying to link feminist women that hold a different opinion to you with a violent, hate group.
Just out of interest, those GN members that believe this, how many grass roots feminist groups have you given physical support to? Or is this just another example of keyboard warriors at work?
Isn’t it curious that women who, despite all the odds, fought against sexual stereotypes (gender) and gained a undeniable place in history, despite prevailing patriarchy, are now being written out of history as women because that’s kind and just letting people be as they are.
Sounds like men’s rights activists (MRA’s) wet dream to me.
Incidentally GagaJo are you seriously denying that MRAs haven't used the TRAs arguments to further their misogynistic program? Single interest groups have never been above latching onto someone else's campaign if they thought it would advance their cause.
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 »