Chewbacca
It'll be chaos grumppa!
No one will know what the hell they're meant to be! And heaven knows how Bottom will be cast!
I played The Wall once in A Midsummer Night's Dream.
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
Glorianny
I think the basic problem is that the theatre struggles to present things which are new and different, so it uses any thing it can latch onto as a way to change established scripts and attract new audiences. A few years ago it was women playing men, but the novelty has worn off that one. So now it's non-binary. Of course Joan's problem was directly related to the fact that she was a woman, so a bit difficult to justify making her non-binary.
This is what I've been saying. Plays are one thing, and it's not unlike Hamlet being played by Frances de la Tour, or Anne Boleyn by Jodie Turner; but suggesting that because female historical characters were 'strong' they must have been male is sexist and has no basis in reality.
Galaxy
I like Ricky Gervais tweet on this but I cant repeat it here
But you could put the link so those of us who are interested see it. 
I have looked but couldn't find it!
I think this is the one Galaxy is referring to.
twitter.com/rickygervais/status/1558062397558079490
Ah yes, that would be more in keeping with the thread ?
He does seem to have form, doesn't he?
Thank you, Rosie51. It certainly made me chuckle.
Thanks Rosie. Although if I get banned I am blaming you 
Love the "We, Julia" tweet too! Thanks Rosie51!
MaisieD I think we should leave people from the past alone, not enlist them to a pet cause.
Spot on!
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.
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?
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 ??
GagaJo there is no need for anyone to feel 'silenced' on GN threads.
No-one can prevent another from posting.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 »