Elizabeth I may have been non-binary, claims Shakespeare’s Globe

Relevant information!

Yes please, Doodledog.

Callistemon21, we used to do English Civil War Reenactment so learned about it there. I could never get my boys to be authentic though!

Icanhandthemback and Doodledog
I have a photo of my late father in law (born 1920) in a frilly dress with long ringleted hair. It is impossible to tell that he was a boy. I think he would have been about two.

My mother was a nanny and I think that little boys wore dresses because it was easier for nappy changing and toilet training. Trousers were quite complicated to remove before the days of zip fasteners or pull-down trousers.

The change for a boy into wearing trousers was a rite of passage and was known as breeching.
The term is presumably from the old term for a type of trousers called breeches.
I can remember my mother telling me about breeching.
My much older brother wore dresses when he was little and had lovely blond curls.

That apology should be to GagaJo

icanhandthemback

Thank you for clarifying, Galaxy. This is such an inflammatory area and I never, ever intend to offend people. If I really disagree with someone, I normally say and agree to differ.

Doodledog, how lovely that is. I love old photos showing the differences to modern life. I find it really interesting.

Me too. I'm away just now, but at home I have a book of old photos of various cities and towns in the UK, and it's fascinating, particularly the ones of areas I know well. I'll dig it out when I get home and let you know the title if you like? I hope that when those VR headsets become more mainstream they will develop opportunities for us to go virtually into the past, and walk along streets as they were in various times in history. I would absolutely love that.

(sorry for diversion, VS)

Ilovecheese

Doodledog and icanhandthemback I have a similar photo of my own father.

Maybe we should start a thread with these sorts of photos.

Oh, maybe it's an internalised communication style then? It doesn't really matter - it's what happens on these threads.

Strategy? You give me far too much credit if you think I have a strategy.

Doodledog and icanhandthemback I have a similar photo of my own father.

Thank you for clarifying, Galaxy. This is such an inflammatory area and I never, ever intend to offend people. If I really disagree with someone, I normally say and agree to differ.

Doodledog, how lovely that is. I love old photos showing the differences to modern life. I find it really interesting.

Mollygo

Doodledog, I suspect GJ doesn’t just mean you, if indeed she means you at all.
This business of not answering questions (because a poster won’t or can’t give an answer that will support the argument they posted) is a common strategy.
Combining that with an accusation of hounding, if the question is repeated simply highlights the inability to support the argument.
Accusations of lying, twisting the truth, fixating on particular phrases are superb examples of goading, as are statements like “I refuse to engage with it”, but are unlikely to be recognised as goading by the perpetrators.

Sometimes complex or nuanced arguments do have aspects that people haven't considered, or points that contradict other ones - you can believe the gist of something without necessarily having intricate knowledge of every detail. I don't see any harm in admitting that, rather than reacting with insults, 'refusing to engage' or making vague yet pointed comments in the hope that nobody will notice that that is being personal.

I particularly dislike the accusations of bullying and harassment. Countering an argument or asking for more information is not bullying. Someone who disappears after losing an argument only to reappear later under a different name has not been 'hounded off the board'. If someone who is using language to cast themselves as kindly and decent (and by implication anyone who disagrees as the opposite of that) is called on it, they are not a victim of a personal attack.

Unfortunately, all of these strategies are used time and again on these threads. They derail the topic under discussion, and I accept that I have a role in that by pointing it out, but to pretend it isn't happening would be colluding in it.

(I also think that the strategies are absolutely recognised as goading by the perpetrators )

Icanhandthemback I have a photo of my late father in law (born 1920) in a frilly dress with long ringleted hair. It is impossible to tell that he was a boy. I think he would have been about two.

I wasnt having a go at you Icanhandthemback, I was trying, poorly probably, to explore the issues around dress like a woman etc which I think are linked to the idea of an inner gender, which in my view is an idea that may be causing harm.

Doodledog, I suspect GJ doesn’t just mean you, if indeed she means you at all.
This business of not answering questions (because a poster won’t or can’t give an answer that will support the argument they posted) is a common strategy.
Combining that with an accusation of hounding, if the question is repeated simply highlights the inability to support the argument.
Accusations of lying, twisting the truth, fixating on particular phrases are superb examples of goading, as are statements like “I refuse to engage with it”, but are unlikely to be recognised as goading by the perpetrators.

Are you saying that I am goading to get a reaction?

If so, I really wasn't. I was trying to explain the double standards that come from the side of the argument that you are on (we don't yet have a mutually acceptable term).

If you want to point to examples of impoliteness instead of making vague references, I can take it on board, but otherwise what you are doing is exactly what I described above. Couching it as reasonable doesn't make it so.

You're entitled to your opinion Doodledog. Goading in an attempt to get a reaction isnt a great approach though.

The rudeness problem isn't one person, there are a few that can't stay polite to save their lives. I have to say they don't represent the point of view well if they can't debate in an adult fashion.

I don't intend to engage with it.

Galaxy

So I think we have to challenge terms such as dress like a woman I think they also may be damaging to children and young people. Every boy I work with will wear dresses at an early age before societal pressure kicks in.

In days gone by, all boys wore dresses until they were aged about 5. It is a fairly modern thing to do otherwise.

Sorry, perhaps I should have said 'stereo typical' woman. I am very new to these gender issues and have the memory of a gnat so I use the wrong terminology. There is so much to get my head around. As somebody who is constantly referring to things as thingumajigs, I think I am doing very well to remember what planet I am on!

. . .not all discussion in the trans threads is civil and is frequently childish and personal. This isn't work. It's recreation. Who wants to stick around to be insulted, have demands made upon them or be mocked? I'm not sure what those that act that way get out of it really.

Anyone who thinks that using the term 'Some people' instead of addressing others personally means that nobody sees them as being personal is delusional. It is blatantly obvious - particularly on threads as polarised as this one. Asking someone a question by name is not being personal. Picking up on something they have said is not a personal attack, and 'stopping engaging' when called out looks very like running away and taking the ball - even moreso when accompanied by accusations of being 'hounded' or 'bullied'.

Dismissing what others are saying with a hastily-googled phrase and pronouncing it 'Simples' is both rude and mocking, and even more so when the poster has clearly not bothered to read and understand it herself.

We all trip up online from time to time if we take part in debates as opposed to chat. It goes with the territory, as no, it is not work, and we don't have to reference every single source or double check every single fact, and sometimes we get things wrong. Not the end of the world. Nevertheless, a certain amount of grace when caught out goes a long way. Going straight onto the attack with a 'Some people' and suggesting that anyone who has stopped to think about the meaning of a phrase at the very core of the debate is 'obsessional' is not just ungracious, it it also both mocking and rude, so taking the moral high ground when others react in kind is a bit rich.

I have never understood why asking someone to qualify a statement is seen as a demand. Whether at work or not, people who throw out random or otherwise unclear comments are asked what they mean. Conversation, never mind debate, cannot progress otherwise. Neither is a series of unconnected pronouncements, and it is not making a case to declare something and refuse to explain what you mean. Engagement requires reciprocity.

Yes, Galaxy, the question of 'innate gender' is similar to 'what is a woman' and 'how does someone know they are in the wrong body?' in that they are at the core of the debate and that nobody can (or will) answer them. They are not easy questions, but surely people who have such deeply-held views on the subject must have given them some thought? How can you argue so vehemently about something you have only wondered about on the surface?

I agree that at least some of the reasons behind the 'non-binary' trend are linked to sexism - not wanting to belong to the non-dominant sex, but not being male either. I'm not sure how conscious it is, but I also wonder if the link to Autism is about taking things literally and thinking that because they can't reconcile the normal non-binary state of most of us with the trans agenda that has reintroduced sexist stereotypes they feel the need to declare that they fit neither? I'm not sure that I have expressed that well, but I hope the gist is clear?

So I think we have to challenge terms such as dress like a woman I think they also may be damaging to children and young people. Every boy I work with will wear dresses at an early age before societal pressure kicks in.

FarNorth

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.

My first instinct might have been "how ridiculous' as the behaviours she describes seem to be something that children go through. I wouldn't automatically leap to the conclusion they are trans identification behaviours but I do think that as parents we maybe have to be aware that just dismissing everything could be harmful to some children. From that angle, I think her advice is useful. Beyond that, I'm not sure that young children have the capacity to understand gender in the way we do as an adult any more than they have the ability to do complex fine motor skills. The neural pathways just haven't been laid down yet.
My boy loved to dress as woman and made a lovely, vampy Mrs Potiphar in the school play but he definitely identifies as a male now he's grown up. We just went along with his modus operandi and loved him whatever.

Rude to apologise for thinking a poster has left the discussion when she said she was going to do so?
GJ
This isn't work. It's recreation. Who wants to stick around to be insulted, have demands made upon them or be mocked? I'm not sure what those that act that way get out of it really.
Since I have frequently suffered from what you describe and I can recently add being accused of lying to that list, I’m equally not sure what posters who do that get out of it.
I often wonder why I stick around. I think it’s because not all posters are like that, just a small group. With other posters it is, as you say recreation.

I wouldnt think of that as a demand, in the same way if I said 'M & S are really rubbish' I would be happy to answer a question such as 'what do you mean by that'

Well not all discussion on any thread is civil. Most threads involve the things you have listed above. It's ok to ask questions. If I state 'not sure about the idea of an inner gender' I am more than happy for anyone to ask me any question about that.

Galaxy

Er actually I have spent a very long time involved in issues of gender, stereotypes etc, I actually think many people on here are trying to have a discussion about sex, about the notion of non binary and whether that re inforces stereotypes or not. If you dont want to engage in that it's fine.

Civil discussion is fine and I appreciate that you remain polite at all times Galaxy. But as you can see from the comment made about Volver (assuming she'd left, so it was OK to be rude!), not all discussion in the trans threads is civil and is frequently childish and personal.

This isn't work. It's recreation. Who wants to stick around to be insulted, have demands made upon them or be mocked? I'm not sure what those that act that way get out of it really.

FarNorth

None of this speculation has anything to do with Elizabeth supposedly being 'non-binary'.

People with a DSD are nevertheless either female or male.
As Elizabeth was observed to be female, there's no need to re-designate her as something else.

I think the speculation about her is related to the opening post. Surely the suggestion that she was "non binary" was made because she never married or had children. The discussion moved to other reasons she might have preferred to remain single. We will never know for sure but I think it is just as well not to assume that anyone really knows.

Yes and theres something in all that about are young women identifying as non binary to escape sexism. If they are I cant see how that will work (although I dont blame them for trying) the discrimination they may experience because of their sex wont disappear.