Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Globe Theatre makes Joan of Arc non-binary in new play

320 replies

ChristinaXYZ · 11/08/2022 21:27

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/11/globe-theatre-makes-joan-arc-non-binary-new-play/

"Joan of Arc is represented as non-binary in the Globe show, and the pronouns of the French patron saint have been changed to “they/them” rather than “she/her”.

Women’s rights campaigners have raised concerns that the move is another example of female figures being “erased” from history.

Promotional material for the “powerful and joyous new play” sets the scene: “Rebelling against the world’s expectations, questioning the gender binary, Joan finds their power and their belief spreads like fire.”

The play is written by writer Charlie Josephine, whose web biography states: “My pronouns are they/he. I’m an actor and a writer."

The Telegraph writers, who like The Spectator staff, know their stuff on this and have included a Women's Place comment too:

"Campaigner group Women’s Place UK said in a statement on the issue: “Women are getting really tired of being erased from history and having our achievements diminished.

“Joan of Arc was an astonishing woman who rebelled against the authoritarian oppression she faced for being female.

“Theatre has a fine tradition of inverting reality to encourage us to look at life differently but the fact remains that Joan of Arc was a woman and was persecuted as such.”"

OP posts:
Morred · 15/08/2022 11:37

OldCrone · 14/08/2022 12:29

But what I am getting at is that it is perfectly possible to have a split second of misidentifying someone's sex

That's not the same as passing as the opposite sex. After that split second, in nearly every case, you'd recognise the actual sex of that person.

Slightly OT, but I wonder if (particularly) transwomen pass better amongst men than they do with women. It wouldn't be entirely surprising if women are socialised in a way that means we take more notice of relatively subtle 'cues' around the way people present. (Not least that we're socialising to scrutinise other women and compete with them.)

SarahAndQuack · 15/08/2022 11:37

Wait, they deleted one of my posts for transphobia? Bit confused.

Is there a way to view the whole thread? I can't find it since they redesigned the site, and I'm not trawling through ten pages to figure out what they deleted!

DarkDayforMN · 15/08/2022 11:10

Yes, some other people agreed with your summary of the trans rights movement, as do I - it was a very nice bit of rhetoric and completely unrelated to the prior discussion!

AgnestaVipers · 15/08/2022 11:06

And, Perhaps you’d care to rethink premise 1 or 2? sounded very much like sarcasm.

AgnestaVipers · 15/08/2022 11:05

@DarkDayforMN , Other people seem to have followed my points.

DarkDayforMN · 15/08/2022 10:50

You seem surprised that gay people might be accused of transphobia/homophobia.

no, that’s not what I said. Of course I’m not surprised by that. Accusations of transphobia are ten a penny and hurled at all sorts of ridiculous targets.

I was making the point that ‘transphobia’ in the sense that TRAs use the word, is unrelated with homophobia. It’s a cheap word that means nothing at all. And you said earlier that you were using the word in the TRA sense. Was it a typo or something, did you mean to say you aren’t using the word in the TRA sense? That seems more consistent with your subsequent posts.

And I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was breaking down the logic to reduce ambiguity and confusion.

Anyway since that didn’t work and I’m repeating points I already made I’ll bow out.

ScrollingLeaves · 15/08/2022 10:35

AgnestaVipers · Today 09:38

Thank you for your post beginning,

I am a homosexual. I happen to think there's no such thing as transgender……..

Your summary of what is really behind the idea of transgender which follows is so right I think, and you have put it very succinctly.

YetAnotherSpartacus · 15/08/2022 09:53

I am a homosexual. I happen to think there's no such thing as transgender. I think it's either autogynephilia/cross-dressing, internalised homophobia (boys and girls) or misogyny (girls with the Rapid Onset version), or a form of body dysmorphia like anorexia. I think it's weaponised by narcissism and critical social justice theory in a way that has made it akin to a religious cult. It's impervious to logic.

You seem surprised that gay people might be accused of transphobia/homophobia. But as we who have been following this for years know, even trans identified people are accused of transphobia. That is because the whole movement is batshit and is grounded in illogic.

Brilliant!

AgnestaVipers · 15/08/2022 09:38

This reply has been deleted

Post deleted for breaking our Talk guidelines

NitroNine · 15/08/2022 08:41

ItsLateHumpty · 15/08/2022 03:31

Is this a new mod or new deletion message that we’ll see more of? I’m wondering when we’ll see “We have deleted this post as it includes language that is anti women”

Won’t hold my breath.

Surely it’ll be coming every time a poster uses “cis”, right? Right?

KittenKong · 15/08/2022 08:24

‘Anti trans’. So you can not say anything that isn’t 100% pro trans (which has a very wide definition).

TheKeatingFive · 15/08/2022 06:30

Something like that

theclangersarecoming · 15/08/2022 06:29

TheKeatingFive · 15/08/2022 06:27

There's been something very odd about the deletions on this board all weekend. Inconsistent with guidelines, referencing 'anti trans' while clearly not being, showing very limited maturity and comprehension.

I'm planning to raise it with the regular mods today.

Attack of the teenage intern perhaps?

TheKeatingFive · 15/08/2022 06:27

There's been something very odd about the deletions on this board all weekend. Inconsistent with guidelines, referencing 'anti trans' while clearly not being, showing very limited maturity and comprehension.

I'm planning to raise it with the regular mods today.

theclangersarecoming · 15/08/2022 06:23

ItsLateHumpty · 15/08/2022 03:31

Is this a new mod or new deletion message that we’ll see more of? I’m wondering when we’ll see “We have deleted this post as it includes language that is anti women”

Won’t hold my breath.

That deletion is absolutely infantile. The post that SarahAndQuack made wasn’t “anti-trans”, rather the complete reverse. The entire point of the post was one that was actually about how people justified transphobia in the past.

It’s like deleting a post about historic examples of racism, for being racist. The “monitors” reporting posts are clearly thick as mince with poor reading comprehension; and ditto the mods for going along with this idiocy FFS.

And, most ironically, on a thread where the consensus of opinion is that this Globe play is silly and historically inaccurate, but absolutely has the right to exist on free speech and artistic grounds. What better example of the intransigent stupidity of the gender ideologues, who don’t even have the wit to notice that they are clamouring for posts to be deleted that agree with them.

ItsLateHumpty · 15/08/2022 03:31

Is this a new mod or new deletion message that we’ll see more of? I’m wondering when we’ll see “We have deleted this post as it includes language that is anti women”

Won’t hold my breath.

Globe Theatre makes Joan of Arc non-binary in new play
SarahAndQuack · 14/08/2022 22:44

@theclangersarecoming - I'm so sorry, I've obviously offended you, and I really didn't intend to. I suspect a big part of the problem is that I replied after a fairly long gap, and perhaps we'd just lost the momentum of that conversation.

I've really appreciated you taking the time to talk to me, and hope you'll excuse my clumsy language.

theclangersarecoming · 14/08/2022 22:43

In any case — and getting back to the main topic — I’m amazed no-one’s as yet posted the lyrics of this relevant ditty (Bigmouth Strikes Again by The Smiths), which kind of sums the whole teenage nonbinary angsty business up pretty nicely:
^^
And now I know how Joan of Arc felt
Now I know how Joan of Arc felt
As the flames rose to her Roman nose
And her walkman started to melt

😂

theclangersarecoming · 14/08/2022 21:50

SarahAndQuack · 14/08/2022 11:38

Sorry, I'm ages late replying as the internet went down (!), but I hope it's ok. I'm just going to post what I meant to reply last night, then I'll go catch up properly!

I’m not sure that’s ever really been true. Men don’t ever really tend to pass as women, which is something that seems to be a fantasy of the current gender ideology.

Of course they do. This is a very recent idea, that natal sex is something immediately obvious to everyone and that most of us can correctly perceive it at a glance. It's just nonsense (and I say this having a partner who is entirely boringly female and regularly gets taken for a man at a glance). Simply put, we see what we expect. If you live in a culture where it's unthinkable for men to wear dresses, if you see a figure in a dress, you will think 'woman' long before you process anything much else.

That said, I don't think we're entirely disagreeing about the way violent men respond to other men who are in some way 'stepping out of line'.

I don't quite follow what you say about 'how "gender identity" understands that idea'. I certainly agree 'identity' as a modern construct isn't terribly useful here.

When you say you reckon men just cross dressed for fun, and women for profit - yes, but how do you know? When I posted earlier saying I thought this was a bit simplistic, I tried to explain why - if that didn't make sense, that's totally fine, but maybe let me know which bit isn't convincing you, and I can try again?

I think the 'trapped in the wrong body' idea has largely died a death everywhere - in trans circles as well as lesbian/gay ones. My best understanding (not trans so not sure) is that it should be understood as a shorthand or a metaphor - but it was then taken very literally for a while, which of course suited the pink brain/blue brain traditionalists very well.

I guess what keeps fascinating me is the unknowability of all of this. How did people think about it?! Yes, sure, we can cop out and say 'ah, the men were just playing a game cross-dressing,' and that wouldn't ruffle any feathers. But surely games are quite telling? When there are fashions for dressing up as a trad wife (like now!), or when courtiers of James I got themselves up in blackface to perform masques, those are both trivial, ludic, fashionable choices, and also things that are revealing about deeper interests and anxieties in society.

When you say you reckon men just cross dressed for fun, and women for profit - yes, but how do you know? When I posted earlier saying I thought this was a bit simplistic

I don’t think I said anything remotely as reductive as “men just cross dressed for fun, and women for profit”. I didn’t write anything of the sort, and certainly nothing that “simplistic” (rather the reverse). But there isn’t much point in me just restating my previous posts, so I don’t think it’s productive for me to engage further here.

DarkDayforMN · 14/08/2022 21:39

so on what basis are people criticising it? The poster and publicity info?

yes, obviously. There’s plenty to criticise there.

good to know re funding; seems that their public subsidies are indirect via schools.

halohell · 14/08/2022 21:13

I don’t know that there is any need to defend it on free speech grounds, is there? No one wants the production banned, or the Globe defunded or anything (though I suppose if they continue to produce stuff like this then people might start to ask questions about their public funding.)
I think perhaps defending it on free speech grounds is a sign that it can’t be defended on artistic grounds!

It can't be defended on artistic grounds because it hasn't opened yet and the script hasn't been published, so on what basis are people criticising it? The poster and publicity info? It doesn't appeal to me because I assume I will disagree with it politically, but it could still be well written, well acted, etc.

They can't be defunded as they don't get a subsidy (apart from the one-off Cultural Recovery Fund money that many arts orgs got).

RhannionKPSS · 14/08/2022 19:39

As someone just pointed out on Twitter, the person/ people who designed the poster certainly know what her sex was! Why not have her wearing armour? Or kneeling in prayer? No , they have got her in her underwear/ binder. How utter ridiculous the Globe have turned out to be!

DarkDayforMN · 14/08/2022 15:54

I just wanted to defend it on free speech grounds

I don’t know that there is any need to defend it on free speech grounds, is there? No one wants the production banned, or the Globe defunded or anything (though I suppose if they continue to produce stuff like this then people might start to ask questions about their public funding.)

I think perhaps defending it on free speech grounds is a sign that it can’t be defended on artistic grounds!

you are right though - if they invited and hosted open discussion about the work that would be a very positive step for free speech, and they won’t do it.

SarahAndQuack · 14/08/2022 15:45

I personally think it should be more of a fringe event rather than at an historic venue like The Globe. I remember visiting here on a school history trip and I bet they still have many schools visiting, you'd expect a degree of accuracy here

But ... the Globe isn't an historic venue. The actual Globe burned down. In 1613. And the new Globe was made specifically to stage the plays of Shakespeare, which play fast and loose with historical accuracy.

halohell · 14/08/2022 15:42

I personally think it should be more of a fringe event rather than at an historic venue like The Globe. I remember visiting here on a school history trip and I bet they still have many schools visiting, you'd expect a degree of accuracy here and the poster is not a great look or the inescapable fact of female erasure.
I do think venues should consider what they are staging and whether it is appropriate for them to do so

I don't really want to set myself up as defending the Globe as I doubt I will enjoy this play and I do disagree with the idea of presenting Joan as NB. I just wanted to defend it on free speech grounds, because I find the TRA movement's attempts to silence other views and to coerce people into (pretending to) accept their ideology absolutely chilling and dangerous, not just for women's rights.

But...The Globe does do new work as well as Shakespeare, usually about historical figures (Nell Gwynne, Ann Boleyn and others), so this isn't a departure for them. I'd hope schools would do a bit of research before booking this - it's not as though the theatre has been secretive about how they are presenting Joan - it's been on their website for months.

I don't see why they have an obligation to be historically accurate. Shakespeare isn't historically accurate, neither is Maggie O'Farrell's Hamnet. I think all arts organisations have an obligation to defend free speech and to try and create a space for discussion and debate around subjects. Art can't really exist without that, but I am sceptical about whether The Globe will do this. They often host discussions related to their theatre productions, so I'd love to see that done about this one. If they're scared to invite GC speakers to live events, then stream it. It's an opportunity to show that the arts are still about freedom of expression. I hope they will take it.