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

[ChristinaXYZ]

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.”"

But..I find this offensive and I’m not sure why. isn’t this saying she’s an icon because she’s non binary. Not because she managed, as a woman, in extremely oppressive to women times, ( oh wait..) to Lead an entire country’s army to victory. In order to do this, and possibly to have some authority/ avoid being patronised/ raped,she cut her hair and wore armour to lead a really rough bunch of hooligans across rough country.
but that doesn’t seem to matter, what does matter is she had short hair…and therefore is non binary. yay!
let’s hope all non binary people are as amazing.

I think the "Maiden" suffix was more to do with emphasising her virginity, which was considered crucial to the plausibility of her religious visions, than her femininity.

Well yes, the men were fighting. Philip III, Henry VI, and Charles VII.

Joan joined Charles' forces.

Yes but isn’t it interesting that in order to have a vision you have to be pure. All a bit ick.

Agreed, but we're dealing with religious convention from 600 years ago in that instance. I think Joan did undergo virginity tests (such as they were) if I recall correctly, to prove she hadn't been fornicating with Satan and that her visions were true and not lies sent by the devil to trick everyone.

Yes I think that too. I do wonder if chaps who had visions were examined. To go through everything she went through is astounding. I think she’s an amazing person.

Bonkers
Whatever next???

I thought we knew one of the reasons she wore men's clothing at least some of the time. It was to make it slightly harder for her captors to rape her.

This is frustrating. When Charlie went by Charlotte she was cast in an all female version of Julius Caesar I think at the National and then she played Mercutio as a woman at The RSC. It was quite key for some of the young women who engaged with that version of Romeo and Juliet that the playmaker character could be a woman.

At the time I did wonder about Charlotte's trajectory - and here we are.

It just seems a shame that she was able to take advantage of female exploration of smashing male gender norms in theatre and has turned it into this kind of female erasure.

Yes, the pants tied quite firmly to the top making removing them harder than just flipping up a skirt. When she was incarcerated she signed a paper agreeing to wearing female clothing but she returned to wearing male clothing because of sexual assault. Obviously the jailer supplied the clothing I suppose as a kind of 'gotcha'. I am astonished that it was one of the major strands in the case condemning her.

But she was emphatically still female. I'm not religious or French but if I were this would seem kind of blasphemous and extremely disrespectful.

No

I’m not and I do!

On their website under a section called Globe Values:

Shakespeare’s Globe is unequivocally pro-human rights. This includes trans people, non-binary people, black and minority ethnic people, and people with disabilities. Trans men and women and non-binary identities exist and are valid.
Interesting how trans and non-binary are listed twice and first, people with disabilities once and last. In the next paragraph they say they are 'pro-trans', whatever that means. I guess disabled people just aren't quite as important, despite being a much much bigger group...

And is they (Joan) wearing a binder in the poster?

Exactly. She wore trousers for convenience and for some protection against rape.

I do know a bit about about Joan, Its the fact that the men don’t aren’t they/them in that piece that irritating me, bloody typical! Making Joan non binary is absolutely ridiculous.

Um ... but this is fiction, right?

It's not a documentary or a textbook. It's a play. And one which the author explicitly relates to their own life.

I could see how I might feel cross about this play - even as fiction - if I thought it were absolutely incompatible with the historical person and the historical context. But it isn't. In this period, writers were quite clear that sex wasn't binary, and that women who were spiritually privileged (like Joan) were a category of women unlike other women, and closer to masculinity.

We may not like this, and it may sound like the most unreconstructed misogyny (it is). And I don't think it is the same as the modern idea of being non-binary. But it's simply a fact that many medieval people would have understood someone like Joan as being neither male nor female; it's also clear that many people would have been entirely at home with the idea that a person's gender could be quite other than what their sexed body might suggest.

She was questioned at her trial about her clothing. She made it clear it was a protection against rape and for practical reasons.
It is interesting that she was persuaded to go back to wearing a dress in prison. She agreed and then next day insisted on male clothes again.
During the night before, English guards had caused a commotion in her cell. She didn't say what happened precisely but she seems to have been rough handled. An indecent assault? A rape? She was upset enough to want her male clothes back the next day.

It is tiresome. Every great woman holding their own amongst men could be called non binary or trans according to their terns.

There could be Queen Elizabeth 1
I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too"

Bodicea

The Amazons - like the Ice Princess and those other Scythian woman buried with their weapons.

Margaret Thatcher deepening her voice
just as David Owen said mixing perfume and cigars.

Virginia Wolf for writing Orlando

All the suffragettes who wanted the vote must have wanted to be men in their heart of hearts.

All those wives who ‘wear the trousers’ are trans, as are their husbands those covert trans women.

I'm fairly certain @AgnestaVipers was joking...

It's offensive because it's this kind of thinking that says it's impossible for women to fight against sexism or achieve anything. The moment a woman rebels against gender norms or fights back, she's no longer a woman. Imagine if we were told a black hero was actually white because he or she showed courage. That's what we're dealing with.

Yes, my feeling too. A wry smile is all it needs.

I studied George Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan (which is dreadful) twenty years ago for A level, and I think it was the first time that I read about breast binding and girls trying to prevent their periods (when studying the historical context of the play).

This new play isn’t history or a rewriting of history. It’s part of a literary tradition. ‘Joan’ plays have always explored gender (… and The Globe has its own rich history of this, too).

And we can all cope with Shakespeare’s histories not really being histories, can’t we? We all know that Richard III’s hunchback is a little overstated.

And I agree with the pp who thinks it sounds rubbish (it sounds dire), so not many people will go and see it. Especially in this heat.

Why is the globe all T-ified these days?

Agree with pp about Joan of Arc leading discussions of playing with gender roles and stereotypes. But applying such an anachronistic term as NB to her is a problem because this is a way of thinking borne in the 20th century.

The writer is free to view JoA as NB and have his own opinions but I hope this doesn't start getting written into history books, for young girl's sake, they're going to gender question any woman going against the 'norm', and that's ridiculous.

It's more likely that JoA identified as a soldier, the reason for her wearing men's clothing in the first place, and she was indeed a female soldier. Are all the women serving in the military NBs?