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.”"

trans women - I mean women who consider themselves trans.

The language, of course, is designed to be nonsensical.

Also in the Times now:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eae983d2-19a9-11ed-b4a0-f11f082a3a3c?shareToken=f31a8a13cce621407709242beb39a3d1

This idea that spiritual women are sort of honorary men might come from Gnostic writings like the Gospel of Thomas. But of course Joan was a Catholic and Gnosticism was a heresy.

Paul says there will be neither Jew nor Greek , male or female. Of course he is talking about the kingdom of heaven not some earthly non binary paradise. Nope. Joan was a woman.

then she got arseholed with Lord Blackadder if my history lessons are correct

I take it back. Blackadder is an entirely reliable source.

The picture used to publicise the play, could be Joan wearing a binder but it also looks like those cheesecake pictures of women squeezing there tits together (possibly due to the photo being touched up..fnar!).

I suppose there's nothing wrong with transing Joan except it comes on the back of all the other erasure of women. Also, it seems particularly heinous because she was a real and very young woman, who was used and treated horrendously and who suffered an appalling death. The poor girl doesn't need to be further used for this particular agenda.

It is like we killed her twice.

The whole story IS that she was a young girl (unless you listen to Old Harry’s Game) who led an army.

Not some navel gazing ninny (most of their ilk seem to be only capable of issuing death threats from afar or dressing up in faux paramilitary gear and peeing their pants if you say ‘boo’).

A theybe leading an army - give me a break!🙄

There are and have been trans versions of Yentl too.

www.huffpost.com/entry/yentl-the-yeshiva-boy-a-m_b_5943198

Every women who dressed as or desired the power and privilege of men is 'trans' apparently.

Nothing to do with women having to disguise themselves to get education, avoid being raped/kidnapped/married off, go to war etc etc etc

what don’t men understand?

What's really sad is reading Charlie's RSC blog post from a few years ago, "Fighting the Female Fear'. Charlie comes across as fully aware, then, of the cruelty of the patriarchy's role in oppressing women, of stereotyping us and forcing us into behavioural boxes: "perhaps that’s just a public admission of my low self-esteem, but I can’t help but feel like it’s gendered.
I’ve been cast as my favourite ever Shakespeare part. Just as I’m coming into my own skin as a woman. Just as misogyny truly bubbles and boils over into a seething #MeToo animal cry. Just as my sister is about to give birth to a baby girl (please god, let it all stop before she enters the world)."

And then a few years later as the theatre scene sinks itself ever deeper into imported US gender ideology, Charlie decides to give up the fight, gives in to those regressive stereotypes - and the arts commissions that come with them, good dog, pat pat, here's a juicy bone - and now bats for the other side.

In the Huffpost article about Yentl there a link to the writer of the original story talking about the Streisand version. When he's talking about his character he uses she/her.

mobile.twitter.com/The_Globe/status/1557764534286401538?cxt=HHwWhIC-3eWlpZ4rAAAA

Getting roasted on Twitter.

In the Huffpost article about Yentl there a link to the writer of the original story talking about the Streisand version. When he's talking about his character he uses she/her.

Yes. He simply didn't like Streisand's version. There was nothing about it being wrong because Yentl was 'trans'.

Strong women fight against the stereotypes and misogyny of society. NB’s try and identify out of it - a much easier route than changing things for the better for everyone. This is why in my opinion Joan would never be NB.

Joan of Arc didn’t lead any army ever. No king or general would give actual leadership to a 17yr old boy or girl and certainly not an illiterate peasant of any age untrained in warfare tactics, strategy or combat. She was used as a mascot, as proof God was on their side by the real French commanders Jean de Dubois, La Hire and John 2nd Duke of Alencon.

Feminists writing revisionist history liked to pretend she led the French into battle, but she did no such thing. Now history is being revised (yet again) to make Joan in a non-binary they/them person.

I once listened to a podcast presented by two beardy "feminist" gay men. They went to great pains once to not use pronouns to refer to an alien character in a TV show because they hadn't been explicitly stated.

Batshit.

I had to stop listening as they went around calling JKR "trash", indicated she wasn't a real feminist and were nauseatingly virtuous.

Even the Globe managed to mis-gender Joan in their blurb explaining choice of pronoun.

www.shakespearesglobe.com/discover/blogs-and-features/2022/07/11/who-was-joan-of-arc/

1st para too!

I did toy with the idea of calling them out.

From the end of the blurb where the writer says why they used ‘they/them’.

The use of ‘they’ to refer to a singular person has been traced by the Oxford English Dictionary to as early as 1375, years before Joan was even born

This is annoying because yes, they/ them has been used in certain contexts for a very long time, but these pronouns were not previously used to de-sex a known individual.

Helen Lewis has been investigating the Globe website. Elizabeth I has been they/them'd.

twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1558063174200528897?t=_R6A5wixVY-__5GHbnDK9w&s=19

Thanks, well put!

@Justme56
Well said!🙌

I know Charlie and it just seems so sad, yet another women driven out of womanhood because of misogyny. Why can't people see that women are being bullied and abused into feeling that they have no choice but to "ID" as men or non-binary just to escape abuse? That being a woman is simply too dangerous and exhausting? Why won't society tolerate a woman who likes short hair and boxing?

And the Joan of Arc thing happens over and over. Power is considered male. Success is considered male. Anyone who achieves is therefore male. There are so many examples of historical characters or skeletons who were very very clearly natal women being turned into "men" purely because they were buried with swords, because society hates women so much.

There was an incident with a woman, an historical figure had famously cross dressed to be able to cross a war zone, and TRA lobbied to have any mention of the fact she was born female removed from her wiki page. Their argument is that any woman who wore male clothes must be trans because otherwise they'd suffer such crippling gender dysphoria they wouldn't have been able to function. So they edited her page so it just said "Bob Smith was born in 19xx and fought in blah blah war." But that of course would mean she was no longer eligible to have a Wiki page, since "some random bloke went to war" isn't significant. The entire reason she was significant was because of her being a woman. So it was a clear attempt to erase a woman from history entirely. and it's very clear that was the agenda because if you look at pages for trans actresses, many of them don't even have enough fame or acting credits to have a Wikipedia page, the only reason they are considered notable is because they are trans. If people genuinely believed the historical figure was transmale, why on earth would they not be advocating for the wikipedia page to be full of "trans hero!!" rather than advocating for it to be removed entirely by pretending she was biologically male?

Here’s another French woman who was definitely female but not exactly gender conforming.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_de_Clisson

Imagine if we were told a black hero was actually white because he or she showed courage

I agree.

I think though black people are sometimes accused of being ‘white’ if they’ve been very successful in some way.

I’m rewriting the rim “Hidden Figures” with the wonderful black female characters rewritten as white males from well-of families. The actual historical women were acting so out of character for the stereotypes around them at the time that I think at the very least they were more white than black, more male than female.

Have I got this right yet, is this how it works; anyone who breaks stereotypes is not “really” what they actually physically are?

Grace Starling; 45 year-old man
Rosa Parks; white man…