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.”"

AgnestaVipers · Today 05:57
This is why I consider so-called transphobia to be old-fashioned homophobia. To most people disturbed by homosexuality and who link it with gender-bending, it's all the same thing.

What do you mean by transphobia here?
I am asking because I wonder if you mean the kind like hypothetical grandpa’s revulsion? Or, would you include the wider ideas of what transphobia is that TRAs speak of?

The LGB alliance for example, might be called transphobic by some.

I mean transphobia the way TRAs use it. Hostility to gender non-conforming people (who have been labelled 'trans' by the genderists) in my experience (as said gender non-conforming woman) is down to suspecting you of being homosexual. So the root of it is homophobia.

I mean transphobia the way TRAs use it. Hostility to gender non-conforming people (who have been labelled 'trans' by the genderists) in my experience (as said gender non-conforming woman) is down to suspecting you of being homosexual. So the root of it is homophobia.

That doesn’t make sense. As the post above yours pointed out, LGB Alliance get accused regularly of transphobia by TRAs. So do lesbians as a group (the OG kind who don’t fuck men.)

twitter.com/isobel_thom/status/1558433289370849280

And here, to lower your blood pressure, is a response from they Lucy Thom, playing they Joan of Arc.

And here, to lower your blood pressure, is a response from they Lucy Thom, playing they Joan of Arc.

I hope that Lucy can act better than they can write.

I think you're talking about two different things. There's 'transphobia' in which an individual trans person suffers abuse, such as being verbally or physically attacked in the street, which is what @AgnestaVipers seems to be talking about. LGB Alliance aren't being accused of this sort of transphobia.

There's also 'transphobia' which means not believing that people who identify as trans have actually changed sex. This is the sort of transphobia that LGB Alliance are accused of.

She said “I mean transphobia the way TRAs use it”; that’s why I said “That doesn’t make sense.” The way TRAs use it, it goes way beyond street attacks and applies to anyone who thinks biological sex is important in any context, including many homosexual people.

me too! Though I presume any criticism of they or the play will be dismissed as being from bigots who need re-educating.

They only mean negative criticism. If it's positive they lap it up.

What has struck me this morning about they/theming Joan of Arc and now Elizabeth 1st is that it's all they/them and not he/him.

I know under the great woo umbrella non binary is trans anyway, but before we would have perhaps seen these figures going straight to being reimagined as transmen. I've read crap on twitter he/himing any female not doing femininity right or rejecting it altogether; so why is it only non binary now and not trans?

Could it be, possibly, with the light being held up to Stonewall, and the Tavistock closing, trans is a subject no one wants to involve themselves with anymore? A step too far? So now it's all about non binary?

And it'll be "oh those silly wimmin, we aren't changing their sex now, we're just saying these women broke gender norms so must be non binary, what's so wrong about that, why are they getting all worked up?"

But anyway, is non binary the new thing now? Not that it is a thing, other than a special identity for attention seekers that the rest of us usually call a personality.

I can imagine there is a trans version of Joan doing the rounds - but it’s not quite the ‘narrative’ for some is it?

I have seen plays where they have been ‘reimagined’ - Hamlet set in 1930s New York, a bonkers Don Giovanni set… in the 50s in the U.K., female Hamlet… (how many times have I seen hamlet?).

but this is very much pandering to the current narrative and the globe is all over this right now. Trendy pandering. That is all.

Joan was exceptional because of her sex (and being made a saint). Take that away and it’s just another war story.

Oh god unless there are pained speeches of her wailing ‘I am not a woman - I am not a man - I AM THEY! Quick pass me a corset so I can bind me boobies! And give me a haircut whilst you are at it!’ They won’t mention her hiding her sex to avoid rape, and to be able to go to war. It will all be - I assume - one huge piece of belly button gazing and tortured soul searching in what gender means.🙄

When we were kids we holidayed around Orleans a few times and they were very protective of St Joan. I really can’t see this going down well in France.

They get accused of transphobia because they are literally leaving out the T.

Ooh, reduced, possibly free tickets if you can’t afford it!

(probably not available to a middle aged single mum in a shit paying job like me though.)

They get accused of transphobia because they are literally leaving out the T.

lol. setting aside whether it’s transphobia to not think about trans people all the time, could you please join your thoughts together?

1. you think “transphobia” is rooted in homophobia.
2. you mean “transphobia” the way TRAs use it
3. TRAs regularly accuse homosexual people of transphobia.

Logically this implies that you think all the homosexual people who are accused of transphobia by TRAs are homophobic.

Is this what you think? Doesn’t it seem ridiculous to you, once you think through the logic? Perhaps you’d care to rethink premise 1 or 2?

I'm trying to put my finger on why I find it bordering on offensive (rather than just stupid, which it obviously is in spades).

Partly, it's because this naval gazing obsession with pronouns and gender identity is so obviously part of this current time. There's a vapidity about it that is totally incongruent with the reality of fighting wars in the 15th century. It shows the current discourse up as the product of people with absolutely nothing better to do with their time.

There's nothing wrong with applying modern day concepts to historical figures.

But when the modern day concept is as riddled with holes as this one is, applying it historically holds it up to the light and makes it's ridiculousness very obvious.

How would the historical JOA felt about the concept of non binary gender identification? Total bewilderment and lack of interest would be my guess.

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.

It's not, though. People wrote about the effects of changing pronouns, and whether this meant people could change sex, centuries before the fifteenth century.

I think there have always been people with enough time on their hands to sit around speculating (as we are doing here), even in times of war.

It's not, though. People wrote about the effects of changing pronouns, and whether this meant people could change sex, centuries before the fifteenth century.

I don’t doubt you but a citation would be nice here.

It's not, though. People wrote about the effects of changing pronouns, and whether this meant people could change sex, centuries before the fifteenth century.

What specifically are you talking about though?

And in what context? Speculating philosophically or actually taking it at fave value as a serious idea. What historical figure genuinely considered if changing pronouns changed their biological reality?

Oh, sorry - Alan or Alain of Lille, De Planctu Naturae.

But what do you mean by 'face value as a serious idea'.

I don't think medieval people had the same sense of 'biological' sex as us, so it wouldn't make sense to look for examples of them thinking about it.

I don't think medieval people had the same sense of 'biological' sex as us, so it wouldn't make sense to look for examples of them thinking about it.

To some degree that is my point.

But equally, where did their understanding of what sex they were come from? If not the biological reality of their bodies? Even if they didn't use that exact term.

Are there examples at the time of anyone who felt that pronouns would change the reality of their possession of male/female organs?

-Oh, sorry - Alan or Alain of Lille, De Planctu Naturae

Thanks, what passages from this are you referring to?

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.

This really isn’t true. Depends very much on the man and on the dress, and on whether you are seeing him move and talk.