And after Joan of Arc we bring you - ta da - Elizabeth I

[Gymnopedie]

Dear God, when will it stop???

They may try their best, but us plebs know that Queenie was a woman, the old fashioned kind.

Yep, the only people allowed to be "women" soon will be.....

It won't end. Queen Victoria next?

well she proposed to her future husband. So she is a man right? Men propose not women. Women have very very prescriped roles and gear and dresses and if they ever step out of them for a minute then ... ta-da ... they are women.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan women bear the burden of being women in a man's world.

what utter rot this whole thing is. Worse than rot

It won’t end until all women are trans. Then they will be happy. Well, they might be.

whoops ta da they are men. Although actually my first sentence was correct

“Nursie: Out you popped and everyone's shouting: “It's a boy, it's a boy!” And somebody said: “But it hasn't got a winkle!” And I said: “God be praised, it's a miracle. A boy without a winkle!” And then Sir Thomas More pointed out that a boy without a winkle is a girl. Everyone was really disappointed.”

Well, it's an interesting topic. How do women living in extremely restrictive societies think of themselves when they break out of those restrictions?

To answer that question with 'they think of themselves as nonbinary' would obviously be nuts and ahistorical. Surely you could argue that many did explicitly acknowledge that they were carrying out actions and roles only associated with men. Which is why they used theology to argue that God wanted them as women to do these things, and that they would never have stepped out of the restrictions on modest women if it hadn't been for God. Essentially the 'nun as a bride of Christ' idea - that women not governed by men weren't an existential risk to humanity because in fact they did have a husband, Jesus. It was a feature of Tudor thought that meant Elizabeth replaced the bride of Christ idea - too Catholic - with the concept of being the virgin bride of the nation.

"Mouth is open, Nursie; should be shut!"

Not forgetting the manservant ("Kate", short for "Bob").

"So, what is your real name then?" "Bernard!"
"...Suits you, actually!"

There are not that many women in history. If you want to start transing historical figures, and being woke, how about you start doing it from male to female?

Absolutely. There are loooads of men who wore powder, elaborate wigs and heels.

Women, all of 'em.

It’s anachronistic to imply that what some people now perceive as a ‘cross-gender identity’ belonging to a person living in the past (usually but not always a woman) was a matter of autonomous choice. It is a symptom of an oppressive societal structure that a woman wanting to lead men (like a Queen or a rebel) had to ape the appearance, behaviours or rhetoric of a man. The common assumption that men were intended to be in charge was so embedded in society that it felt necessary for them to reverse the idea, and say anyone in charge had to be a man. Ironically, it’s what is happening now with gender ideology, but it is being wrongly positioned as a triumph of personal liberty.

Just think - that could have saved Anne Boleyn's life! "It's not a girl, it's non binary"!

😁

Ive been listening to The Rest Is History podcast (after reading a thread on here) and they mentioned Thatcher, commented on how she was often accused of being a man (sexism not being complimentary) and said “no-one would say that now” and I thought “you sure about that?”

I'd recommend She-Wolves by Helen Castor which is a great read and discusses the idea of queenship and how the English queens before Elizabeth used or ignored the conventions of what was understood to be queenly behaviour.

If I'm honest I do think that it's perfectly reasonable for theatre to play around with this stuff and
mix up contemporary and historical information. That's theatre's job. I don't want to see this production particularly but maybe I will. Or at least read a biography of Joan.

Thatcher wasn't accused of being a man. Spitting Image showed her as a man, which was rather interesting in supposedly challenging contemporary comedy. Whuch episode of The Rest is History was it?

Don't forget Catherine of Arogan who ran the country as regent in Henry's absence, prepared for, and rode in battle. Also despite many attempts only had one child, the aforementioned winkieless one, who survived.

Clearly NB.

Whatever way it's spinned, it's female erasure. Female historical figures that are tran-sed cease to be women within the gender woo world.

It's traditional mysogyny in postmodern clothing and it's sad that those writer's, actors and producers at The Globe can't see the bleeding obvious.

With regard to Elizabeth 1, such hypotheses are not new. A search for her name, plus Bisley may cause you to wonder.
www.cotswolddiscoverytrail.com/post/a-cotswold-royal-tale-the-bisley-boy
Bram Stoker is involved, whose reliability as a source may be questioned. And he has been definitely involved in erasing another great woman, Hild of Whitby.

Definitely and we'd been making headway on having some of the forgotten women of history remembered, and appreciating the ones we know of all the more. What a backwards step this is.

The article is here:

www.shakespearesglobe.com/discover/blogs-and-features/2022/08/08/it-was-necessary-taking-joan-of-arc-on-their-own-terms/

The author:

kitheyam.com

Seems to be arguing that anyone historically gender non-confirming comes under the trans umbrella as non-binary?

Shame they/them/he/him didn’t find any male examples to write about.

:(

😂♥️😂😂