Academics working with the Globe Theatre speculate that Queen Elizabeth I may have been nonbinary and—out of an abundance of inclusivity—will henceforth refer to her as ‘they’: “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman,” Elizabeth I once said to rally her troops to face the Spanish Armada, “but I have the heart and stomach of a king”.
I cannot adequately express how much I hate this. It's misogynistic, disrespectful and gross. It's actually worse than that Bisley Boy myth.
Elizabeth was FEMALE. Her femaleness - and the way men treated her and other women arond her because of it, especially in her formative years (hello, creepy Thomas Seymour!) was central to her life and the way she reigned. Her own mother was judicially murdered on ridiculous charges (along with her brother and four other innocent men) in part because the only living child she gave birth to was female and Henry VIII blamed her for not producing a son - though, to paraphrase Karen Davis, he should have been yelling at his own testicles about that.
Elizabeth couldn't have had a "gender identity" because that's an invented construct based on stereotypes. But I am sure she would be deeply insulted to be told she wasn't really a woman.
Omfg! Any woman who does something "noteworthy" by patriarchal standards couldn't POSSIBLY be a woman! In patriarchal terms, "woman" is synonymous with subhuman, disposable, tool. Nonbinary seems to mean "non-woman". "Girl" and "woman" have been used as insults for centuries and NOTHING has changed.
The fact that woman has become a costume that men wear is not a shift from the norm -- women have always been empty husks to men. The etymology of vagina is literally "husk" or "sheath" -- a receptacle, something for males to insert themselves into. And women trying to escape their oppression through identification with and as males is not a shift from the norm either.
I find it incredibly insulting the way that trans people and their sympathizers just assume that they have won the culture wars, and that non-trans people will go along with whatever B.S. they lay on us. However, as they continue to act out this presumptuous attitude, they continue to alienate normal people, so perhaps their egotism is not such a bad thing. I doubt that Queen Elizabeth I would have wanted to be labelled a trans person -- i.e., a woman who wanted to be a man.
Frida Kahlo is a historical person that they are now claiming was trans, but she wasn't. She was a precocious young woman, and once, when she was 17, she was photographed with her family wearing men's clothing. She clearly understood that men have most of the privilege in society, but her act of dressing as a man ONCE didn't mean she was trans. After that (and after her unfortunate accident), she proceeded to dress in very feminine clothes all her life, and she was in love with Diego Rivera all her life. The evidence just isn't there that she was trans. (Dressing in feminine clothes and being in love with a man are, of course, superficial characteristics of any woman, but I think it still provides evidence that Kahlo was not trans.)
It is mind boggling that the same people who lecture you "You can't presume anyone else's gender!" are eagerly doing exactly that about the dead. It is a reminder not to get caught in the tangled non-logic of fundamentalist movements, but rather to focus on their outcomes, their end game. The end game here: women no longer exist, and the more impressive and high-achieving the woman, the more she must be obliterated.
I think an adequate and substantive rejoinder to the claim of Queen Elizabeth I being nonbinary is to dissolve the purported difficulty of the gendered ways she referred to herself by reference to the 'king's two bodies': the body corporeal (the flesh, in this case female) and the body politic (the monarch, always in some sense 'masculine'). Hence the royal 'we': the monarch speaks not merely for themself as an individual but also as the office of the monarch. A less substantive and easier rejoinder is just to say that monarchs were usually kings and were understood as a masculine 'profession' so it was just rhetoric.
There are really no bounds to my disappointment in watching the people I know go along with the transing of historical figures.
Great female leaders who commanded authority and wielded power to great effect? Must be men! Women couldn't do that.
Great female writers who defied their station and produced great works in a world that did everything to stop them? Must be men! Women couldn't do that.
All the while patting themselves on the back for their virtue and giggling with glee as they take another great from the ranks of women and add them to their cult.
How do we even know what it would feel like subjectively to be the opposite sex? We are basing these perceived feelings on what exactly? It’s the same concept as the way we imagine our dogs or cats or other pets would feel. We truly have no idea. It’s purely subjective to be a human. We can empathize but we can never truly know how anyone man woman child or animal feels. So what are they basing their feelings on then? Their interpretation of what it feels like which again comes from their subjective interpretation of those things. It all comes back to the individuals own interpretation of someone else and that can never be separated from oneself the same way our brains are part of our bodies thus every thought we have every word we speak every action or in action we take is from us.....from our bodies. We are our bodies. Any attempt to extricate our minds from our bodies is impossible to do. We are in the infancy of even understanding how our brains work with day our guts or even how sleeping and dreaming affects us or why. I stuck with our self centered imputing of our own ideas into others is just that... self centered.
What the Globe Theatre is doing to Joan of Arc is outrageous. If it's one thing I can't stand it's uneducated people. They should leave Noah's wife alone!
The Woke alphabet perversion of the past continues. There have been attempts to re-interpret Lincoln as a homosexual (because he slept in the same bed with a friend). This is the same thing. Elizabeth was a woman, and the notion that she was "non-binary" is a contemptible perversion of the truth of her life. Joan of Arc was similarly a woman, albeit an adolescent one. Again, there is no hint in any source that she was anything other than a young woman. During the time of Joan, even the wearing of men's clothing by a woman was considered a perversion. She would have considered lesbianism or any sexual interest other than the normal to be a sin in the eyes of God.
Any sufficiently successful woman must not really have been a women.
How long before they realize that Mary, being the Mother of God, must have been a man?
I cannot adequately express how much I hate this. It's misogynistic, disrespectful and gross. It's actually worse than that Bisley Boy myth.
Elizabeth was FEMALE. Her femaleness - and the way men treated her and other women arond her because of it, especially in her formative years (hello, creepy Thomas Seymour!) was central to her life and the way she reigned. Her own mother was judicially murdered on ridiculous charges (along with her brother and four other innocent men) in part because the only living child she gave birth to was female and Henry VIII blamed her for not producing a son - though, to paraphrase Karen Davis, he should have been yelling at his own testicles about that.
Elizabeth couldn't have had a "gender identity" because that's an invented construct based on stereotypes. But I am sure she would be deeply insulted to be told she wasn't really a woman.
Omfg! Any woman who does something "noteworthy" by patriarchal standards couldn't POSSIBLY be a woman! In patriarchal terms, "woman" is synonymous with subhuman, disposable, tool. Nonbinary seems to mean "non-woman". "Girl" and "woman" have been used as insults for centuries and NOTHING has changed.
The fact that woman has become a costume that men wear is not a shift from the norm -- women have always been empty husks to men. The etymology of vagina is literally "husk" or "sheath" -- a receptacle, something for males to insert themselves into. And women trying to escape their oppression through identification with and as males is not a shift from the norm either.
I find it incredibly insulting the way that trans people and their sympathizers just assume that they have won the culture wars, and that non-trans people will go along with whatever B.S. they lay on us. However, as they continue to act out this presumptuous attitude, they continue to alienate normal people, so perhaps their egotism is not such a bad thing. I doubt that Queen Elizabeth I would have wanted to be labelled a trans person -- i.e., a woman who wanted to be a man.
Frida Kahlo is a historical person that they are now claiming was trans, but she wasn't. She was a precocious young woman, and once, when she was 17, she was photographed with her family wearing men's clothing. She clearly understood that men have most of the privilege in society, but her act of dressing as a man ONCE didn't mean she was trans. After that (and after her unfortunate accident), she proceeded to dress in very feminine clothes all her life, and she was in love with Diego Rivera all her life. The evidence just isn't there that she was trans. (Dressing in feminine clothes and being in love with a man are, of course, superficial characteristics of any woman, but I think it still provides evidence that Kahlo was not trans.)
It is mind boggling that the same people who lecture you "You can't presume anyone else's gender!" are eagerly doing exactly that about the dead. It is a reminder not to get caught in the tangled non-logic of fundamentalist movements, but rather to focus on their outcomes, their end game. The end game here: women no longer exist, and the more impressive and high-achieving the woman, the more she must be obliterated.
Once more Eliza has been infected with a large dose of commonsense.
You really ought to see a gender doctor about it.
Great title as well!
I think an adequate and substantive rejoinder to the claim of Queen Elizabeth I being nonbinary is to dissolve the purported difficulty of the gendered ways she referred to herself by reference to the 'king's two bodies': the body corporeal (the flesh, in this case female) and the body politic (the monarch, always in some sense 'masculine'). Hence the royal 'we': the monarch speaks not merely for themself as an individual but also as the office of the monarch. A less substantive and easier rejoinder is just to say that monarchs were usually kings and were understood as a masculine 'profession' so it was just rhetoric.
Yes, this is just too insane and dangerous in it’s authoritarianism . People are finally waking up!
Don’t give in to the innocent sounding “ request “ for your pronouns!
Don’t use the term “ cis” that they’re trying to thrust upon us!
Resist!
Everybody knows that trans-plant surgery was at its height during Elizabethan times.
It’s like I told my daughter when she insisted she’s not female,’ every thought you think and every feelings you have is generated by a female body
There are really no bounds to my disappointment in watching the people I know go along with the transing of historical figures.
Great female leaders who commanded authority and wielded power to great effect? Must be men! Women couldn't do that.
Great female writers who defied their station and produced great works in a world that did everything to stop them? Must be men! Women couldn't do that.
All the while patting themselves on the back for their virtue and giggling with glee as they take another great from the ranks of women and add them to their cult.
General comment,
How do we even know what it would feel like subjectively to be the opposite sex? We are basing these perceived feelings on what exactly? It’s the same concept as the way we imagine our dogs or cats or other pets would feel. We truly have no idea. It’s purely subjective to be a human. We can empathize but we can never truly know how anyone man woman child or animal feels. So what are they basing their feelings on then? Their interpretation of what it feels like which again comes from their subjective interpretation of those things. It all comes back to the individuals own interpretation of someone else and that can never be separated from oneself the same way our brains are part of our bodies thus every thought we have every word we speak every action or in action we take is from us.....from our bodies. We are our bodies. Any attempt to extricate our minds from our bodies is impossible to do. We are in the infancy of even understanding how our brains work with day our guts or even how sleeping and dreaming affects us or why. I stuck with our self centered imputing of our own ideas into others is just that... self centered.
What the Globe Theatre is doing to Joan of Arc is outrageous. If it's one thing I can't stand it's uneducated people. They should leave Noah's wife alone!
The Woke alphabet perversion of the past continues. There have been attempts to re-interpret Lincoln as a homosexual (because he slept in the same bed with a friend). This is the same thing. Elizabeth was a woman, and the notion that she was "non-binary" is a contemptible perversion of the truth of her life. Joan of Arc was similarly a woman, albeit an adolescent one. Again, there is no hint in any source that she was anything other than a young woman. During the time of Joan, even the wearing of men's clothing by a woman was considered a perversion. She would have considered lesbianism or any sexual interest other than the normal to be a sin in the eyes of God.
We will all have to be this debt, unfortunately. Another great post.