Trans-awareness trainer Dr Kit Heyam, a consultant on a new Globe theater play presenting Joan of Arc as non-binary, referred to Queen Elizabeth I with 'they/them' pronouns, saying: 'Elizabeth I... described themself regularly in speeches as "king", "queen" and "prince".'

Shakespeare's Globe Theatre academic says Elizabeth I may have been non-binary
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11108191/Shakespeares-Globe-Theatre-academic-says-Elizabeth-non-binary-trans-Joan-Arc-play-row.html

Excerpts:

An academic writing for the Shakespeare's Globe Theatre has argued Queen Elizabeth I may have been non-binary in an essay.

In an essay on the Globe's website, trans-awareness trainer Dr Kit Heyam referred to the Virgin Queen with 'they/them' pronouns, saying: 'Elizabeth I... described themself regularly in speeches as "king", "queen" and "prince".'

This comes after the Globe Theatre were ridiculed by Harry Potter author JK Rowling for portraying Joan of Arc as non-binary in their play I, Joan, which was branded 'insulting and damaging' by campaigners.

The essay, published on Monday, August 8, was published in defence of the portrayal, and said the the common portrayal of the story as 'pragmatic gender nonconformity' in a 'patriarchal world' denies 'historical existence of trans experience'.

Leeds-based Dr Heyam, whose pronouns are they/them or he/him, compared Queen Elizabeth I to 10th-century English ruler Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, who ruled Mercia (what is now approximately the West Midlands) after the death of her husband.

They said that Joan, like Elizabeth I, lived in a world where military leaders were almost always male and clothing was gendered and that dressing in armour and 'inhabiting that social role... while living and working among men, may not just have felt like gendered defiance: it may have had a profound impact on their sense of self'.

Feminists have criticised the claim, calling it a 'regressive message' to publish.

Philosopher Dr Jane Clare told the Telegraph, said it showed 'inherent gender conservatism in gender identity ideology,' that those who do ' "manly" things must be a man, and anyone who does "womanly" things must be a woman'.

Dr Clare added this is why historical women in 'masculine' roles are being categorised as trans-men, non-binary or 'not-women'.

'This is a really regressive message to be sending out, especially to young women,' she concluded.

Trans-awareness trainer Dr Kit Heyam, a consultant on a new Globe theater play presenting Joan of Arc as non-binary, referred to Queen Elizabeth I with 'they/them' pronouns, saying: 'Elizabeth I... described themself regularly in speeches as "king", "queen" and "prince".'

Shakespeare's Globe Theatre academic says Elizabeth I may have been non-binary
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11108191/Shakespeares-Globe-Theatre-academic-says-Elizabeth-non-binary-trans-Joan-Arc-play-row.html

Excerpts:

An academic writing for the Shakespeare's Globe Theatre has argued Queen Elizabeth I may have been non-binary in an essay.

In an essay on the Globe's website, trans-awareness trainer Dr Kit Heyam referred to the Virgin Queen with 'they/them' pronouns, saying: 'Elizabeth I... described themself regularly in speeches as "king", "queen" and "prince".'

This comes after the Globe Theatre were ridiculed by Harry Potter author JK Rowling for portraying Joan of Arc as non-binary in their play I, Joan, which was branded 'insulting and damaging' by campaigners.

The essay, published on Monday, August 8, was published in defence of the portrayal, and said the the common portrayal of the story as 'pragmatic gender nonconformity' in a 'patriarchal world' denies 'historical existence of trans experience'.

Leeds-based Dr Heyam, whose pronouns are they/them or he/him, compared Queen Elizabeth I to 10th-century English ruler Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, who ruled Mercia (what is now approximately the West Midlands) after the death of her husband.

They said that Joan, like Elizabeth I, lived in a world where military leaders were almost always male and clothing was gendered and that dressing in armour and 'inhabiting that social role... while living and working among men, may not just have felt like gendered defiance: it may have had a profound impact on their sense of self'.

Feminists have criticised the claim, calling it a 'regressive message' to publish.

Philosopher Dr Jane Clare told the Telegraph, said it showed 'inherent gender conservatism in gender identity ideology,' that those who do ' "manly" things must be a man, and anyone who does "womanly" things must be a woman'.

Dr Clare added this is why historical women in 'masculine' roles are being categorised as trans-men, non-binary or 'not-women'.

'This is a really regressive message to be sending out, especially to young women,' she concluded.


What a pile of rubbish.  >:(  Does that mean that conversely a man that, say, provides child care is "not a man"?  IMO this is prejudice.  It's saying women stay in this box, and men stay in that box, or else we'll stick a label on you.

What a pile of rubbish.  >:(  Does that mean that conversely a man that, say, provides child care is "not a man"?  IMO this is prejudice.  It's saying women stay in this box, and men stay in that box, or else we'll stick a label on you.


On an interestingly related note, on his TV show last week, Bill Maher said the current Hollywood requirement (well, it's basically a requirement now) of things like "only trans actors can play a trans person", "only a disabled actor can play a disabled person", "only gay actors can play a gay person" "only intellectually challenged actors can play an intellectually challenged person" etc. (the latter a reference to the fact that Tom Hanks says he would not play a role like "Forrest Gump" now) is also regressive. As he pointed out, this is especially bad for trans actors themselves. If only trans actors can play trans roles, does it also mean that trans actors cannot play NON trans roles? This would seriously limit their options.

Maher  also pointed out that back in 2008 when heterosexual actor Sean Penn played the role of gay activist Harvey Milk it was seen as a bold move that united and brought people together. The fact that it is considered politically incorrect now is regressive, said Maher.

By the way, because of his opinions, activists took to Twitter demanding that Maher be replaced (on his own show, no less) with Jon Stewart, who toes the woke party line. How come woke activists think that every time somebody speaks a different opinion than theirs that they must be cancelled or replaced by someone who agrees with them? This is where we are now.

And here I was thinking that the idea behind acting is to be someone you're actually not..... ::)
Wokeness is so getting on my nerves. Everything has to be about gender and everybody has to be offended. Let's hope that idiocy dies off from the mainstream soon.  ::)

And here I was thinking that the idea behind acting is to be someone you're actually not..... ::)
Wokeness is so getting on my nerves. Everything has to be about gender and everybody has to be offended. Let's hope that idiocy dies off from the mainstream soon.  ::)


As a comedian said, "if things keep on this way it won't be called acting anymore. It will be called autobiography."  ;D  ;D

She played for both teams?  ???

And here I was thinking that the idea behind acting is to be someone you're actually not..... ::)
Wokeness is so getting on my nerves. Everything has to be about gender and everybody has to be offended. Let's hope that idiocy dies off from the mainstream soon.  ::)


It is all about ”Validate Me!”.  ::)

I have said this before and I will say it again-I HATE THE TERM WOKE! It is a way to "other" people.

As for trans/binary people, I don't have an issue with them. If they want to be called he, she, it, they, them, whatever, who are we to not call them what they like. I have a friend named William. He prefers to be called William. Introduced himself as William-yet everyone wants to call him Bill. He takes it in stride but it would p!ss me off if I prefer to be called something and everyone insist on calling you something else.

As for Hollywood only letting gays taking on gays roles, etc. That is total B.S. I grew up in theatre. The theatre was probably the first industry where gays were out of the closet. I remember my mother once telling me that during one play, one of the actresses said, "I am so glad that I am gay because there isn't a straight man in this cast." There was also a time when I was doing summer stock and there was this guy who was our set designer. Everyone thought he was gay and didn't think anything of it-until we all saw him going at it with his girlfriend in the parking lot. Everyone was like, "I thought he was gay." "So did I." And of course we said to those two, "Get a room."

The one part that I always wanted to play was John Adams in 1776. Yeah, I know. I'm the wrong gender. But, there is an all female production on Broadway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmeYUsX1IEM

But then again, that is theatre not Hollywood. Hollywood like to cast people who can sing or dance to star in musicals. (Natalie Wood & Audrey Hepburn anyone?)


Cat

I have said this before and I will say it again-I HATE THE TERM WOKE! It is a way to "other" people.



Cat


Well then we've got to come up with another word for it because the ridiculous behavior it is meant to describe exists. And yes, it has been "weaponized", but so has everything else. It's unavoidable. Originally, the term (taken from African American vernacular stretching back to at least the 1930s) started out to mean "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination". Nothing wrong with that.  Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism. Still nothing wrong with that.  It has also grown to be used as shorthand for left leaning ideas involving identity politics and social justice. And from there it started getting more and more extreme. Hence the negativity that some now attach to the term.

To use some of the subject matter we have been talking about here as an example, somebody needs to tell "woke" Hollywood that it isn't, in fact, a crime that someone like heterosexual,  cisgender Felicity Huffman did a damn good job playing a transwoman in an excellent film "Transamerica". It was acceptable in 2005 when the film was made, but it's not acceptable now to "woke" Hollywood. As I mentioned in my above post , even Tom Hanks has jumped on the bandwagon and said he would never play Forrest Gump now. Too bad. He played the role with empathy, dignity and taste. In 2008, heteroseual Sean Penn playing gay Harvey Milk in the movie "Milk" was seen as an act of solidarity,and Penn was rewarded with an Academy Award nomination. But today it is seen as appropriation and white, ablest privilege.  I don't see how pointing this "woke" and even somewhat hypocritical  behavior out is "othering" people. Perhaps we are defining the term "woke" differently.

To use some of the subject matter we have been talking about here as an example, somebody needs to tell "woke" Hollywood that it isn't, in fact, a crime that someone like heterosexual,  cisgender Felicity Huffman did a damn good job playing a transwoman in an excellent film "Transamerica".


You don’t hear people complaining that Rock Hudson portrayed heterosexual roles for his entire career. It’s a double standard.

You don’t hear people complaining that Rock Hudson portrayed heterosexual roles for his entire career. It’s a double standard.


That's what I was saying in my earlier post about Bill Maher's comments. If only a transperson can play a transperson, and a cisgender actor must be confined to cisgender roles, would a transperson be allowed to play a cisgender person? If not, it seriously limits the options of the trans actor, unless every movie starts being about transpeople. Do you see what a slippery slope all this is?

That's what I was saying in my earlier post about Bill Maher's comments. If only a transperson can play a transperson, and a cisgender actor must be confined to cisgender roles, would a transperson be allowed to play a cisgender person? If not, it seriously limits the options of the trans actor, unless every movie starts being about transpeople. Do you see what a slippery slope all this is?


The other annoying things is “the firsts”.

Example… “Richard Redhorse is the first Native American, Transgender Woman-to-Man, Non-binary person to win the Pennsylvania scratch-off lottery ticket”. It really gets tiring…

Am I the only one who is annoyed by the term "cisgender"? Is that even a real word? :-X

She played for both teams?  ???


That’s not what non-binary means, but there are hints that she may have merely drawn the line at sheep.

That’s not what non-binary means, but there are hints that she may have merely drawn the line at sheep.


Back in the day I had a secretary who shared an office with me. One day during casual lunch conversation, she told me that she “has a cousin who do sheep :o. He say it’s just like a woman.”  Well that pretty much killed my appetite.  8-P

Back in the day I had a secretary who shared an office with me. One day during casual lunch conversation, she told me that she “has a cousin who do sheep :o. He say it’s just like a woman.”  Well that pretty much killed my appetite.  8-P


He must have been a "trisexual". He'll TRY anything.


Cat

He must have been a "trisexual". He'll TRY anything.

Sounds desperate to me. ::)

I have said this before and I will say it again-I HATE THE TERM WOKE! It is a way to "other" people.



Cat


I thought of another example of the  "madness" of "wokeism" and it has nothing to do with "othering" people in the sense that you mean. The infamous case of the word LATINX. Time after time, study after study shows that over 90% of the Latino population in this country DO NOT LIKE THAT TERM. But this matters not to the woke mob. They are the people who are "more offended than the victim" and they insist on pushing that word to eliminate the gender of "Latino/Latina". So the word stays. It is on application forms, it is everywhere on official documents now. I repeat, it does not matter to the woke mob that Latino people do not like it. Their true allegiance is to the ideology, not the people. It's virtue signaling is what it is.

.it does not matter to the woke mob that Latino people do not like it. Their true allegiance is to the ideology, not the people. It's virtue signaling is what it is.ah


There's a line in K Costner's version of Robin Hood where a little girl asks Morgan Freeman's character "Why did God paint you?".  His answer was "Because Allah loves infinite diversity", which we should all celebrate, honor and respect, but why do we need to flaunt it and label it?  And by the way, I hate that "latinx" crap too.  It's an example of other people making me a victim

Back in the day I had a secretary who shared an office with me. One day during casual lunch conversation, she told me that she “has a cousin who do sheep :o. He say it’s just like a woman.”  Well that pretty much killed my appetite.  8-P


It’s an old Elton John line when he was asked about his sexuality: “I draw the line at sheep.”

It’s an old Elton John line when he was asked about his sexuality: “I draw the line at sheep.”


Well the odd thing about my secretary… who was a very classy and proper person… is that she did not really  seem to be disgusted about her cousin “who do sheep”. She talked about it more like it was a novelty.  :-X

This was decades before that dude out in Washington with the horse when that sort of thing was legal.

Well the odd thing about my secretary… who was a very classy and proper person… is that she did not really  seem to be disgusted about her cousin “who do sheep”. She talked about it more like it was a novelty.  :-X

This was decades before that dude out in Washington with the horse when that sort of thing was legal.


Guy with the horse? Who, Donald Trump?

Guy with the horse? Who, Donald Trump?


No, some now-deceased dude named Kenneth Pinyan. Falls under the category of “you can’t make this stuff up”.  :-X

Before I submit to this topic, can someone give me the definition of 'non-binary'?

Before I submit to this topic, can someone give me the definition of 'non-binary'?


Man (or not man), are you asking a loaded question.

Man (or not man), are you asking a loaded question.
I ask for historically it is believed Elizabeth I was a man, and there is some evidence towards it. The list of evidence is long, but one suggestion is "The Bisley Boy" by Bram Stoker, renowned writer of "Dracula".

It is easier to supply with a URL on this https://www.elizabethfiles.com/the-bisley-boy/3255/

Over the years I have researched into this and collected theories and possible evidence along the way, hoping to write a book on this of my own.

Maybe this should belong to a topic of it's own?

I ask for historically it is believed Elizabeth I was a man, and there is some evidence towards it. The list of evidence is long, but one suggestion is "The Bisley Boy" by Bram Stoker, renowned writer of "Dracula".

It is easier to supply with a URL on this https://www.elizabethfiles.com/the-bisley-boy/3255/

Over the years I have researched into this and collected theories and possible evidence along the way, hoping to write a book on this of my own.

Maybe this should belong to a topic of it's own?


In that case it would make Elizabeth I transgender rather than non-binary, wouldn't it? The original article I posted contends that Elizabeth I was a biological woman acting like a man, but your material suggests Elizabeth I was a biological man man identifying as a woman.

In that case it would make Elizabeth I transgender rather than non-binary, wouldn't it? The original article I posted contends that Elizabeth I was a biological woman acting like a man, but your material suggests Elizabeth I was a biological man man identifying as a woman.
That thank for clarifying on that, and it seems to be a different matter altogether.

Sangina Malakar, (famous as the subject for “vote for the worst” movement at American Idol). Has announced that he is now bisexual. Does that make him non-binary? ???

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna44586

Sangina Malakar, (famous as the subject for “vote for the worst” movement at American Idol). Has announced that he is now bisexual. Does that make him non-binary? ???

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna44586


No, not necessarily.

Before I submit to this topic, can someone give me the definition of 'non-binary'?


It just means someone who does not identify their gender as being male or female. They do not identify their gender as being within the male-female binary.