The subtext of this interpretation

Now for the essay by Dr Kit Heyam that explains why Joan of Arc & Elizabeth Tudor were too good to be mere women.

Dr Heyam uses the bespoke pronouns right off the bat, and the result of course is confusing meaningless drivel.

Title: ‘It was necessary’: taking Joan of Arc on their own terms

Whose own terms?

Subtitle: We take a look a fresh look at Jeanne d’Arc’s story, and what they tell us about the history of gender

What who tell us about the history of gender?

Pronouns are there for a reason: to convey needed information without having to repeat people’s names a million times. Sticking in “they”s where they don’t make any sense doesn’t convey any information, it just creates clumsy bumps that interfere with comprehension. It’s shit writing.

We start with clothes, because of course we do. Joan of Arc wore men’s clothes. The audience gasped as one.

This is how Joan’s story is often told: as a tale of pragmatic gender nonconformity, men’s dress as a strategy to navigate a patriarchal world. The subtext of this interpretation – increasingly made explicit as our society continues to deny the historical existence of trans experience – is that Joan shouldn’t be seen as part of trans history: that their story is about gender-nonconforming behaviour, not identity.

Bollocks. We can perfectly well think Joan was also gender nonconforming, and I’m pretty sure lots of people have, and we can think that without having to think she was “trans.” I for one think it’s the other way around: idiots like this Kit Heyam person impose their fatuous socially constructed ideas on people who wouldn’t have understood a word she he they is saying, even in translation.

In my new book Before We Were Trans, I take a fresh look at histories like Joan’s, and consider what they tell us about the history of gender. The book tackles histories of gender nonconformity which overlap with other kinds of history, including histories of queer sexuality, intersex embodiment, and defiance of gender roles…

I have to wonder why the Globe is helping this fool market her his their new book.

…saying Joan’s gender nonconformity was motivated by practicality doesn’t prevent us from also saying that it had other, deeper motivations – or that it had other, deeper, unexpected consequences for how Joan felt.

No shit. Of course it could have had other motivations! Of course she could have wanted a wider more interesting life than the one that was allotted to women. Lots of girls and women want that and always have – that doesn’t mean they’re “trans.”

The ninth-century English ruler Æthelflæd, who governed Mercia after the death of their husband, was later described as ‘conducting…Armies, as if she had changed her sex’: to take on a male-coded military role was, in some sense, for Æthelflæd to become male. Elizabeth I, similarly, described themself regularly in speeches as ‘king’, ‘queen’ and ‘prince’, choosing strategically to emphasise their female identity or their male monarchical role at different points.

Still doesn’t make them “trans.”

This person is an idiot. I’m finished with her him them.

15 Responses to “The subtext of this interpretation”