Schoolchildren Told in English Lessons That French Heroine Joan of Arc Was Non-binary
A new school lesson suggesting Joan of Arc was “non-binary” has ignited fierce backlash from academics and women’s rights advocates. The Mailhas the story.
The Who We Are anthology, published by Collins, features a lesson plan which contains a biography of the French heroine which states “Joan of Arc (1412-31) is today considered by some to have been non-binary.”
The wording has caused fury among some in the academic community, with one professor calling it “insulting” and a women’s rights campaigner calling it “another ridiculous example of attempting to rewrite history.”
Born as a peasant girl around 1412, Joan of Arc became a knight and ultimately a patron saint of France after helping to repulse an English attempt to conquer her nation.
Believing she was enacting God’s will, she led the French army to victory at Siege of Orléans in 1429, a tipping point in the Hundred Years’ War between France and England.
Joan famously had short hair and took to wearing male clothing, a key fact against held her during her trial for heresy in 1431, which ultimately led to her being burnt at the stake.
However, she never claimed to be anything other than female and did not use the term ‘non-binary’ which only gained traction in the 1990s.
“Joan of Arc fought as a woman and died as a woman,” Robert Tombs, Professor Emeritus of French History at the University of Cambridge, told the Telegraph.
“To call her something else is insulting to her and indirectly to all women who are brave enough to risk their lives for their beliefs – as if women are incapable of heroism.”
“This is yet another ridiculous example of attempting to rewrite history and erase strong, rebellious female characters from our past,” Carolyn Brown, of the Women’s Rights Network, added. …
In the summer of 2022, the Globe theatre hosted a play called ‘I, Joan’ which prompted controversy after portraying Joan as non-binary.
Pre-publicity used the pronouns ‘they’ and ‘them’ when referring to the French historical figure.
The theatre defended itself and insisted Shakespeare would have approved.
Stop Press: For schools to traduce the memory of a young woman who died for God and for France is to add insult to injury, says the Telegraph in a leading article.
I think you might be on to something there, and it doesn’t just apply to Joan of Arc – Elizabeth the first never had children, did they? I think all the elaborate dresses and wigs were because they was a transgender drag queen. They had the heart and stomach of a king, after all.
B-b-but, “women think with their emotions and should never be given any power”, right? 🤔 Certain individuals on here ( shamefully, including women ) have repeatedly stated women are inept at any leadership roles, based purely on the fact they’re women. And don’t even mention women serving in the military in combat roles. They might bust an aneurysm!🤯🤭 I wonder what young Joan ( not to mention all the young women serving in the IDF ) would have to say to that…? Well, she had lady balls of steel, that’s for damn sure.
B-b-but, “women think with their emotions and should never be given any power”, right?
Only a moron unaware of anything before the second half of the 20th century could come up with such an idea. The traditional division of labour in agrarian societies is that the men, including sons which are old enough for this, work in the fields while the women, including daughters which are old enough for this, manage and run the household which includes looking after and educating small children. Which gives them quite a bit of both power and technical responsibility for dealing with all the stuff people had to deal with before washing machines etc were invented and running a household was a full-time job for qualified people.
I would agree, he certainly comes across as moronic, with his factually incorrect, misogynistic dross.
Only rich women could afford not to work in those days. Working class women had to go out to work;
”Women’s occupations during the second half of the 19th and early 20th century included work in textiles and clothing factories and workshops as well as in coal and tin mines, working in commerce, and on farms. According to the 1911 census, domestic service was the largest employer of women and girls, with 28% of all employed women (1.35 million women) in England and Wales engaged in domestic service. Many women were employed in small industries like shirt making, nail making, chain making and shoe stitching. These were known as ‘sweated industries’ because the working hours were long and pay was very low . Factories organised work along the lines of gender – with men performing the supervisory roles and work which was categorized as ‘skilled’.”
The bigotry is inherent in transgenderism because it’s based on replacing a biological criterion – a person’s sex – with a set of social stereotypes about certain kinds of people. The basic idea is that men are men because they act manly and women are women because they act womanly. A guy in a dress obviously isn’t acting manly but womanly and hence, he must be a woman. And a woman wearing trousers as this was practical for riding by a time this essentially prohibited for women obviously wasn’t acting womanly and hence, cannot have been a woman. But since the people behind this consider her a positive figure, they obviously don’t want to call her a man as men are – by definition – evil. Ergo: Non-binary is what it must have been.
I’d be willing to risk a bet that the people propagating this don’t even understand why anyone could want to object to their absolutely flawless logic.
Indeed. I don’t see how anyone can make sense of the concept of gender.
Claphamanian
1 year ago
Poor Joan. Tortured again by the establishment clerisy.
Without the Maid of France helping to end the English kings’ claims to French territory, English national identity would have been very different in the following centuries. Confined to the British Isles, England developed a particular idea of herself.
The historians will know that her story is far from simple. It’s not even that she fought and died as a woman. Her strategic advice was regarded as a nuisance to the French commanders. They weren’t going to be lectured by an illiterate peasant. Joan’s chief use was to demoralise enemy towns. The superstitious inhabitants gave in instead of incurring what they believed was damnation.
She can be imagined as a sort of late medieval Greta Thunberg, though with much more sympathy, and not a little admiration. The role Joan performed was unique and ultimately benefitted England as well.
Heretic
1 year ago
This article inspired me to search for the reason that Joan of Arc was betrayed by her own countrymen. “Her troops retreated from the battle to safety, and Joan rode behind them to ensure it. As the bulk of the force crossed into the fortification, the bridge was drawn up and the portcullis dropped, knowing that the Maid was on the wrong side.” “It may seem shocking to some that Joan’s own countrymen—especially inhabitants of the very town she had come to liberate—would leave her outside the gates when she was certain to be captured by the enemy.” And then she was betrayed by the newly-crowned King Charles VII, even though she had been the one who set the crown upon his head. “Many French eyes looked to their newly anointed king, as Joan had been the one responsible for setting the crown upon his head, but by all accounts Charles was not a man who was quick to action nor was he possessed of the funds. Of course he was the king and could have found a way to release her by royal decree, but he left her to her fate. When Charles refused to pay the ransom, Joan… Read more »
Spot on! Wasn’t there an ancient quote warning people never to get too close to the throne, because one day you’re in favour, and the next you’ve “gone to rack and ruin”?
I’m not familiare with exact quote but It sounds right.
What I have observed both from reading current affairs and history Is that the “ruling élites” as they like to style themselves are, almost without exception, complete cunts. Sorry mods, but no other Word works.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Ok so a woman can’t be a strong figure without being sort-of male? Yeah, us heteronormative people are such bigots.
I think you might be on to something there, and it doesn’t just apply to Joan of Arc – Elizabeth the first never had children, did they? I think all the elaborate dresses and wigs were because they was a transgender drag queen. They had the heart and stomach of a king, after all.
B-b-but, “women think with their emotions and should never be given any power”, right? 🤔 Certain individuals on here ( shamefully, including women ) have repeatedly stated women are inept at any leadership roles, based purely on the fact they’re women. And don’t even mention women serving in the military in combat roles. They might bust an aneurysm!🤯🤭 I wonder what young Joan ( not to mention all the young women serving in the IDF ) would have to say to that…? Well, she had lady balls of steel, that’s for damn sure.
B-b-but, “women think with their emotions and should never be given any power”, right?
Only a moron unaware of anything before the second half of the 20th century could come up with such an idea. The traditional division of labour in agrarian societies is that the men, including sons which are old enough for this, work in the fields while the women, including daughters which are old enough for this, manage and run the household which includes looking after and educating small children. Which gives them quite a bit of both power and technical responsibility for dealing with all the stuff people had to deal with before washing machines etc were invented and running a household was a full-time job for qualified people.
I would agree, he certainly comes across as moronic, with his factually incorrect, misogynistic dross.
Only rich women could afford not to work in those days. Working class women had to go out to work;
”Women’s occupations during the second half of the 19th and early 20th century included work in textiles and clothing factories and workshops as well as in coal and tin mines, working in commerce, and on farms. According to the 1911 census, domestic service was the largest employer of women and girls, with 28% of all employed women (1.35 million women) in England and Wales engaged in domestic service. Many women were employed in small industries like shirt making, nail making, chain making and shoe stitching. These were known as ‘sweated industries’ because the working hours were long and pay was very low . Factories organised work along the lines of gender – with men performing the supervisory roles and work which was categorized as ‘skilled’.”
https://www.striking-women.org/module/women-and-work/19th-and-early-20th-century
The bigotry is inherent in transgenderism because it’s based on replacing a biological criterion – a person’s sex – with a set of social stereotypes about certain kinds of people. The basic idea is that men are men because they act manly and women are women because they act womanly. A guy in a dress obviously isn’t acting manly but womanly and hence, he must be a woman. And a woman wearing trousers as this was practical for riding by a time this essentially prohibited for women obviously wasn’t acting womanly and hence, cannot have been a woman. But since the people behind this consider her a positive figure, they obviously don’t want to call her a man as men are – by definition – evil. Ergo: Non-binary is what it must have been.
I’d be willing to risk a bet that the people propagating this don’t even understand why anyone could want to object to their absolutely flawless logic.
Indeed. I don’t see how anyone can make sense of the concept of gender.
Poor Joan. Tortured again by the establishment clerisy.
Without the Maid of France helping to end the English kings’ claims to French territory, English national identity would have been very different in the following centuries. Confined to the British Isles, England developed a particular idea of herself.
The historians will know that her story is far from simple. It’s not even that she fought and died as a woman. Her strategic advice was regarded as a nuisance to the French commanders. They weren’t going to be lectured by an illiterate peasant. Joan’s chief use was to demoralise enemy towns. The superstitious inhabitants gave in instead of incurring what they believed was damnation.
She can be imagined as a sort of late medieval Greta Thunberg, though with much more sympathy, and not a little admiration. The role Joan performed was unique and ultimately benefitted England as well.
This article inspired me to search for the reason that Joan of Arc was betrayed by her own countrymen. “Her troops retreated from the battle to safety, and Joan rode behind them to ensure it. As the bulk of the force crossed into the fortification, the bridge was drawn up and the portcullis dropped, knowing that the Maid was on the wrong side.” “It may seem shocking to some that Joan’s own countrymen—especially inhabitants of the very town she had come to liberate—would leave her outside the gates when she was certain to be captured by the enemy.” And then she was betrayed by the newly-crowned King Charles VII, even though she had been the one who set the crown upon his head. “Many French eyes looked to their newly anointed king, as Joan had been the one responsible for setting the crown upon his head, but by all accounts Charles was not a man who was quick to action nor was he possessed of the funds. Of course he was the king and could have found a way to release her by royal decree, but he left her to her fate. When Charles refused to pay the ransom, Joan… Read more »
Here he is, looking rather annoyed…
The ruling classes have never really changed.
Spot on! Wasn’t there an ancient quote warning people never to get too close to the throne, because one day you’re in favour, and the next you’ve “gone to rack and ruin”?
I’m not familiare with exact quote but It sounds right.
What I have observed both from reading current affairs and history Is that the “ruling élites” as they like to style themselves are, almost without exception, complete cunts. Sorry mods, but no other Word works.
I somehow doubt back in the 15th century, “non-binary” word-salads featured on medieval pull-down menus.
One of many convenient artifices kept up 21st century truth-twisters’ sleeves.