If you were to inquire from a radical gender theorist or trans advocate how you can know the sex or gender of a person, they would have only one answer for you. Ask them. The concept that only an individual can define their own gender or sex is the alpha and the omega of the movement. So it is strange to see claims being made that historical figures, who had no idea what transgenderism is, can be assigned gender identities that they did not choose for themselves.
The latest example of this paradoxical paradigm in practice is a production at London’s Globe Theater, co-founded by Shakespeare himself, of the play “I, Joan” about Catholic saint and French hero Joan of Arc. A non-binary actor was cast for the lead role and the Globe officially announced that in this production the character’s pronouns are They/Them. On its own this could just be viewed as a kind of non-traditional casting common in modern theater. But then the Globe went a little further.
A recent article in the Daily Mail states, “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”.’ First of all, I knew theater companies had stage managers, lighting designers, and development officers, but not ‘trans-awareness trainers.’ Second, and more importantly, this ridiculous theory about Elizabeth I’s gender is not only wrong, it is also deeply insulting to women.
What is Dr. Hayem’s evidence that, arguably the greatest female pillar in the framework of the history of the English speaking world, was actually trans, or a man? It is this quote from the monarch, rallying her troops to fight the Spanish. “’I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too.” What is blatantly obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of English history or the English language is that she is not saying, “I am brave and strong therefore I must actually be a man,” she is saying, “Though I am a woman, women too can be brave and strong, and can be leaders.”
Hayem and the Globe have taken one of the most powerful statements ever uttered about the strength and power that women possess and completely undermined it to give it the exact opposite meaning that Elizabeth I intended. In simple terms the assertion is that men are strong, women are weak, so if a woman is strong she must actually be a man. The Globe isn’t just erasing women as trans activists do on a daily basis, it is demeaning women. It’s offensive and disgusting.
And it’s not just in the theater world that we find this gender bending historical revisionism. In the world of archeology there are active campaigns not only to avoid naming the sex or gender of individuals discovered in digs, but inconsistently to designate some persons found as transgender. This happened with a dig in Finland that unearthed a grave of a biological female that contained swords, something typically found in male graves. Rather than accepting that maybe this was a rare honor, or a mistake, or a random occurrence, trans activists insisted it meant the person was trans. Once again, a symbol of strength – this time a sword – meant that it had to be a man, not a woman.
In recent history there has been an effort to misgender one of the great heroes of the gay rights movement. Marsha P Johnson, a self-identified “transvestite” is celebrated for being one of the first to fight back in the famous Stonewall riot. Today it is orthodoxy on the left that Johnson was a trans woman. This despite the fact he never identified that way, ever, at all. He was a drag queen who enjoyed wearing women’s clothing, not a trans woman. In this case at least the gender radicals grant that a “woman” can be strong, but not a biological woman, of course, rather a trans woman. Apparently unlike biological women it is possible for trans women to be strong and powerful.
We all see what’s going on here, we all see how deeply it diminishes women, how dismissive it is of their contributions to history. And where does it end? Most 19th Century novels were written by men, so are the Bronte sisters actually male? The most recognized and great early 20th century scientists were men, so was Madame Curie secretly trans? It is not enough for the trans movement to change the meaning of centuries old words like “woman,” or to redefine basic biology, now they want to rewrite the history books, as well. It is an effort that must be not only rejected, but mocked. It is an assault on reality and the great women of history, and it needs to stop.
David Marcus is a Brooklyn based columnist and author of “Charade: The Covid Lies That Crushed A Nation”
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.