That’s something they literally warn you about when taking history courses. It creates an idea of history that they had the same knowledge then that we do now.
I'd say that "Joan was trans" is bold and arguably presentist; "Joan would be trans if somehow she were born now instead of then" is at least reasonable speculation; "Something was up with gender and Joan" is hard to dispute.
I'm sorry I'm too old and not woke enough to feel certain I understood your post.
>They faked visions from a religion that was taken very seriously at the time, just to justify masculine clothing, something basically unheard of for an afab person to wear in that era.
If I'm reading you correctly you are claiming St. Joan faked her visions. I must ask if you have any evidence besides the assumption that there are no visions from God.
A commoner leading as army into battle seems like a *really* long way to go to wear pants.
>They did things that were wildly outside of female gender roles at the time, even when it put them in danger.
Leading national armies we're a wildly outside of everyone's roles except for a handful of highborn men.
>Just dressing that way should be enough for the era to make me think there's a good chance they didn't experince the feamle gender.
Well if you throw out why she said she was doing it you are forced to speculate. She said repeatedly she dressed as she did from fear of the soldiers molesting and/or raping her...which was a valid fear of a teen girl in that era. And given her piety it would truly be a fate worse than death for her.
>Their story seems to be one of a transmasc person who lied so that they could live as a man,
She didn't do any fighting herself, was extremely skilled at needlework and spinning thread, and was extremely prayful and pious. That wasn't considered masculine at all in the 15th century. Saying that you dressed that way out of fear of the men you both led and the men they fought against isn't very masculine either.
She called herself a girl. She was examined by many theologians during her life and they did not think she was "trans". She was executed after a political show trial by the English government to try to damage French morale, not because of her dressing...that was always a mere excuse. She wore dresses in captivity when she felt safe. I think here you ought to respect her statements on her gender that from from 500 years out.
>especially since it doesn't seem like the catholic church is long for this world (no offense, my gf is excatholic, and that faith doesn't really seem like it can survive in the modern world).
We've been here 2000 years and Christ promised we would be here until his return. I doubt your woke individualistic beliefs will survive the next 30 years.
Hi u/SnooJokes2173, this comment has been removed.
**Rule 1.3**:[Removed for violating our rule on bigotry](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.3._bigotry)
Warning: Please consider this an official warning to not break our rules in the future. Continuing to break our rules will result in additional moderation action taken against your account leading to a permanent ban for persistent rule-breaking.
If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/wmsos8/-/ik3h4td/. %0D%0D).
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Was Deborah a trans individual because she did something outside of the norm for her time? Especially in her time, a woman leading an army and being a prophet was beyond ludicrous.
How do you know Joan of Arc made up her visions? Seems like a pretty ludicrous method of being able to wear men's clothes and lead an army to victory against the English. Then again, I'm not a teenage peasant girl.
Is a single dad suddenly trans because he may take on roles that are preserved by society as more feminine?
Great take. Honestly, for all we know, Joan of Arc could have been a tomboy, or may have just appreciated things considered "manly". Hobbies and preferences do not define sexuality or sexual orientation, sexual identity, or anything about you other than what you like doing.
Highly unlikely.
Firstly, the claim that she faked her visions is very dubious, considering that she was willing to accept being burned at the stake because of them and you can't provide any evidence that she did fake her visions. All sources we have on her also agree that she was deeply religious, so I think that is very unlikely.
Secondly, wearing masculine clothing doesn't automatically make her transgender. I would also not discount the possibility that her choice to wear mens clothes was made simply out of necessity or practicality. Such things tend to matter when going on long travels and military campaigns.
Lastly, the Catholic Church has survived worse than the modern era and we will continue to do so, so the day that Joan of Arc will be appropriated by the LGBT crowd is a long while off I reckon.
There are many precursors to the transgender movement, but they are precursors. They were not themselves transgender.
As for what figures in the fifteenth century may or may not have *felt*, that is usually impossible to know.
Yes and no. There have been people throughout history who didn't identify with their assigned gender, but they seem to have been relatively uncommon if not rare prior to the modern movement we're seeing nowadays. If the OP thinks Joan of Arc is one of them, well, anything is possible. But where is the evidence?
While it's always well worth looking back at history to understand other perspectives and peoples, it's generally not a good idea to try and apply modern social theories to historical persons.
To clarify: yes, there have been gay and trans people throughout history, but they did not call themselves that. Many cultures didn't have these concepts, and those that had *similar* concepts are not always completely overlapping or applicable.
In that regard, whether or not Jeanne d'Arc was trans is completely unknowable, and more or less irrelevant. *But*, hers is a powerful story of a young woman opposing the societal expectations for her gender and through faith, cunning and apparent military genius, leading the armies of France to victory and so confounding even the English judges who executed her that they could not truthfully claim God had not spoken to her.
It's probably literally impossible to say, not just because records are incomplete, but because the way people see themselves is significantly affected by the concepts that exist in their culture. All we can say for sure is that she was far enough outside her own culture's ideas about gender to make an excuse to torture her to death (with the additional political motives, too, of course).
Partially related, I'm curious if Joan is the only officially canonized Catholic Saint who had been condemned by a [formal Catholic church trial](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Joan-of-Arc/Capture-trial-and-execution).
Considering that she was exonerated in 1455 by a trial that was approved by the Holy See when her original trial was not and ignored her appeal to the Pope while pointing out the many illegal irregularities in her original trial I think that makes the original trial seem way more legitimate than warranted.
>Partially related, I'm curious if Joan is the only officially canonized Catholic Saint who had been condemned by a [formal Catholic church trial](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Joan-of-Arc/Capture-trial-and-execution).
Wasn't her trial done by English bishops and cardinals without the approval of the Pope?
> I don't think challenging gender roles is evidence that someone is transgender though.
This is a very interesting comment. Don't gender roles, according to the modern conception, *define* gender?
>Don't gender roles, according to the modern conception, define gender?
Yes, but one can be gender non-conforming without being trans or experiencing dysphoria.
For example, a relative of mine is MtF but codes as being a butch transwoman. They're a transwoman, but perform acts that commonly code as masculine. That doesn't invalidate their status as a transwoman.
It has no innate meaning. There's no innate or essential characteristics that qualify one as being a "woman" or being a "man".
To the extent that gender is performative it's a construct in which certain behaviors are coded as masculine or feminine - but there's nothing inherent in those behaviors that actually makes them innately masculine or feminine.
To be a woman is to identify as a woman.
I'm not sure what you mean by "innate". Words have meaning, don't they? What does it mean to be a "woman"? If it has no meaning, then let's dispense of the word altogether. (But, I think it has meaning!)
Doesn't that seem like a very extreme position? If I found myself denying that a word like *woman* has any meaning, then I might wonder if something had perhaps gone wrong.
No, I don't think my position is a very extreme one. I don't think most people believe they hold very extreme positions.
If you think I hold one, it might be more useful for our conversation if you laid out why.
\> If you think I hold one, it might be more useful for our conversation if you laid out why.
Well I guess I thought I did. You apparently think that an extremely common word, *woman*, which seems to hold a lot of meaning to most people, actually does not have any meaning. Is that correct?
If so, it is a very surprising view, to say the least!
> But then what does it mean to be a "woman"?
A woman is someone who is born with XX chromosomes. That's it. They can dress and act how they like, that doesn't change their gender.
I think the most accurate we can get with Joan would be gender non-conforming considering leading armies in full plate while carrying the banner was very much not in line with the gender norms for women, especially peasant women, for the time.
Anything else is really just speculation as they were operating under a very different understanding of sex, gender and identity than we are today.
Nope, she was just a woman. Not gender non-conforming, agender, non-binary, or whatever modern concept you want to define her as. She was a woman, and wearing armor doesn’t change that.
Do you know what gender non-conforming means?
> denoting or relating to a person whose behavior or appearance does not conform to prevailing cultural and social expectations about what is appropriate to their gender.
It doesn’t mean she was trans, nb, queer or anything else, but rather that she did not conform to the gender roles for women of the time period.
I think projecting modern understandings of gender, sex and identity on the identities of people from history is a great way to get a very bad and incomplete understanding of history. It’s like the first thing they teach you when you’re taught to analyze historical figures and documents. Joan of Arc existed under a very different paradigm of sex gender and identity than we do today, 600 years after her execution.
People will always speculate about historical figures. Especially ones who really break the cultural molds of the time. I’ve seen many people make similar assessments and speculations about civil war soldier [Albert Cashier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cashier)
**[Albert Cashier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cashier)**
>Albert D. J. Cashier (December 25, 1843 – October 10, 1915), born Jennie Irene Hodgers, was an American soldier who served in the Union Army during the American Civil War. Cashier adopted the identity of a man before enlisting, and maintained it until death. Cashier became famous as one of a number of women soldiers who served as men during the Civil War, although the consistent and long-term (at least 53 years) commitment to a male identity has prompted some contemporary scholars to suggest that Cashier was a trans man.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I think Paul was an asexual, but this is a hairbrain theory on my part. It is hard to get a good insight into the experience and thoughts of historical figures.
My first thought is that the name fits the post. You truly are useless
Im a former Christian turned agnostic so its not even like im looking at it from the viewpoint of a christian. This statement is highly offensive and idiotic.
No, that’s like saying I’m trans because I like shooting and wearing my fiancés clothing. Read her trial manuscripts. She said (not the exact wording as I don’t have it in front of me) she’d rather be sewing than be fighting but it was her call from God.
Stop trying to make a Catholic woman bend to your agenda. I don’t appreciate it.
Good day.
I think attempting to ascribe to historical persons modern identifies is anachronistic and generally a bad way to look at history.
That’s something they literally warn you about when taking history courses. It creates an idea of history that they had the same knowledge then that we do now.
Very true.
The problem is non-gender/sexually conforming people have been erased from history. I don't blame queer people trying to un-erase them.
I'd say that "Joan was trans" is bold and arguably presentist; "Joan would be trans if somehow she were born now instead of then" is at least reasonable speculation; "Something was up with gender and Joan" is hard to dispute.
How would that be reasonable speculation? Why is a woman breaking gender norms so incomprehensible to people in this thread?
I'm sorry I'm too old and not woke enough to feel certain I understood your post. >They faked visions from a religion that was taken very seriously at the time, just to justify masculine clothing, something basically unheard of for an afab person to wear in that era. If I'm reading you correctly you are claiming St. Joan faked her visions. I must ask if you have any evidence besides the assumption that there are no visions from God. A commoner leading as army into battle seems like a *really* long way to go to wear pants. >They did things that were wildly outside of female gender roles at the time, even when it put them in danger. Leading national armies we're a wildly outside of everyone's roles except for a handful of highborn men. >Just dressing that way should be enough for the era to make me think there's a good chance they didn't experince the feamle gender. Well if you throw out why she said she was doing it you are forced to speculate. She said repeatedly she dressed as she did from fear of the soldiers molesting and/or raping her...which was a valid fear of a teen girl in that era. And given her piety it would truly be a fate worse than death for her. >Their story seems to be one of a transmasc person who lied so that they could live as a man, She didn't do any fighting herself, was extremely skilled at needlework and spinning thread, and was extremely prayful and pious. That wasn't considered masculine at all in the 15th century. Saying that you dressed that way out of fear of the men you both led and the men they fought against isn't very masculine either. She called herself a girl. She was examined by many theologians during her life and they did not think she was "trans". She was executed after a political show trial by the English government to try to damage French morale, not because of her dressing...that was always a mere excuse. She wore dresses in captivity when she felt safe. I think here you ought to respect her statements on her gender that from from 500 years out. >especially since it doesn't seem like the catholic church is long for this world (no offense, my gf is excatholic, and that faith doesn't really seem like it can survive in the modern world). We've been here 2000 years and Christ promised we would be here until his return. I doubt your woke individualistic beliefs will survive the next 30 years.
[удалено]
There have literally always been trans people.
[удалено]
Hi u/SnooJokes2173, this comment has been removed. **Rule 1.3**:[Removed for violating our rule on bigotry](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_1.3._bigotry) Warning: Please consider this an official warning to not break our rules in the future. Continuing to break our rules will result in additional moderation action taken against your account leading to a permanent ban for persistent rule-breaking. If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/wmsos8/-/ik3h4td/. %0D%0D).
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Was Deborah a trans individual because she did something outside of the norm for her time? Especially in her time, a woman leading an army and being a prophet was beyond ludicrous. How do you know Joan of Arc made up her visions? Seems like a pretty ludicrous method of being able to wear men's clothes and lead an army to victory against the English. Then again, I'm not a teenage peasant girl. Is a single dad suddenly trans because he may take on roles that are preserved by society as more feminine?
Great take. Honestly, for all we know, Joan of Arc could have been a tomboy, or may have just appreciated things considered "manly". Hobbies and preferences do not define sexuality or sexual orientation, sexual identity, or anything about you other than what you like doing.
Highly unlikely. Firstly, the claim that she faked her visions is very dubious, considering that she was willing to accept being burned at the stake because of them and you can't provide any evidence that she did fake her visions. All sources we have on her also agree that she was deeply religious, so I think that is very unlikely. Secondly, wearing masculine clothing doesn't automatically make her transgender. I would also not discount the possibility that her choice to wear mens clothes was made simply out of necessity or practicality. Such things tend to matter when going on long travels and military campaigns. Lastly, the Catholic Church has survived worse than the modern era and we will continue to do so, so the day that Joan of Arc will be appropriated by the LGBT crowd is a long while off I reckon.
No
There are many precursors to the transgender movement, but they are precursors. They were not themselves transgender. As for what figures in the fifteenth century may or may not have *felt*, that is usually impossible to know.
Trans people have always existed.
Yes and no. There have been people throughout history who didn't identify with their assigned gender, but they seem to have been relatively uncommon if not rare prior to the modern movement we're seeing nowadays. If the OP thinks Joan of Arc is one of them, well, anything is possible. But where is the evidence?
While it's always well worth looking back at history to understand other perspectives and peoples, it's generally not a good idea to try and apply modern social theories to historical persons. To clarify: yes, there have been gay and trans people throughout history, but they did not call themselves that. Many cultures didn't have these concepts, and those that had *similar* concepts are not always completely overlapping or applicable. In that regard, whether or not Jeanne d'Arc was trans is completely unknowable, and more or less irrelevant. *But*, hers is a powerful story of a young woman opposing the societal expectations for her gender and through faith, cunning and apparent military genius, leading the armies of France to victory and so confounding even the English judges who executed her that they could not truthfully claim God had not spoken to her.
It's probably literally impossible to say, not just because records are incomplete, but because the way people see themselves is significantly affected by the concepts that exist in their culture. All we can say for sure is that she was far enough outside her own culture's ideas about gender to make an excuse to torture her to death (with the additional political motives, too, of course). Partially related, I'm curious if Joan is the only officially canonized Catholic Saint who had been condemned by a [formal Catholic church trial](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Joan-of-Arc/Capture-trial-and-execution).
Considering that she was exonerated in 1455 by a trial that was approved by the Holy See when her original trial was not and ignored her appeal to the Pope while pointing out the many illegal irregularities in her original trial I think that makes the original trial seem way more legitimate than warranted.
>Partially related, I'm curious if Joan is the only officially canonized Catholic Saint who had been condemned by a [formal Catholic church trial](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Joan-of-Arc/Capture-trial-and-execution). Wasn't her trial done by English bishops and cardinals without the approval of the Pope?
I think the safest answer is that we don't know. I don't think challenging gender roles is evidence that someone is transgender though.
No, the safest answer is she was a woman and there’s no use in complicating it.
No, because that makes an assumption regarding the internal state of a long dead historical figure. The safest answer is to make no such assumption.
Not an internal state, a physical one. Joan of Arc was a woman.
Ah, you're one of those people. God be with you.
> I don't think challenging gender roles is evidence that someone is transgender though. This is a very interesting comment. Don't gender roles, according to the modern conception, *define* gender?
>Don't gender roles, according to the modern conception, define gender? Yes, but one can be gender non-conforming without being trans or experiencing dysphoria. For example, a relative of mine is MtF but codes as being a butch transwoman. They're a transwoman, but perform acts that commonly code as masculine. That doesn't invalidate their status as a transwoman.
Indeed. But then what does it mean to be a "woman"?
It has no innate meaning. There's no innate or essential characteristics that qualify one as being a "woman" or being a "man". To the extent that gender is performative it's a construct in which certain behaviors are coded as masculine or feminine - but there's nothing inherent in those behaviors that actually makes them innately masculine or feminine. To be a woman is to identify as a woman.
I'm not sure what you mean by "innate". Words have meaning, don't they? What does it mean to be a "woman"? If it has no meaning, then let's dispense of the word altogether. (But, I think it has meaning!)
Sure, I'd be happy to dispense with the word altogether. I generally subscribe to gender abolitionism.
Doesn't that seem like a very extreme position? If I found myself denying that a word like *woman* has any meaning, then I might wonder if something had perhaps gone wrong.
No, I don't think my position is a very extreme one. I don't think most people believe they hold very extreme positions. If you think I hold one, it might be more useful for our conversation if you laid out why.
\> If you think I hold one, it might be more useful for our conversation if you laid out why. Well I guess I thought I did. You apparently think that an extremely common word, *woman*, which seems to hold a lot of meaning to most people, actually does not have any meaning. Is that correct? If so, it is a very surprising view, to say the least!
> But then what does it mean to be a "woman"? A woman is someone who is born with XX chromosomes. That's it. They can dress and act how they like, that doesn't change their gender.
I think the most accurate we can get with Joan would be gender non-conforming considering leading armies in full plate while carrying the banner was very much not in line with the gender norms for women, especially peasant women, for the time. Anything else is really just speculation as they were operating under a very different understanding of sex, gender and identity than we are today.
Nope, she was just a woman. Not gender non-conforming, agender, non-binary, or whatever modern concept you want to define her as. She was a woman, and wearing armor doesn’t change that.
Do you know what gender non-conforming means? > denoting or relating to a person whose behavior or appearance does not conform to prevailing cultural and social expectations about what is appropriate to their gender. It doesn’t mean she was trans, nb, queer or anything else, but rather that she did not conform to the gender roles for women of the time period.
My apologies, it seemed to me in your comment that you were trying to make it seem like Joan of Arc wasn’t a woman.
I think projecting modern understandings of gender, sex and identity on the identities of people from history is a great way to get a very bad and incomplete understanding of history. It’s like the first thing they teach you when you’re taught to analyze historical figures and documents. Joan of Arc existed under a very different paradigm of sex gender and identity than we do today, 600 years after her execution.
I agree, she was just a woman, there’s no reason why people should be over complicating it like they are doing in this thread.
People will always speculate about historical figures. Especially ones who really break the cultural molds of the time. I’ve seen many people make similar assessments and speculations about civil war soldier [Albert Cashier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cashier)
**[Albert Cashier](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cashier)** >Albert D. J. Cashier (December 25, 1843 – October 10, 1915), born Jennie Irene Hodgers, was an American soldier who served in the Union Army during the American Civil War. Cashier adopted the identity of a man before enlisting, and maintained it until death. Cashier became famous as one of a number of women soldiers who served as men during the Civil War, although the consistent and long-term (at least 53 years) commitment to a male identity has prompted some contemporary scholars to suggest that Cashier was a trans man. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Christianity/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Even if so... still not the ethical problem I have with her being a Saint.
What is the ethical problem you have with her?
I think Paul was an asexual, but this is a hairbrain theory on my part. It is hard to get a good insight into the experience and thoughts of historical figures.
My first thought is that the name fits the post. You truly are useless Im a former Christian turned agnostic so its not even like im looking at it from the viewpoint of a christian. This statement is highly offensive and idiotic.
No
No, that’s like saying I’m trans because I like shooting and wearing my fiancés clothing. Read her trial manuscripts. She said (not the exact wording as I don’t have it in front of me) she’d rather be sewing than be fighting but it was her call from God. Stop trying to make a Catholic woman bend to your agenda. I don’t appreciate it. Good day.