Is this offensive to feminism?

That doesn't mean anything though. Men wore gowns until riding horses became common. Thats when pants were invented. Joan presumably road horses a lot if she was travelling militarily, especially in a leadership role. Just because she preferred pants doesn't mean she was 'crossdressing.' It just means she was used to war and/or more prepared to return to it.

 

I’m saying the Church used crossdressing as one of the reasons for the heresy charge. That is true. It doesn’t mean she was trans. There is literally no evidence that she was anything but a girl who thought god spoke directly to her. That’s mostly what angered the church.

 

The church used crossdressing as technical means to get around the fact that they couldn't make the heresy charge stick. Thats an important difference. Joan of Arc most certainly was not the only woman who wore pants in her time (sure it was rare, but not THAT rare). Nor was she the only Catholic who thought God spoke directly to her. The others werent commonly executed for those things because they weren't a threat to The Church's authority like (they thought) Joan was.

 

Personally, I doubt that this has anything to do with "undermining," any image, or group-- that is beyond cynical, to a sinister view of life. I would lean toward the feeling that this might be a matter of some non binary person, wanting to claim Joan, for "their side." I mean, have you never heard-- in the past, since now, it's a new day for them-- a gay guy, brag that Alexander the Great, was gay? Or tout the rumors that Abe Lincoln, was in love with his male secretary?

Then again, the number of non-binaries, proportional to the population, is quite small. And those at the ground level of filmmaking, at least for any major film release, is a very exclusive club. So it is also possible, that those in the industry just saw non-binaryism, currently, as a cutting edge, and so controversial, and so attention-getting, subject to entwine with their story, in order maximize its commercial appeal: while there are some who won't see the film, for this reason, I would definitely think this hook will bring in far more new business, of the curious, than it will lose, among those detractors who actually would have gone to the theater, if not for the non-binary angle.

Of course, that would make my own perspective, look a bit cynical. But I think there's probably at least someone among the principals, here, who knows, maybe is even friends with, someone who's non-binary (I'm going to just call it N-B, if I need to refer to it, again)-- so maybe it was a happy marriage of both financial benefit, and feeling that they are doing something good.

 

Maybe. I'm OK with my cynicism of surreptitious social engineering schemes being viewed as 'sinister'

...but Alexander the Great was, by todays standards, probably bi. In Ancient Greece, women weren't viewed as much more than 'child incubators.' Even hetero sex was seen as mostly for procreation. Exceptions were common, I'm sure, but the general rule was- sex for fun was 'man to man' ...and 'man to BOY.'

 

Ancient Greece sex, NAMBLA’s favorite playbook.

 

I'm no expert, but somehow I doubt it was as reversed a situation, from today, as you portray it. I can see why, in the army of those days, it might have been more common: not only would very close bonds form, between men who so depended on their fellows, for their lives, but tours of duty, could be extremely long. Alexander died in the middle of a campaign of conquest that had lasted 10 years straight, and he had been in no mind, at that point, to call it a day.

 

Despite your denial you obviously care about the issue by making fun of and dismissing a group's self labeling. You obviously don't want that group to exist. I on the other hand don’t care. If they call themselves something that they feel fits them, so be it.

Done as a farce, I think would be hilarious. Too bad Monty Python is no longer around. But yes, some cultures have not progressed to the 20th century let alone to the 21st.

You should duck when things go over your head.

 

There is nothing pompous about it. I live in your world, and you can't live in mine. I work for a woke company, and it's a fair description to say that describes almost every large corporation in the country. Every major institution in the country is left leaning, and I'm including most of the major Protestant denominations.

The reason I know the lefty mind is because I live in your world 24/7.

 

I'll give you credit, for coming up with what sounds like it could be, a credible argument. However, it overlooks one vital fact: just because two people are involved in the same experience, does not mean that their perceptions of that experience, will be at all similar. This is because so many of our individual conclusions, are sensitive to the affects of whatever presumptions, already exist in the perciever's mind. You may live in what you call the "woke" world, but that is a far cry from interpreting all that you encounter in it, in a similar manner to the average person.

Now, since most if not all of us, are under at least some false illusions, there most likely are instances, when your "outsider" position, as far as your non acceptance of prevailing propaganda, will allow you to perceive things, more accurately than the bulk of "the herd." But that is a cleaver, which cuts both ways. There are also, assuredly, times when the biases, built into your own thinking, will lead you to misapprehensions, and false assessments.

The thing that allows any person to truly examine evidence, with a free thinking mind, begins with the humility of understanding that there is always the chance that some of one's base of suppositions-- since it is not possible to live, without having many of these, even if most never examine them-- might be wrong. As your boast, however-- of thinking that you know better than Liberals, their own "lefty" argument-- confirms, you Mike, are anything but, humble about your own limitations, and potential, conceptual errors.

 

I only care when this stupid little bedroom game spills out into the real world end these idiots want me to participate in it.

I don't care what they call themselves either it's only a problem when they demand I call them that.

 

I think they're upset because we know how to navigate to the minefield they've created and that angers them

 

This seems to be less and less about the topic. The truth is, I do know I might be wrong, and I have been on numerous occasions. In fact I generally acknowledge them every year in a Predictions post. But this isn't about the humility of understanding I might be wrong, but that I know lefty world far better than a lefty will know a righty world, because a lefty world is the default. Every bit of news, culture, entertainment, you name it, is from a lefty worldview and bias, so it's not braggadocio to say that I understand lefty's more than they can understand me, because you guys are the culture, and I'm merely the subculture.

 

I cannot help but wonder who you think you are fooling, with your demonstrably false claims. Oh, so is that what we are talking about-- your claim that you understand the lefty world, better than lefties know the righty world? That would mean, that I have been maintaining that I understand Righties, better than Righties do? That is news to me. In fact:
1) I would never make, such a pompous claim; and
2) your actual claim, had been even more conceited, than that. HERE IT IS, AS YOU MADE IT:

Lil Mike said: ↑
No you are not making sense. In fact, of all the possible replies you could have given, this one, although maybe not the dumbest possible, is still fairly dumb. You know sometimes I feel I should switch sides and take over the lefty argument because I feel I understand it better than lefties do.


To humor your unbelievable claim, that you have already forgotten your own boast, I will point out, that you are not claiming, in a reciprocal way, that you know the lefty "world," better than they understand the righty world. You actually say that you feel you understand "the lefty ARGUMENT," better than lefties understand THEIR OWN argument. So, as I have already said (but with a typo, so I'll correct that, now):

That is some occult-level pompousness, right there!

 

What are my demonstratively false claims?

 

Jesus Christ! Superstar!
Hanging around at a nudie bar

 

I understand righties better than righties mostly because righties don't want to understand their motivations because they are dark.....anyway you are so far right everything looks left to you and you are its victim.

 

Well you made a good effort at least.

 

If left is the norm then doesn't that make it centre? Why do you call it left?

 

Well I don't know when we update what we consider left, right, and center. We don't have a formal process to update positions every few years and reassign them on the left/right scale.

 

I do agree that overall things have been moving leftward over the past hundred or so years, mostly for the better.

I also think some on the social left especially have pushed some aspects too far to the point that I expect it to swing back in the next few years.

But that's actually just some aspects, usually having to do with identity politics. I actually expect this to splinter the left, as liberals wake up and oppose the illiberal left.

 

The other reason they shouldn't be offended is because "trans women are [supposedly] women, PERIOD!!"