Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AWilliamson (talk | contribs) at 00:52, 17 October 2004 (→Another editor weighing in). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Joan of Arc

Is it fully correct to refer to Joan of Arc as a crossdresser? Granted she ran around in armor, carrying a sword, but Im not sure if women of the Russian Army, during World War II, were "crossdressing" anymore than Pope Joan was. Pizza Puzzle

The article does not state that Joan of Arc was a cross-dresser. It states that Joan of Arc cross-dressed for reasons unknown (and currently unknowable). There's a BIG difference between those two things!
However, although the article does not say so, Joan of Arc did not just cross-dress for battle, but was ultimately burned because she refused to promise never to wear male clothes again. That points to some problem with gender identity, also an intersexual condition has been assumed by some authors. Again, those theories are unprovable.
And nobody implied that the women of the Russian Army were cross-dressing; as far as I can tell from the pictures they had a female uniform.
Pope Joan om the other hand is an apocryphical figure, nobody knows whether such a person ever existed, much less why she was playing a man's role. If she existed, however, she was cross-dressing; again, though, not necessarily a cross-dresser.
-- AlexR 16:39 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

--

In response to the above:

As a historian who specializes in Joan of Arc (and whose writings on the subject, I noticed, had been included as a link from a previous version of the cross-dresser page itself, it seems), I would make the following points:

Firstly: we can in fact determine Joan's motive for "cross-dressing" because a number of the clergy who took part in her trial later admitted what her actual motive was: since the type of male clothing she was wearing had "laces and points" by which the pants and tunic could be securely tied together, such clothing was the only means she had of preventing the attempted rape she was being subjected to at the hands of her English guards. Additionally, they said that she was finally maneuvered into a "relapse" by two methods: 1) after she had adopted a dress, her guards increased their attempts to abuse her in order to induce her to re-adopt the protective clothing, and 2) in the end they finally left her nothing else to wear but the offending male outfit, which she put back on after a prolonged argument with the guards (according to the bailiff at the trial, Jean Massieu). This was seized upon as an excuse to convict her by the pro-English judge, Pierre Cauchon - who had long been a "collaborator" with a position as counselor for the English occupation government itself, and had been placed as her judge by the English in order to convict her using any excuse or trick that could be devised. All of this is exhaustively documented in the records, and has never been legitimately in dispute among those historians who specialized in the subject (as opposed to the authors of some of the pop books that are available, most of which are based on very poor scholarship).

Uh, sorry, but we do not know her motives, and never can ans will, unless somebody can build a time machine and goes and askes her. Court documents are notoriously unreliable when it comes to these matters, because a) people did not even have the vocabulary to express the concepts we have today about gender and b) every statement made is at least to be suspected of having been made not to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (assuming that there were words to express it, see point a), but "minimise damage" from the accused and to maximes it in cases of conviction from the court's side. So sorry, your statement is false and NPOV. And as far as the scholars are concerned, how many of those have a thorough knowledge of gender issues and cross-dressing. You certainly have not, otherwise you would not read something into the bits about Joan that are not even there. You are acting on your prejudices here, and nothing else. -- AlexR 15:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The witnesses were quoting Joan herself on the subject of her motives - they were not "analyzing" her, but rather citing her own statements (as I thought would be understood from my previous note). Your arguments both above and farther below are based on the assumption that the witnesses were giving their own interpretation, which was not the case. -- AWilliamson 01:26, 10 Oct 2004

Unless this page is going to include every single woman who ever wore such clothing out of necessity, Joan of Arc does not legitimately qualify as a "cross-dresser" in the sense that this page implies, and therefore should not be included - after all, there were numerous other women who wore male clothing in that era for purposes of protection, as was allowed under an exemption (in cases of necessity) granted by the medieval Church itself. This brings us to the next point:

Nope, sorry, but this page does not state that Joan of Arc was gender variant, and it states clearly that many people, especially women, did cross-dress for other reasons. All this page "imlies" is that A cross-dresser ... is any person who wears the clothing of the opposite gender, for any reason . It's really news to me that Joan of Arc does not fall under that definition. The problem here lies entirely in your fantasy, not on this page. -- AlexR 15:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since the page lumps two types of people together, it's only reasonable to provide an explanation in each individual case if the person is going to be included at all. -- AWilliamson 01:26, 10 Oct 2004

2) Concerning the link that the cross-dressing article had earlier provided to a page I wrote concerning the theological issues in Joan's case: while I'm grateful that the link was provided, the associated description nevertheless misrepresented my information - e.g., the clerical opinions cited on that page are not those of "later" churchmen attempting to rationalize her actions, but rather clergy of her own period justifying her actions based on the exemption granted by medieval theological works such as the "Summa Theologica", "Scivias", etc. Some of these clerical opinions were written during Joan's lifetime, and the rest were written during the appeal of her case shortly after the English were driven out of Rouen in 1449. One comes from the Inquisitor-General who overturned the conviction and described her as a martyr in 1456.

Yes, but these were statements made by people thinking in patters which had not room at all for gender variance, and not by Joan herself, so the only thing these statements can tell us is what these people thought about her - and that has absolutely nothing to do with the question here. -- AlexR 15:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See my comments farther above: these witnesses were in fact quoting Joan herself. -- AWilliamson 01:26, 10 Oct 2004

I think I said more than enough about the subject of relying on such statements of historical persons, even if you choose to disregard any of that. -- AlexR 11:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see the evidence I've copied into the comment farther below - these are statements from Joan herself. -- AWilliamson 02:16, 11 Oct 2004

Please read what I said on the subject, I said it often enough, you should at least read it once. Even if she said these things, it proves exactly nothing. You are the one who constantly makes entirely unsubstantiable claims, but we cannot say anything about her gender identity, period. (And you are the one who keeps making statements about it, not I) If you keep ignoring what I say, don't expect me to bother saying anything in the future. -- AlexR 04:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see the reply on this farther below. AWilliamson 00:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3) Concerning "Pope Joan": there was no such person. It's a fictional story with no historical basis, and therefore should not be included.

Errrrmmmm... She is called "most likely fictional" already, but I sincerely dount there is any conclusive proof that she never existed (proving the non-existance of something is always a bit tricky). So sorry, but I do not see any reason to remove her. -- AlexR 15:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To argue that a fictional figure should be assumed plausible because "it's impossible to prove a negative" is truly astounding - one could make the same claim for literally all fictional characters. This has nothing in common with history. -- AWilliamson 01:26, 10 Oct 2004

I did not say any fictional character should be assumed plausible, I said I see no reason to remove her. In this particular case that is also because she was a famous fictional character who was refered to through centuries; obviously there was some relevance attributed to her or rather to the concept she represented for these people refering to her. That is hardly something that applies to every fictional figure. -- AlexR 11:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, at least we've made some progress now that you're referring to her as fictional rather than claiming the matter to be in dispute (as the original article and your previous comments above had done). In the interest of compromise, how about including her but with a clear statement that this is a purely fictional, rather than a possibly historical, personage? -- AWilliamson 02:16, 11 Oct 2004

Excuse me, but since you are claiming that you are a historian, I cannot resist asking whether you read your sources as carelessly as you read my statements. I said that (both in the article and here) that she is most likely fictional. You cannot prove that she did not exist, either (although we both do not consider it very likely). So the best we can say is "most likley fictional", something you keep removing, and I keep reverting. And let me say that: If you want a revert war, you will get it. You won't win it, though. -- AlexR 04:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now we're back to the claim that this fictional character can never be proven fictional. In any event, the recent changes by Benc et al at least state that this figure is rejected by historians, which will have to suffice.  AWilliamson 00:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would ask that the page be un-protected so I can make some of these needed changes.

Regards, Allen Williamson AWilliamson, Joan of Arc Archive ( http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/ )

I support this request and would like to see the new changes. Perhaps a section on just Joan that details the controversy and conclusions as laid out above would help stem future edit wars. Stbalbach 04:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not support the idea - this is a question that is very Joan-of-Arc-specific, and belongs into that article (where I would very much appreciate it), not this one. If we started long speculations about every person that is or might reasonably be listed here that article would drown in such information, and the main information would get lost. -- AlexR 16:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK I've unprotected it. It was only protected becuase someone kept removing her name without discusion here. As i know nothing about the subject the edit looked like vandalism :-( Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since I made quite a few statements, I thought maybe it might be a good idea to sum them up - Joan of Arc cross-dressed, and I sincerely doubt that anybody denies this. This article is obviously about people cross-dressing, not just modern-day western self-identified cross-dressers. That is clearly stated, and actually reading it might help when one sees "implications" that are just not there.

We could move the article to cross-dressing, actually, that might help. Then "cross-dressing" would have to be deleted, though, because it is currently a redir to this one. I noticed that when I wanted to move it there a few weeks ago (for pretty much that reason). -- AlexR 16:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Given that both Stbalbach and Theresa Knott have agreed with my proposed changes, and AlexR has consented to a compromise, I'm going to go with Stbalbach's suggested compromise: retain Joan of Arc on the page but explain the context for her "cross-dressing", preferably as a link to a separate page so a full explanation can conveniently be given. Hopefully this will be acceptable; but either way, there's no point in engaging in a perpetual tug-of-war with anyone who happens to object: the historical facts are not legitimately in dispute here. -- AWilliamson 01:26, 10 Oct 2004

Problem is, what exactly are the historical facts? The constant removal of her certainly is a denial of a historical fact, or is there anybody here who denies that she did cross-dress? I don't think so. The article did a no point state anything that was not compatible with this, which happens to be the only fact we can be absolutely certain of. You may have read something else into some sentences, but that "something else" was never there. So maybe you should stick to the facts, for a change. -- AlexR 11:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see the evidence I've copied into the comment farther below: the historical facts, as I said, are quite clear. If you really want Joan to be included, the standard procedure would be to at least make a brief note concerning the context, as Stbalbach and I both agreed. -- AWilliamson 02:16, 11 Oct 2004

Let me state right here that I did not agree with A Williasmson's proposed changes. I have no knowledge of Joan of Arc's dressing habits and am no position to agree or disagree with anyone on this matter. I protected the article because there was an edit war going on and no discussion on this talk page. Protection did what I wanted to do in that it forced a discussion rather than an edit war. Having served it's purpose, I unprotected the page because it's unwiki to have a page protected. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 19:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I merely meant that you had removed the block which AlexR had previously asked you to put in place, thereby allowing changes to be made. -- AWilliamson 02:16, 11 Oct 2004

Obviously the edit war is still going on, despite the discussion and all statements I made (and which Mr. Willamson ignored) he keeps revertin to his POV version. -- AlexR 04:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--
(Addendum: in conformance with what seems to be Misplaced Pages practice, I have replied to each of AlexR's recent comments by adding indented replies underneath them, above.
To summarize these replies:
1) Concerning Joan's motives: The witnesses were quoting Joan herself on the subject of her motives - they were not "analyzing" her as AlexR had mistakenly assumed, but rather citing her own statements.

Not only have you conveniently ignored each and every thing I wrote about available historical statements, you also insist attributing your own interpretation of her motives constantly. That happens to be clearly POV. -- AlexR 11:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the hope of finally demonstrating why your previous comments about "interpretation" are not relevant here, below are a few sample excerpts from Joan's own statements concerning her motives (not all of them by any means, but a few examples):

First of all, a few examples of quotes concerning the need to make use of  male clothing as a defense against rape, since the laces-and-points on 15th century male clothing allowed the pants (hosen) and tunic to be tied tightly together:

A quote from her relayed by Guillaume Manchon, chief notary during Joan's trial: "...she said that she didn't dare give up her hosen, nor to keep them but firmly tied, because the Bishop and Earl well knew that her guards had tried to rape her several times..." (from Manchon's 4th deposition,  12 May 1456)

From the deposition of  Pierre Cusquel, Rouen citizen: "...she had not, and was not, wearing male clothing except in order to avoid giving herself to the soldiers whom she was with; and I asked her once in prison why she wore male clothes; she replied as above." (from Cusquel's first deposition (May 3, 1452)

Concerning the reasons for her "relapse":

Friar Isambart de la Pierre, assessor during her trial: "...as I heard from Joan herself, someone of great authority tried to rape her; as a result of which, in order to be better able to prevent such things, she said she resumed male clothing, which had been deliberately left near her in prison."  (from his 2nd deposition, 3 May 1452).

Friar Martin Ladvenu, another assessor during Joan's trial: "I heard from Joan that a great English lord entered her prison and tried to violate her by force. And she told me that this was the reason why she resumed male clothing after the first sentence."  (Ladvenu's 3rd dep., May 13, 1456)

Manchon: "And in my presence she was asked why she had resumed this male clothing. She replied that she had done it to protect her virginity, because she was not safe in female clothing among her guards, who wanted to rape her..."  (from Manchon's 4th dep.,  12 May 1456)

Concerning the final trap that led to her conviction for "cross-dressing":

From Jean Massieu, bailiff during her trial: "And when the following Sunday morning came, which was Trinity Sunday, when she had to get up, as she told me, she had said to these Englishmen, her guards, "Unchain me, so I can get up." And then one of these Englishmen removed the female clothing which she had on, and emptied the sack which contained the male clothing and threw this clothing to her while saying, "Get up," and put her female clothes in the sack.  And, according to what she said, she put on the male clothing they had given her, after saying, "M'lords, you know this is forbidden me: without fail, I will not take it." And nevertheless they wouldn't give her any other, so that she remained engaged in this argument until noon; and finally, she was compelled by bodily necessity to go out and therefore wear this clothing; and after she had returned, they wouldn't give her any other , despite any supplication or request that she might make." (from his first prelim. dep. 5 March 1450).

Concerning her earlier use of this type of clothing during her campaigns:

A direct quote from Joan in the chronicle "La Chronique de la Pucelle":  "I well know that this seems strange to you, and not without cause; but it is necessary, since I must wear armor and serve the noble King Charles in the field, that I should wear clothing which is suited and necessary for this purpose; and also so that when I am thus wearing male clothing among men, they will not feel lust for me; and it seems to me that in this state I will better maintain my virginity in thought and fact."

Another from same source: "...and when people asked her why she was in male clothing and rode armored, she replied that it was thus ordered to her, and that it was mainly so that she would more easily protect her virginity; and also because it would have been too strange a thing to see her riding in a woman's dress among so many men-at-arms."

From "Le Miroir des Femmes Vertueuses": "...she had told them that she was doing it so that the men with whom she had to associate on behalf of the Kingdom would not indulge sexual or lewd fantasies towards her..."

There are many more examples that can be given, but hopefully the above will suffice to show that these are not anyone's "interpretations", but rather blunt statements from Joan herself. -- AWilliamson 02:16, 11 Oct 2004

Well, the interpretation is on your side: You take these as proof that Joan dressed out of pure necessity, but that cannot interfered from any statement for reasons I have stated several times. You are also the one who, despite the article never saying anything about Joan being gender-variant (because that cannot, as far as I know, be interfered from any statement she made, either), claims that it somehow does, and therefore keep removing her from this article, something that is done without the slightest reason to do so. So you can throw around quotes until hell freezes over, they are completely and utterly irrelevant to the debate at hand. So will you please stop your constant removal of Joan of Arc (and "Pope Joan")? She belongs into this article, and if you read something into this article which stems from your personal phantasies and prejudices that is not the problem of this article. And since you flatout refuse to discuss the matter at hand, I see no point in constna -- AlexR 04:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can see that this will truly require the patience of a saint. I will merely say the following: 1) my view has been that if Joan is to be listed at all then at least the historical context needs to be provided, hence the debate over these quotes; and 2)  I would remind you that in a note on Oct 9 at 15:18, you had said you wouldn't accept these quotes because you thought they were "not by Joan herself"; but after it was made clear that they are in fact from Joan herself you now reject even that type of evidence. Surely you know better than this; but in any event, please see my comments farther below concerning possible action to be taken in this matter.  AWilliamson 00:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2) Concerning "Pope Joan": To argue that a fictional figure should be assumed plausible because "it's impossible to prove a negative" is truly astounding - one could make the same claim for literally all fictional characters. This has nothing in common with history.

As I said above, that is another clear misrepresentation of what I wrote. Is there any reason in particular you keep answering statemts that have never been made, while working quite hard not to answer those that have been made? -- AlexR 11:56, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See my reply on the "Pope Joan" subject farther above, as well as other replies on various other subjects. -- AWilliamson 02:16, 11 Oct 2004

Finally: I have started working on the above compromise since Theresa Knott gave me the go-ahead by un-protecting the article, and since this discussion has gone far enough. If I have violated any rule of etiquette in doing so - I'm new to Misplaced Pages - please forgive me. I assume that at some point these disagreements are allowed to be resolved in favor of the consensus view or the accepted view among experts, otherwise there would be endless debates on literally every topic).
Regards, Allen Williamson (AWilliamson), Joan of Arc Archive ( http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/ ) 01:26, 10 Oct 2004

Allen you did fine, I would say that what is in the Discussion page here about Joan is of much more value and interest than what is in the main article (re Joan). Edit boldly is one of the Misplaced Pages sayings. As well, I would agree with Alex that it should be either in the Joan of Arc article directly, or be Joan of Arc (cross-dressing). Stbalbach 01:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Joan of Arc (cross-dressing). A consensus seems to be emerging that this should be a section of Joan of Arc, not its own article. • Benc • 00:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That article was meant as part of a compromise solution explained farther above. -- AWilliamson 01:26, 11 Oct 2004

Renaming of article

I once more propose moving the article to cross-dressing. If there are no objections, could an admin please delete the redir, so that the article can be moved? -- AlexR

Done. If you find any other redirects needing deletion in the future, I'd suggest listing it on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. • Benc • 07:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I was going to llok for that page today. Maybe now we can have some meaningful discussion. -- AlexR 11:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

The text says: However, most male-bodied cross-dressers prefer female partners. So do most female-bodied.

So everybody who cross-dresses wants a female partner? If true, that implies that female cross-dressers are homosexuals, by and large, and that male cross-dressers are heterosexuals, for the most part. Interesting. In fact, so interesting that it practically demands evidence and explication. It says that the sex of a person has a truly profound influence, in the subset of humans who cross-dress, on whether one is homo- or hetero-sexual.

But.... I suspect that it's just a carelessly constructed sentence. Without knowing the basis for the 2 sentences I wouldn't dare to change them.

Patrick0Moran 06:38, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"So do most female-bodied. " is unsubstantiated. I'm going to reword it. Dysprosia 06:40, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, my experience confirms that most female bodies CDs prefer female partners. That however may be so only because there is a role model in the lesbian community for people who want to cross dress, while there is none for straight women (or more general, androphiliac female bodied persons). On the other hand, cross-dressing used to be an established part of the gay community, but that has very much changed, and in many parts it is, at least off-stage, frowned upon. So cross-dressing among gay men has declined, while it never quite took of among straight women. So that is merely a cultural matter, albeit a very influencial one. Whether you call that a profound influence is a matter of definition then ;-) --AlexR 11:20, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regarding female cross dressers in history

Regarding female cross dressers in history. This is a fairly large topic because before womans liberation many male roles were off-limits to females so it was actually very common to see women dressing up as men to gain access. I've searched Wiki and this is the best place I have found on the topic. It has nothing to do with sexuality, or fetish really. For example I posted Dorothy Lawrence and she did it for one reason only: to gain access to the front lines of WWI so she could make money selling her first-hand accounts. Now, one could speculate on her sexuality, but that's not history, that's specultion. In fact, the military in WWI feared a wave of women imposters trying to gain access to the front lines for various reasons. It really has nothing to do with sexual preferance or fetish or anything like that, which the term "crossdresser" seems to imply. Is there another more appropriate article to discuss this? Or do we need to create one? Certainly, there must be a history book on this subject or even entire sub-field (gender studies?) Stbalbach 20:12, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's two things you mention: One, what the word cross-dresser implies, and the other the problem with historical figures.

• The word cross-dresser itself does not imply any sexual preferences or fetishes, although it is often associated with both. That however would happen with any word describing cross-gender behaviour, as it happened with this word. After all, it has been coined specifically to avoid these associations - transvestitism, which it replaces, acquired so many of them that it has become pretty useless. (And how many people actually know that even Transsexual does not describe a sexual orientation or preference, and the sex-part was not supposed to imply that, either, when the word was coined?)
  I do agree that the article could be somewhat clearer on the subject; while that information is certainly there, the article is obviously the result of many edits, and little attemting to make one smooth piece. I do not think, however, that there is much need of another article; after all, cross-dresser or cross-dressing is the correct term to use. Expanding the articles on particular cross-dressing people of course would be most useful. (And BTW, the term "sexual imposter" is most certainly incorrect; after all, as far as we know, she did not pose in any particular "sexual" way.)

"sexual imposter" is a British term from the early 20th Century. It is correct in its historical usage, it is what Dorothy was actually called (it was "PC" for the time), but I imagine many people are not aware of that and so it would cause confusion. "Sex" in this case meaning gender. Stbalbach 00:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The other thing is, and I already added a bit about that to the article yesterday, the problem with historical figures and their motives. There are a multitude of motives for cross-dressing, raging from clearly transgender to plain necessity, and about everything in between. Sexual orientation probably played part in some cases, sure, but like all motives is very difficult to detect in hindsight; sexual play and fetishism are even harder to proof, and the later is a 20th century concept, anyway. Not to mention that there is another problem, namely, that we cannot trust even those few documents we have. In times where words and concepts like "transgender" or "transsexual" or even "gender identity" or similar did not exist, and where it is often argued that not even something like a "homosexual identity" (for those cases where sexual orientation might have played a role), and/or where people had to fear persecution simply for cross-dressing, or where the documents we have actually are court documents, we can neither expect that people express themselfes in ways that are sufficiently similar to our own thinking, nor would they have the words to do so. And certainly they had an excellent motive, in cases of persecution, to phrase their explanations in ways that would minimise their punishment. ("I wanted some adventure" would certainly be inappriopriate - but "I am a man inside, no matter what my body says" would in many cases have placed them in mortal danger.)
  So that is a very tricky thing, talking about historical persons who cross-dressed.

So, in conclusion, I'd say this article needs some work, but moving parts of it into another article would need very good reasons, the whole matter does belong here. -- AlexR 23:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree the article needs more neutral emphesis on all the various forms, not just contemporary sub-sets. As I say, this is outside my realm of knowledge otherwise I would provide some kind of historical summary and place the modern usage within that context. Stbalbach 00:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOVification

In an attempt to help resolve the NPOV issues (see above), I've reorganized and expanded this article. The crux of the Joan of Arc issue, I think, is the definition of cross-dressing. At no time has anyone suggested that Joan of Arc dressed in men's clothing as part of a fetish, but the connotation is inevitably there. I have attempted to make it very clear in the article that the term has some sexual connotations, making the term potentially offensive when applied in certain contexts.

If there's any grammar or spelling errors, places that need clarification, and so on, then feel free to fix or add whatever's needed. I would politely ask that any major content deletions be discussed here on the talk page first. Regards, • Benc • 07:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am slightly irritated by your edits. You edits push "cross-dressing" right into the category of fetish and/or transgender behaviour (without even distinguishing clearly between them) where it does not quite belong. Sorry, but moving the article to cross-dressing was part of an attempt to get it out of that corner, as I stated many times. Since you moved the article, I can't quite understand what motivated your edits, which are in parts highly questionable. So pardon me if I correct them.

• You confuse "transsexual", "cross-dresser" and "transvestic fetishism" several times, and sentences like "Some, but not all, cross-dressing is transsexual in nature." do not make sense at all. Transsexual people do not cross-dress, they dress according to the gender role that matches their gender identity.
• The sentence "Especially in cases of females wearing traditionally male outfits, many cases of cross-dressing are driven by practicality and equality rather than a desire to violate taboos or sexual fetishism." seems to imply that violation of taboos or sexual fetishism is behind most cross-dressing of male bodies persons, but that is not correct. Not to mention that in today's western societies, women wearing men's cloths is usually not understood as cross-dressing at all, unless they go to particular lenghts with it and/or make corrosponding statements.
• Again, you don't seem to know the difference between transgender and transsexual, either. Since that is a vast difference, that is a grave mistake.
• Your statement "While it is correct to state that anyone who wears clothing of the oppose gender is cross-dressing, that person may be offended at the label of cross-dressing due to its transsexual connotations." is completely unsubstantiated. That is because people who cross-dress today are usually aware of what they are doing, and are not offended by a plain descriptice term. It seems that the only offences taken (like by Mr. Willamson) are taken by those who do not even understand what they are offended about. And why did you move Goths among those being offended? There were much better of in the examples. (Not to mention that I have never met a Goth who was offended by being called a cross-dresser, the just correct the error.) Anyway, I tried to clarify the cross-dresser <-> cross-dressing problem.
• To put transvestic fetishism under transgender is, as I have mentioned, highly problematic. It usualy is not a (trans)gender issue, and therefore does not belong there.
• "History of cross-dressing" - now that is an ambituous heading.. Unfortunaltey, nothing of the sort follows, so I had do change that heading.
• I also changed the equally hyped label of "Cultural views on cross-dressing" because two sentences just don't justify such a grand header. If anybody should want to write about that, I'd be thrilled. Throwing in two sentences, one of which is a bit trivial, just is not enough.

Oh well, it is to cumbersome to explain each and every change I am making, and since most correct the misconceptions and errors already mentioned, I'll leave it there. If you have any further questions about any edits, just ask. That goes for anybody else wishing to make changes without having much of a clue about the matter (like not knowing the difference between transsexual, transgender, cross-dresser and fetishism), as well. -- AlexR 14:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Needless to say, AlexR's changes to the admin's attempted compromise were done without prior discussion (in violation of the efforts to end this mess), and are to some extent an attempt to change the article back to much the same form that it had before all this began.

Oh, sorry, but so many of these edits were factually false that I do not think anybody who has any clue on the matter could seriously propose leaving the article in a totally inaccurate state. The bulk of my edits though had absolutely nothing to do with your Joan-of-Arc-crusade, but with the constand confusing of transsexual, transgender, and transvestic fetishism, three quite distinctive things. -- AlexR 07:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the interest of the compromise that Benc had graciously tried to work out, I would support the following action: while I have no opinion concerning most of AlexR's changes, it's obviously improper for him to add a second, context-less mention of Joan of Arc and Pope Joan in addition to the entries that "The Anome" had already added: there is certainly no need to list them twice, and this was clearly an attempt to make unilateral changes concerning the very subject being debated. I would support keeping a modified variation of the edits by "The Anome" for these two figures, since at least Joan's entry included something about the context - I would change one sentence to bring it more in line with history, but the rest is fine. If Benc accepts this, then I'll give him my suggested change for this sentence.

Obviously, you are suffering from a bit of paranoia - I merey put in those examples, which had, prior to your crusade, stood at this very point for ages, without complains, under the heading not reated to transgender (which was your initial complain) and added specifically a note about the caveat about historical figures above. Since your initial (and unfounded) complaint was that somehow this article would attempt to describe Joan as gender variant (which it never did) you really cannot claim that my reinserting them was in any way malicious. So would you kindly accept that what you are saying here makes no sense whatever? -- AlexR 07:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you're now launching into personal attacks, both here and in your edit comments. If there's any need to respond at all, my position is simply as follows: since Joan was executed on charges which numerous sources prove to have been based on her judges' deliberate mischaracterizations of her circumstances, it is not fair to cite only her judges' claims (as Anome's current revision still does) without also briefly mentioning the facts which are attested by all the rest of the evidence. Historical accuracy demands such, as do Misplaced Pages's guidelines. AWilliamson 02:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In order to prevent AlexR's threatened "edit war" (see his comments farther above), I would ask that Benc would please protect the article from additional tampering after removing AlexR's duplicate listings of the two abovementioned persons: the rest I'm not going to object to. This nonsense needs to be brought to an end. AWilliamson 00:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for the "edit war AlexR threatened" - if you had not noticed, that edit war had already been going on for days, initiated by not other than you, Mr, Williamson, and for entirely unfounded reasons. Your request for page protection has no basis whatever, and it seems that you don't mind if articles are badly faulty as long as the object of your crusade is met. You seem to be suffering from a bad case of transphobia to me, coupled with a complete inability to even notice the probably 99% of the article that are not concerned with your personal property, Joan of Arc.

Since I, however, can live perfectly well with the form the paragraph in question is now (providing the longer text on these people below remains intact) I sincerely hope you will go crusade elsewhere, now. -- AlexR 07:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll make a few brief points in response to the above: 1) as I stated in the very note you're replying to, I had no objection to any of the legitimate changes, and was mainly making the point that the purpose of the admin's intervention was to place a compromise solution up for discussion rather than to subject it to yet another bout of unilateral editing. I have refrained since then from making any edits, and would ask that you do the same. 2) Concerning your attacks on my character above, I would remind you again that this is against Misplaced Pages's rules. 3) So long as the final sentence in Joan's entry is changed to mention both sides of the historical evidence rather than just one, I will accept the rest of the current article. Rather than making the edit myself, I will submit the proposed change to an admin first for approval.

Hopefully this can finally be resolved. AWilliamson 02:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Historical example picture

I am recommending we replace the Joan of Arc picture with the picture of Dorothy Lawrence for a number of reasons. It is not because the Joan picture is not appropriate or not a cross dresser. She is, and it is appropriate. However I believe the Dorthy picture is a better choice, as an example, for the following reasons: 1) The Joan painting her clothing looks feminine, the broad hips, narrow waste, are hallmarks of womens clothing. If it was not painted with armourment details, it would be hard to tell this was not a womans dress. Indeed, armorment did not look like that for men, it is an artists rendition and not historically accurate. 2) The Dorthy picture looks like a man, she is wearing mens clothing, it is historically accurate, a better choice as an example. 3) I would like to bring more exposure to the story of Dorothy and the article in general and this presents an opportunity to do so. 4) The story of Dorothy is almost entirely about her experience cross dressing, which makes for a good example to tie to this article. Thank you for your consideration. Stbalbach 16:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another editor weighing in

The term cross-dressing does imply a sexually oriented practise for most people. Misplaced Pages hasn't been set up to disabuse people of that notion, but rather to simply report information from a consensus of editors. To necessarily use cross-dressing to characterise what Joan was doing (since the sexual interpretation sense is so prevalent nowadays) is indelicate and somewhat inaccurate (it certainly wasn't a term used by the English or French in 1450). I can see how Joan could be mentioned in this article, but it should also be clearly stated that her "cross-dressing" was likely for reasons other than the modern popular sense of the idiom. Fire Star 17:07, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uh, haven't we just been there? And sorry, you are not correct, either. While many people seem to think "sex" when they hear cross-dressing (well, certainly most of those who complain here), that is just not accurate, and we cannot and should not write articles to conform to people's misinformation, but we should and we will try to present information that is correct, not information that conforms to common prejudices. (Or do you feel that, since it is certainly a common prejudice, that the article on people of African descent should mention that their dicks are (said to be) longer and they are (said to be) better at sports, but worse when it comes to intellectual achievements? I somehow don't think so ...) Not to mention that even if gender issues are involved, that still is not about sex. You can confuse cross-dressing, gender issues, and sex all you like, but that does not mean the Misplaced Pages should do so likewise.

The argument that "this term was not used at the time" is equally ridiculous, since by that reasoning, all the artcles about Roman emperors had to be written in Latin, something you probably do not propose, either.

And then I might add that we cannot and we probably never will know for what reasons Joan cross-dressed. I already said enough about this issue, so just read what I wrote about it.

In conclusion, sorry, but your personal prejudices about everybody else but Joan who ever cross-dressed do not carry any more weight that Mr. Williamsons; you can neither deny that Joan cross-dressed, and neither can you claim that you know her reason for doing so. If you feel that you need to push that POV, do it elsewhere, the Misplaced Pages has a NPOV policy, and that is not negotiable, either. -- AlexR 20:53, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please notice that I never said definitely that I believe this or I believe that. I can see that you are annoyed, but to declare that I have a prejudice in this situation is unjustified. The fact is, most people see casual cross-dressing as a form of deviant behavior, which is a point addressed in this article. Also, that some people don't see it as deviant is addressed in this article. To say it is definitely deviant is POV, to say it definitely isn't deviant is POV, too. To report both views dispassionately is NPOV. NPOV reporting of well-known POV isn't evidence of POV in the reporter, which is where you seem to get confused. There is some historical evidence that Joan dressed for certain reasons, and that is addressed in this article. I never said that she didn't belong in this article, but I do object to saying she was convicted of "cross-dressing" when she was convicted of heresy, heresy that was evidenced to her persecutors in only one aspect by her dressing in masculine clothing. To say she was burned for cross-dressing is therefore somewhat misleading. I'm sorry that your peers asking for perspective at variance with your own to be included in this article is problematic for you. I'd be happy to recommend this issue for arbitration or some other form of dispute resolution if you'd like. Fire Star 21:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

----

(To AlexR) Fire Star is an admin who was asked to finally resolve this dispute - and yet you have again gone in and made your own edits, while bringing up the issue of "prejudice" again.  Nor is it reasonable to reject Joan's own words and the confirmation of eyewitnesses who said that her stated reasons were entirely consistent with precisely the circumstances that she was in. See Fire Star's response above.

In any event, I accepted the admin's resolution, but you don't seem willing to let this finally rest. AWilliamson 00:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)