Talk:Cross-dressing/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Joan of Arc related

Joan of Arc as a crossdresser

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 "implies" 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 ( )

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 reverting to his POV version. -- AlexR 04:31, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Addendum: in conformance with what seems to be Wikipedia 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 [Cauchon] and Earl [of Warwick] 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: " 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 [by the judges] 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 [clothing], 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 [or "gracious"] 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 constant (?) -- 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 Wikipedia - 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 ( ) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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


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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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)

Another editor weighing in

The term cross-dressing does imply a sexually oriented practise for most people. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
Unfortunately, you did not report dispassionately those points, you pushed Mr. Williamson's point of Joan cross-dressing out of necessitiy. You did not even mention the "deviant" debate in your edits, so what you wrote and what you here claim that you wrote somehow does not agree with each other. -- AlexR 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That matter had already been resumed days ago, and the offending sentence was removed. So what are you complaining about? The only sentence I added this evening is However, see the caveat about historical persons and testemonies above. - that is putting in a perspective at variance with Mr. Williamson and you, and that is all I ask for. In turn I get accused of pushing my point, which is, to put it mildly, rahter odd, since the only point that I am pushing is that we cannot be sure, while you and Mr. Williamson keep making a definite statement that just cannot be made. As for arbitration, I already made an RFC and will ask for it myself if this keeps going on. -- AlexR 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please see my response farther below. AWilliamson 02:10, 18 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)
@Mr. Williamson: If you bring in anybody to "resolve" this dispute, it might help if you mention that. Otherwise, how shall I know (or anybody) whom you dig up to support your position? Also, it is not surprising that you graciously accept that "resolution", since it just happens to push your POV. I don't really see why I should do so, though, because even if an admin writes it, it remains POV.
As for being reasonable or unreasonable about questioning the words of persons, particularly historical ones, that dead horse has already been beaten to pulp. And you are misrepresenting what I said, too - I never rejected her words, I merely question them, and I question them with good reason. And that does not mean I do not believe them to be true, that only means that I leave the option open whether they are true. Even today, when all the words and categories we think in are available, statements from people about their reasons for cross-dressing often change; believe me, I'd know. That is even more true when people had not even the words and concepts to speak about any possibly gender-variant feelings. (And to make that clear: I am right now not talking specifically about Joan, but about the situation in general.) I am therefore saying once more that devinite statements about any historical persons reasons for cross-dressing cannot be made, and once again, that does not mean that I necessarily believe that Joan had any gender issues. Do you think you can understand that this time? -- AlexR 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please see my response farther below. AWilliamson 02:10, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK guys, here is how I see it. I'm actually not complaining about the article, AlexR, I was complaining about what you've said to me about me on this page. It's OK, that is what talk pages are for. Meeting others halfway is a valuable experience that Wikipedia can provide if people are interested in that sort of thing. I don't disagree with the statement that this horse has been beaten to a pulp, and the article as it is now does seem fine to me. I think we can all agree that if we don't use a time machine to ask her we cannot know for sure what Joan's motives were, just as we can't say exactly why Nefertiti wore a fake beard. What we can say is that there is some surviving evidence as to her motives and report it as evidence, not a positive conclusion. Myself, I don't have that much info about cross-dressing, I think Monty Python and Ranma 1/2 are witty enough cultural examples, but that is all I really know about it. For Mr. Williamson's information, admins are subject to peer and bureaucrat review as well, so we don't always resolve disputes by fiat, there are simply a few editorial things that we can do in a figurative emergency, which this isn't. I am interested trying to help the article, and was asked to weigh in because of an expressed interest in 15th century history and my welcome of Mr. Williamson here as much as an adminship. This dispute seems to me to be between people who want their perspectives acknowledged. AlexR knows a lot about gender issues and and AWilliamson knows a lot about Joan, and there has to be a way here to represent that knowledge fairly and respectfully. I hope this helps. Fire Star 04:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the position of admins to Mr. Williamson, I was tempted to mention that myself, but I somehow do not think that anything I mention gets read at all, so that seemed to make little sense. He seems to think that an edit by an admin is somehow a final statement that should not be changed. [AR]
As for your statement that we cannot come to a positive conclusion, yes, I totally agree, and that is what I have been saying all along. (Although, for reasons already stated, I hesitate to call what we have "evidence".) I might add, though, that I in another case I stepped in to prevent a POV edit from exactly the other postion, changing an article about Elagabalus back from "she was transsexual", with pretty much the same argument about "we just cannot be certain". [AR]
As for both sides wanting their positions acknowledged - that about summs it up. I do understand Mr. Williamsons position, btw, that is not the problem. The problem is, that while he might be a decent historian, he knows (and has acknowledged that much more than once) nothing whatever about gender identity issues, yet he keeps pushing his point, which happens to deal with at least a potential gender identity issue. Of that he is aware, otherwise he would not make that constant claim of none being involved, but how can he make that claim if he knows nothing about the matters that might or might not underlie Joans behaviour? Now I would not mind explaining what I mean in more detail, had I ever had the feeling that he is willing to listen. (It also might have helped if I had not have to had the page protected so that he was forced to state a reason for his initial repeated - and uncommented - removal of Joan from the article.) But refusing to listen to anything that goes against ones current opinion is hardly the mark of any good historian, now, is it? [AR]
I might also add, for good measure, that while Mr. Williamson seems to be convinced that even calling her behaviour cross-dressing is somehow a baaaaad thing to do, that one encounters Joan of Arc in each and every book dealing even remotely with female-to-male-cross-dressing or the history of cross-dressing or transgender. Usually she is named a "Transvestite" in these books; and not always that word is used in a plain descriptice manner of her behaviour without attributing motive, either. And while that bit of history is certainly not one I know too much about, some of these books did not at all seem to be completely ahistorical to me. So putting these informations under the label of "transvestism" or "transvestite" would have been quite justifyable, and maybe Mr. Williamson ought to pay at least attention to the fact that this was not done (transvestism being a really burnt word, which cross-dressing is not) and the article did not attempt to attribute motive even before his edits. I don't know why he thinks I am doing what I am doing, but I am quite sure he got it wrong. -- AlexR 12:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, AlexR. Based on what you are saying, I think this whole thing was a huge misunderstanding caused by different cultural backgrounds, different attitudes, different expectations. The issue is one that is charged with a lot of emotion for people, unfortunately, and when combined with the disparate depth of knowledge both of you have to offer, it has resulted in this disagreement. AWilliamson is fairly new, so this will be a good introduction to a relatively mild (compared to some!) editorial dispute which should serve him well in future. As I said, I'm happy enough with the article, and I wish both of you all the best. Fire Star 16:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(To AlexR) Firstly: given that you didn't respond to many of my previous replies to your arguments concerning the "motive" issue, I have to assume that it is yourself who has ignored my arguments rather than vice-versa. But, here is another, more thorough, response to your arguments on that point (and please read the whole thing this time before replying):
When judging the motive of any given individual, the type of generalized principles that you have been mentioning - e.g., the tendency of some people to conceal their true motives, the lack of transgender-specific terms in past societies, etc - would only be relevant if you can show that these actually apply for this specific person. In Joan's case, there is nothing to show such a link and much to soundly contradict it, such as the following examples on a couple points: 1) Rather than finding a pattern that might indicate a general preference for male clothing, we know from various detailed accounts of every part of her life, literally from childhood through her execution, that she did not wear male clothing until the moment she was brought through enemy territory from Vaucouleurs to Chinon, and in fact two of the men who escorted her to Chinon said that it was they themselves who had her dressed in male clothing, as was standard procedure when bringing a woman through dangerous territory. Up until that point she had worn a dress, and in fact had presented herself at Vaucouleurs in her red woolen dress. Since she did not wear male clothing until it was needed for practical reasons, there is nothing to indicate any "preference" for such clothing, and you cannot simply assume the possibility in the absence of anything to support that assumption. 2) If you want to claim that Joan was lying about her motives, you would need to show evidence which contradicts her statements. Instead, the evidence confirms them: for instance, Joan's quotes re: the wearing of this clothing during her trial are confirmed by what we know of her circumstances - she said she was wearing male clothing for protection during a time when she did in fact need protection, since it is well documented that her English guards were in fact attempting to rape her. All the evidence fits together, whereas the vague argument that she "might" have lied about her motives or "might" have had a certain predilection is not relevant here unless you can show that she actually did so. This discussion reminds me a bit of these people who claim that we can never prove that Joan was French, despite all the evidence.
Nor are the pop books you alluded to remotely accurate: I have read a number of books of this type (such as "Transgender Warriors"), and they distort Joan's life on even basic facts, thereby leading to a faulty interpretation based on misconceptions about what the facts are. Surely you know that using such books to learn about history would be like learning about the medical field by reading popular magazines.
That having been said, you are correct in saying that your treatment of this subject has been far more balanced than many others, including the authors of the above books, and I thank you for that. I think we can work out an agreement, which brings me to the final point:
The reason I had asked Fire Star to intervene was simply to provide a neutral third-party view, and perhaps provide a solution. That didn't work terribly well, and neither did the attempt at resolving this dispute by refraining from unilateral editing (which I assume is a dead plan by now), but nevertheless I can accept the current form except for a few things: there are some typos and redundant material recently added which need to be fixed. Hopefully such changes will not spark another round of arguments. AWilliamson 02:10, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article structure problems

I made a partial revert of the last edits, for the following reasons:

  • Put the bit about cross-dressing not necessarily being transgender back to the beginning, since the misconception about that causes so much debate. Oddly enough for such a hotly debated thing, this paragraph got lost completely.
  • Put back the bit about passing equally back to the beginning, since it most certainly does not belong under "Cross-dressing related to transgender" - it applies to all types of cross-dressing. (I.E. A woman dressing as a man in wartime to escape rape would certainly attempt to pass.) And since those two paragraphs belongs together, the bit about "genderfuck" must go back, too.

As for the bit about the problem of attributing motive, I'll leave it there. I put it pretty much on top also because of the recent debate, but since Mr. Williamson and and his supporters don't seem to bother reading it regardless where it stands, it does not really matter, and it makes sense to have it where it is now, too. -- AlexR 02:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is meant as an introduction to the material in the body of the text. It is not meant as the primary location for material details and facts. Some editors believe that putting material further to the top of the article, this means it is more important. Indeed, there is currently material in the opening paragraph that is not mentioned any where else in the article. It should not be like that. The opening paragraph introduces the reader to the material in the body of the article with a high-level summary view and 2 or 3 sentence overview of what is contained within the body of the article. See the Wikipedia rules about article sytle and writing. The material currently in the opening paragraph needs to be integrated in to the body of the article, and in to the table of contents layout, and get it out of the opening paragraph. As it stands, the article is of poor structural quality. I've tried to make edits to correct this problem, but another editor has reverted. Stbalbach 08:51, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but I disagree somewhat. The paragraphs I put back in are very basic, I'd say, and furthermore, the places where you moved them to were flatout inappropriate (As I explained.)
One could consider, though, putting the paragraphs "passing" and "genderfuck" under their own heading, I'd say between "usage" and "Specific types"
The sentence about transgender though should remain where it is, though, especially since it is also repeated (through "Specific types") in the article. Furthermore, it should be added that cross-dressing does not imply any sexual motives or fetishist behaviour, either; that too is mentioned again in the article. Certainly the current debate shows that it belongs into the opening paragraph as very basic information.
Oh well, I'll just do it, before anything is moved to inappropriate places again.
BTW, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not state that the introduction should be only two or three sentences, but that it should not be longer than three paragraphs. A tiny bit of a difference. -- AlexR 12:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

@Stbalbach: I do have a bit of a problem with your rewrite of the 2nd introductory paragraph:

Because of societal views, guidelines, or laws associated with cross-dressing it is important to clarify that people who cross-dress do not always do so for sexual or fetishist reasons. In addition while cross-dressing is indeed a type of transgender behavior, not all cross-dressing is caused by transgender feelings or identity.
  1. societal views, guidelines, or laws - Societal views sounds odd to me, but that may just be because I am not a native speaker. Is that a common phrase? And which "guidelines and laws" are you refering to? There are laws against cross-dressing, however, they have been, to my knowledge, usually not been made to prevent any particular sexual or fetishist behaviour, but where put in place to keep up the "natural order of things" or similar, refering to gender rather to sex (the action). And, if such reasons are listed, should not be "prejudices" among them?
  • I copied that phrase directly from the article in the "Usage" section. At first I was going to say "because of stigmas and stereotypes" but decided that would be POV and went with what others had written not knowing enough about it. The test is, does it work no matter what culture or time period you are refering too. Ancient Egypt? 21st century Afghanistan? 12th century France? Views, Guidelines and Laws are 3 diffrent levels of freedom from more free to less free. It could be phrased in other ways too. I think prejudice works but has some implications of "right and wrong" viewpoints, and who are we to judge other cultures and other time periods. Stbalbach 02:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    If "societal views and prejudices" is fine with you, it is fine with me. As for "right and wrong", well, if so many people do consider cross-dressing to be something "sexually deviant", as has been demonstrated in the ongoing discussion, that is flatout wrong. And "societal view" gives a neutral option, too. -- AlexR 10:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  1. most people who cross-dress was changed to people who cross-dress do not always - that changes the implied ratio completely, implying that most people who cross-dress do indeed so for sexual or fethish reasons. Are there any figures that support such an assumption? I am not aware of any.
  • "most people" means %51 or more. Unless that is backed up with sources, it is original research. Such research probably does not exist, and if it did, it would not be universal enough for the scope of this article and probably contentious. So I tried to make it a less contentious statement.Stbalbach 02:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I see your point, but unfortunately you replaced one assumption about ratio with another, for which no reference is there, either. But if the compromise is OK with you, it probably is assumptionless enough. ;-)
    As for the "original research" argument, I encountered that now twice in the last week. (It was quickly debunked the first time.) It seems that it is a bit overused; after all, that was hardly an "original" or "new" theory, even if it was news to some of the readers. Wikipedia:No original research states that "original research" are things like "introduces a theory of method of solution", "introduces original ideas", "defines terms" or "introduces neologisms". Hardly the case here, don't you think?.

The second sentence does not really go together with the first one, either; the paragraph sounds somewhat clumsy now. (I was not entirely happy with the first version, either, though.) I therefore propose something more along the line of:

Contrary to widespread societal views and prejudices associated with cross-dressing, many people who cross-dress do not do so for sexual or fetishist reasons. Similarly, although cross-dressing is one type of transgender behavior, not all cross-dressing is caused by transgender feelings or identity, either.
  • Seems ok. First sentence is clear, second sentence I think is a point that maybe should not be in the opening paragraph and should be in the main body and expanded upon to clarify. It's probably somthing that is significant for people who cross dress, and for those who don't, it's confusing what it means. A technical point, an important one, but not a general broad overview point. Stbalbach 02:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I disagree very much. If that sentence is perhaps unclear, then maybe it neets clarifying, but if it is clarified that cross-dressing is not necessarily about sex, it should be, at the same place, also be clarified that it is not necessarily about gender, too. And that is not just important to people who cross-dress, that is also important for the reader; the notion that people who cross-dress are not "real" men or women after all is probably as widespread as the first. If one looks a bit further than current western society, it is also probably more prevalent, too; at the very least it is just as widespread. Quote from Joan of Arc: "After she had died, the flames were put out and her partly charred body was shown to the crowd, in order to prove that she was indeed a woman." So that does belong here. -- AlexR 10:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    That had nothing to do with any issue related to cross-dressing, though, since she had been wearing a long dress during the execution. AWilliamson 01:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Then why was it done? "Because she was wearing a dress" does not exactly seem like something resembling a reason. -- AlexR 11:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    It was standard procedure to display the body to the crowd after an execution. AWilliamson 03:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not completely happy with that, though, either, but maybe it is something to start working with. -- AlexR 01:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the "caveat" from the Joan paragraph. Nice try, Mr. Williamson, hiding it in lots of spelling corrections, but of course that gets reverted. As you may have noticed, several people (except you) have tried to agree on something like a compromise here. That was sort of a minimum counterweight after you insisted inserting your POV that she definitely cross-dressed out of necessity. Is there any, even the remotest chance, that you will try to see reason here and actually try to reach a compromise? Just asking, because if you are not, I won't bother commenting any reverts of your POV-edits in the future. -- AlexR 10:26, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For heaven's sake....
First of all: The sentence I removed merely referred people to material farther up in the article, which is unnecessary - it doesn't need to be mentioned twice. Secondly: given that the original form had been worked out by a neutral third-party and is therefore the closest thing to a compromise we will ever have, your changes did not qualify as a "compromise", and undoing every effort to restore the original would seem to qualify as vandalism.
On the contrary - you have comitted what comes very close to vandalism by your constant pushing of your personal POV. I can also only notice that every edit done by a third person you happen to like is called an unchangable compromise, while you constantly edit what you don't like. Sorry, but that is not a compromise.
Also, since you have managed to remove each and every other reference that disagrees with your POV, leaving at least the reminder of this carvat in place would seem very much a compromise to me, but you don't even seem to notice what a compromise is. -- AlexR 11:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please see my response farther below AWilliamson 03:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On another point: I don't know if you had read the note I posted yesterday (farther above) concerning your arguments re: her motives and other issues: but either way, I suppose others can read it, at least. I think I've tried to be reasonably patient with this, but it has gotten to the point where it is senseless to attempt a discussion at all. I would note that the rest of us had long ago agreed upon the few changes I was making to this article.
Yes, but unfortunately the "rest of us" and you are, by your own admissions, pretty clueless about any matters of gender issues and non-neccessity-related reasons for cross-dressing, and I don't think that cluelessness, even if it comes in large numbers, is a good reason for a POV-version. As for having been reasonably patient, I can see nothing whatever of that on your side, but I have come to the end of my patience. I will request mediation now. -- AlexR 11:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please see my response farther below AWilliamson 03:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Finally, concerning the spelling corrections: given the large number of such spelling errors throughout the article - which I had only partially corrected last night before encountering browser problems - I would think that you should thank me for taking the time and trouble to fix some of this stuff. AWilliamson 01:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Are you joking? I had to work on this article and/or this perfectly pointless debate every day for days now, because you keep pushing your POV, I am supposed to be gratefull that you corrected a few spelling errors so you could hide another POV-edit between them? Not likely. -- AlexR 11:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On the issue of compromise: since the two of us certainly cannot agree, Fire Star's compromise solution is, as I said, the closest we will ever come to a neutral solution. Adding a referral to information which the reader has already seen is redundant and unnecessary; nor is there any need to "balance" an entry which merely cites historical documentation.
On a final point: calling the rest of us "clueless" is not helping your cause, nor can you use such language in reference to the other people in this debate while also implying (in your mediation request) that these same people have allegedly been on your side. That's certainly an interesting pair of ideas.
In any event, I will refrain from further edits to the article to allow the mediator to work out the issue, and I would suggest that we also refrain from further discussion in here, since it'll be discussed with the mediator from now on. AWilliamson 03:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stop being (comment removed by Fire Star, see below), Mr. Williamson

I had not noticed all of the editing of today, I admitt. (Sometimes even I have other things to do, too.) I therefore reverted the last edit mainly because of the change of "female bodied" to "female", and did not particularly check the Joan section; I only noticed that it was changed. I may therefore have been somewhat careless, but that is no reason for Mr. Williamson (comment removed by Fire Star, see below) -- for page protection.

I can't help noticing, though, that once again Mr. Williamson prefers to personally attack me without a) mentioning that the edits he complained about were not by me in the first place and b) without debating what was the point of that edit. The latter, while questionable, was not entirely without a point. But then, the whole debate does not belong into this article in the first place, and if only Mr. Williamson would care to notice, there would be nothing to mediate about. At any rate, I wish Mr. Williamson were (comment removed by Fire Star, see below) about everything I do and would care a bit more about arguments. But then, I wish for world peace, too. -- AlexR 00:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just learned that AWilliamson is a "historian" who specializes in Joan of Arc. Hence he's "qualified" to make his POV a general one. I 'd like to know if there are any other historians among us? I doubt wether there is anyone who is equally specialized in (obsessed by) Joan of Arc. I think we have to be obedient and listen to Our Great Master. (Not) Switisweti 13:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion Pizza Puzzle had the best argument in this matter alltogether (see above). Switisweti 13:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello everyone. There is currently a mediation process underway concerning this article. I'd like to ask a moratorium on editing it extensively until the mediation process resolves itself, as the mediation can become disrupted otherwise. For example, the above use of two words characterizing AWilliamson was in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and will be removed by me. The page wil be protected if this continues. It should only be another week or so, surely we can all wait that long? Regards, Fire Star 14:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you kindly notice that it is Mr. Williamson who constantly makes personal attacks on me, the last one today in his comment accusing me intentionally reverting to the new version; a matter I explained above. His cry for page protection against me was nothing but hysterical, and you can censor that remark as much as you like, here nothing disappears. However, maybe you could excercise the same zeal when Mr. Williamson runs around insulting me and speading lies about me. But somehow I don't expect it. Obviously it is OK for him to do that, while I am not even allowed to state that is behaviour is hysterical, although that is no personal attack, but a plain fact. And now you can start some more censoring. -- AlexR 21:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I wish to thank Fire Star for stepping in to intervene again. Secondly: since we're not supposed to be arguing in here during mediation, and given that there's no sense responding to some of the recent comments (especially with the evidence of "sockpuppet" activity of late), I'll just clear up, for the benefit of future readers, the one historical issue which was alluded to. The claim added yesterday to the Joan of Arc entry (originally by someone under an anonymous ID) was patently false for the following reasons: 1) Since this type of clothing had so many laceable points that it was possible to virtually stitch the pants and tunic into something resembling a single-piece garment, this would provide a reasonable degree of protection, and - more importantly - it was the only possible defense she had. 2) To dismiss her stated reasons, by arguing that a determined rapist can always find a way to defeat such protective clothing, would be precisely analogous to claiming that since a determined thief can always find ways to break through a locked door, therefore people who lock their doors at night must have ulterior motives for doing so. The fallacy of this line of reasoning should be obvious: just as most people lock their doors because it's the best available option they have, Joan similarly wore the clothing in question because it was the best option she had - a dress offered no protection at all. In any event, this discussion should come to an end, especially given that mediation is supposed to be underway. I'm going to revert any further comments by people suspected of using "sockpuppets", in here and elsewhere, and I thank Fire Star again for stepping in. At some point, this nonsense has got to be brought to an end. AWilliamson 00:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If Mr. Williamson wishes to imply that the person who did those latest edits is a sockpuppet of mine, he is wrong again. But then, phony arguments and slander is all he ever offers, at least in this debate, so what's new? Although it is quite neat that Mr. Williamson accuses people of making questionable edits as an IP - after all, that is exactly how he started the current edit war. But quot licet Iovi, I suppose ...
And while I would agree that a male dress worn by a person known to be a woman is a very flimsy protection, for numerous reasons, that is a) not a debate that belongs into this article, and b) a debate with so many variables that it would be impossible to make any definite statements about it (in any article). Which is why I appologised for overlooking those changes, but no, Mr Williamson prefers to make pointless accusations and Fire Star censors my justified response. And then Mr. Williamson does the other thing he loves to do: Making definite statements with not a clue to back them up. This is really annoying, and I'd really appreciate if mediation went on.
Be that as it may, if JohnBaptist keeps making edits without at least discussing them here, locking the article until mediation is finished might be a good idea. -- AlexR 03:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I made some edits and I discussed those on AWilliamsson's personal talk page. Unfortunately, so far he didn't answer my questions but rather chose to remove them entirely. JohnBaptist 11:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(removed post by suspected sockpuppet, "JohnBaptist") [AWilliamson]
(Restored it again. I do not know whom you suspect using that account as a sockpuppet (if you suspect me, I already answered that) but at any rate that is no reason for removing the comment. -- AlexR 05:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) )
Oh well, censorship seems to be the order of the day, then. But it is not as if your comments were lost: [1]. His reply is funny, though: Once again he flatout refuses to discuss the matter at hand. Somehow, I see a pattern here.
But, let me give you a word of advise or two, too: 1) Neutrality is needed on both sides of the debate. Check whether your edits are. Then check again. One person who thinks that he is by definition speaking the truth is more than enough. 2) Check whether an information really belongs into the article you put it into. The whole Joan-of-Arc-debate belongs into the Joan article, not into this one. 3) Don't edits parts of an article which is under mediation or arbitration, discuss it on the discussion page. Because if you do, chances are that not only the two participants step in, but also other people, simply because otherwise moderation becomes quite an unmanagable task. -- AlexR 19:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You're right. JohnBaptist 00:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This truly requires infinite patience. I'll make a brief comment concerning AlexR's statement that, quote, "a male dress [sic] worn by a person 'known' to be a woman is a very flimsy protection", which is based on the misconception that the issue in question concerns the use of such clothing as a disguise. Once again, my actual argument was that such clothing would serve as a physical deterrent against rape (not a disguise), by making it difficult for her guards to pull the pants off. This has been made clear numerous times, and so I can only assume that AlexR knows perfectly well what the argument has actually been.On another point: all posts by the "JohnBaptist" and "Switisweti" accounts are being removed, here and elsewhere, due to suspicion of "sockpuppet" activity. I replied, albeit briefly, to those portions of their comments elsewhere that merited a reply; but I'm not going to spend time bickering with what are evidently duplicate accounts.

You cannot just remove comments because you suspect them to be sockpuppets. There are other people who do not necessarily share that suspicion, and people who couldn't care less. So kindly stop that. -- AlexR 05:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On a final point: since this dispute is supposed to be in mediation, the commentary in here is supposed to have come to an end. This has also been pointed out many times. AWilliamson 02:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was you who started the latest round of insults and strange and unfounded accusations. You can hardly complain if I answer them. Nor do you have any right to whine because I answer other people's comments. -- AlexR 05:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm afraid that I'm going to admonish you both somewhat. It isn't usually done that suspected sockpuppets comments are deleted. At most they are noted as suspected sockpuppets. Any direct insults, sockpuppetry or not, are factored out immediately, and should be by any editor aware of the policy. In my case, I removed the word hysterical which refers to a psychological term used pejoratively to accuse someone of not making sense, and the word scream as unnecesarily inflammatory.

Well, as I said, you seem not to mind if Mr. Williamson spreads slander about me, but I considern "hysterical" a perfectly appropriate description of his behaviour, and your edits a perfect example of biased censorship. -- AlexR 23:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really don't want to judge between you over right and wrong, truth or mendacity. I'm sorry that the mediation process is taking so long, but I would like to ask for more patience. if mediation fails, the next step is arbitration. In the meantime, there is a thoughtful contribution from P0M below. Regards, Fire Star 17:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want to judge, stop censoring, because that sure looks like judgement to me. As for the contribution below, as you might have noticed, I already entered into that. Unlike others here I have in interest in this being a good and NPOV article. -- AlexR 23:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AlexR, I may very well have missed it, and if I have please provide examples of any direct personal insult from AWilliamson towards yourself. If there are indeed instances I missed of of anyone insulting you as a person, I'd be perfectly happy to remove those attacks, too. As mentioned in the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, people can comment liberally on content but not each other. People who persist in personal attacks can be banned as trolls after due arbitration. I have been following your debate and to my knowledge so far, both of you have avoided personal insult to this point, except for your one use of the word "hysterical" referring to AWilliamson. Such comments, no matter who makes them, will be factored out by me. Regards, Fire Star 02:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but have you been reading this page? Other incidents were on Joan of Arc (Cross-dressing), but don't bother, cause all I can see is very one-sided censorship from you, and I don't expect that to change. Calling somebody's behaviour "hysterical" is not a personal attack, as you very well know. And censoring it is an obvious sign that you try to pretend to be neutral while most obvious being not. If you indeed had the slightest interest in keeping this something like a meaningfull debate, you'd said something about the "sockpuppets" accusations and Mr. Williamsons deletion of these. Or stepped in at any number of points. So sorry if I see no point whatever in answering your further comments, because you know, people who are not even honest about which side they are on and censor perfectly acceptable statements don't merrit replies. Needless to say that any further cesorship from you will be reverted. -- AlexR 04:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think everyone can see that Fire Star is not guilty of the things you allege, and your refusal to cooperate with admins is not helping your cause. AWilliamson 04:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think we can safely leave it to the readers to judge for themselves. As for me "not cooperating with admins" it seems that Mr. Williamson still don't understand that "(a)n administrator is simply a Wikipedian who can access the few restricted Wikipedia software functions: deleting articles and uploaded files, protecting and unprotecting pages and blocking and unblocking IP addresses." (From Wikipedia:Administration FAQ) Nothing more, nothing less. It seems to me that Mr. Williamson really loves and revells in autority. Well, if that is indeed the case, he came to the wrong place.
You might want to also look at what the guidelines say about personal attacks, the rule which Fire Star was trying to enforce. The point was that, given that this is supposed to be in mediation, your angry comments are not helping the matter. AWilliamson 04:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi guys, I was away for a few days. I can see P0M is having a go at this page down below us, I've worked with him before and I wish him all the best. Sorry, AlexR, characterising someone as hysterical (a debilitated psychological state) is a personal attack in English, and cannot be allowed to remain. When I asked you for instances of AWilliamson actually, personally insulting you, that is the sort of thing I was looking for, did he call you names, say that you were stupid, etc. To say that content added by others is wrong or in error is permissible, to call another editor or their behaviour hysterical, insane or deviant isn't. As I've said before, I don't have much of an opinion on the subject of cross-dressing, and I won't allow myself the luxury of expressing personal opinions of other editors (outside of the VfA page). While I don't care whether you or AWilliamson are correct in your positions or not, what I do care about is the presentation of the information that you both may agree on eventually, and that is where an admins duties lie in this regard, AFAIK. I hope this helps. Fire Star 22:34, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You know, I don't so much mind you playing Mr. Williamsons bulldog; if you have got nothing better to do, then by all means, do that. What I do very much mind, though, is your dishonesty. And you are dishonest when you claim that you are not decidedly one-sided here and far, far away from being neutral. As for caring about the presentation of information here, well, the only edit you did in the article was promoting Mr. Williamsons POV, which you now claim that do not care whether it is correct or not. Other than that, the only contributing besides your censorship and mindless supporting of Mr. Williamson, was trying to have the article rewritten so that it did no longer agree with the facts, but with Jerry-Springer-inspired prejudices. So sorry if if I regard your claims are simply ridiculous and dishonest, and do you think that you could just either do some constructive work here or troll elsewhere? -- AlexR 06:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So, I am a useless, dishonest, bulldog troll? THAT, my friend, definitely falls under the heading of personal attacks. What I won't tolerate for others doesn't bother me, though. I'm sorry that your assignment of dishonesty to me is so personally uncomfortable for you. Perhaps there is a clue in there concerning the immediate personal effects of your own behaviour in that reaction? Anyone has just as much right to edit here as you, Alex, you do not own this or any other article. Bilateral unwillingness to compromise or accept other contributions toward building a consensus is what has led to this rancorous argument in the first place. I don't agree with everything AWilliamson wants to do either, and find him unwilling to compromise as well over the issues, FYI, but we all have the right to edit here, whether you agree or not. Since I really don't care (really!) about the actual article itself (it is one which I would never in a million years have voluntarily read without being asked to) I can live with that and give him advice on a professional level when he asks. That is called consensus building.
See? I've managed to express my disagreement without a single personal insult, did you notice? Your arguments will be better served to follow such an example in future, as nothing you've come up with here has been in the slightest bit convincing as a result of your personalising every issue you deal with. Food for thought? Fire Star 21:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Boy, must I have hit a sore spot! Since you prefered not to notice, I never attacked you or Mr. Williamsons as persons, I merely characterised your behaviour here, which is all I know about both of you. So theoretically, you could stop using that as an "argument" since you know as well as I (and probably every reader, too) against me. (Practically, I do not expectyou to, since it's all you have.) Furthermore, I have never claimed that I "own" the article, or that I do not want other people to edit it -- what I do object to, though, and that goes for every article, and is a sentiment probably shared by everybody who tries to do some constructive work in the Wikipedia, are edits pushing a POV that is based on nothing but cheap prejudice, and particularly if such edits come from people who admitt freely that they know nothing about the matter at hand, and who "would never in a million years have voluntarily read" the article, or who assume that the word cross-dressing implies something that only happens in their own mind, and who flatout refuse to even acknowlege answers and comments being made..
As for following your example: Do you seriously assume that making completely unsubstantiated claims about other people (and those were insulting), and censorship, and shamelessly one-sided bashing while at the same time professing ones "neutrality" is going to help the debate? Hm, funny, but I would have thought that does not help. In fact, I am still convinced, so I certainly won't follow it. And your "food for thought" was just a puking pill as well. I don't think I will bother answering another mindless insulting rant by you, so you can stop cluttering the history of the debate now, too. -- AlexR 23:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I will merely say again that this behavior isn't helping your cause, Alex. You know Fire Star isn't acting as a "troll" nor in any improper manner; and you know better than to keep making incendiary charges of "prejudice". AWilliamson 04:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, how cute! Master is protecting his little bulldog! Of course his behaviour is as inappropriate and full of highly biased claims about my behaviour, just as yours is; remember the completely false charges you made againt me on other pages. Sorry, but protesting your innocense while constantly attacking me is really not very convincing. But EOD, since this debate leads exactly nowhere! -- AlexR 09:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You know better than that, Alex; you truly do. AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*Yawn* Say, do you have that sentence somewhere where you copy it from every time you use it? Maybe somewhere next to "See above/below for answer"? -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, I was trying to state the obvious without further repetition or bickering. AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Williamson feels misunderstood again

Concerning the recent exchange between Patrick0Moran and AlexR: it should hardly need to be stated, after all this time, that the dispute has nothing to do with any of the issues these two are bringing up. I've stated what the disagreement actually involves many times before.

Aha. Are you implying that the point you and I disagree on is the only point that should be discussed at all, until it is resolved? I don't think there would be a point in that.
See my comment to Patrick0Moran below, since you both have misinterpreted or misconstrued my previous note. AWilliamson 04:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On another point, AlexR's accusation of "transphobia" is both unwarranted and yet another personal attack during a time when mediation is supposed to be taking place. I'm asking that an admin finally take action here. AWilliamson 03:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is my impression, gained from your comments. When I state my impression as a reply to the impression of another person, which I consider to be not quite correct, that is not an insult. Besides, if I were to insult you, even as a non-native speaker I'd have a few other words for that, but why bother?
As for your constant whining for "an admin to take action", just why should they? You still seem not to understand the job of admins. Besides, what makes you so sure that any action by an admin would be something you like? The WP is full of self-proclaimed and self-rightuous "experts", and lots of them got quite frustrated by the idea that not everybody kneels before them and thanks them for sharing their "wisdom". -- AlexR 04:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§ As someone coming to this without a prior ego involvement, it seems to me that there may be some underlying issues that need to be resolved. Mr. Williamson's, is it your intention to ask me to remove myself from this discussion? P0M 03:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Almost sounds like it, doesn't it? He tends to treat people who don't wholeheartedly agree with him like flies; unfortunately, they just won't go away with a wink from his hand. Too bad ... -- AlexR 04:05, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think you both know what point I was making. But if you wish to discuss these other issues between the two of you, then you are certainly welcome to do so: I wasn't objecting to that. AWilliamson 04:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am afraid that I (not having been struck with the lightning of perpetual rightness (or was that self-righteousness?)), do not know what point you were making. But I am very grateful that you graciously allow to discuss other points of this article. -- AlexR 06:59, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You know better than this, Alex, you truly do... especially given that we've been over this ad infinitum.
I was going to write up a painstaking reply to explain the obvious (again), but there's no sense in that. Instead, I'll just note that things will hopefully be more productive once the mediator has time to handle this issue. AWilliamson 04:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What a surprise that we don't get a reply here. You are of course aware of the fact that the debate between Patrick and me will not be touched in mediation, because the mediation is about nothing more than the Joan of Arc entry. So why your refusal to answer a simple question, and why do you piss off Patrick so much? Surely you can't complain about him? Just wondering ... -- AlexR 15:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok, Alex....
To restate what I thought was already made clear in my original comment, but which in any event should not cause any problems since we actually agree on the point I was making here : in the original comment in question, I had merely made the observation that although Patrick0Moran had initially said that he was touching upon the issue that you and I had been disputing, his discussion with you actually does not touch upon this issue - as you yourself just noted above. I thought I made it clear that this was all I was saying, and I don't know why the two of you took such great offense - but let's please move on. There is no need to bicker over a simple observation that you and I actually agree on. AWilliamson 04:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence and evaluation in the case of Joan of Arc

§ I think I've got a handle on the terminology end of this dispute. Let's look at the evidence and the evaluations or judgments made. The main thing to keep in mind, as I see it, is that testimony can never simply be assumed to be true -- particularly when lying may have survival value.

  • Joan of Arc wore armor from time to time.
  • S/he wore trousers and some kind of a blouse part of the time when s/he was not wearing armor.
  • Joan's external genitalia appeared to be fully female, as is known from their public display after his/her execution.
  • We cannot know any more precise or in-depth information about Joan's chromosomal sexual identity, brain sex, etc.
  • Joan's gender role must have been regarded as atypical during his/her time since in his/her culture only men donned armor and fought wars or engaged in one-to-one battles, and Joan was perceived to be a woman (even before his/her genitalia were publically exposed). (I say "his/her" because Joan may have been an XY individual with a non-masculinzed body but with a masculinized brain.)
  • Joan's self-perceived gender identity is unknown. Any testimony Joan may have given about it was given under duress. So we cannot know how Joan really understood wearing clothing that was functionally suited to riding horses without a side-saddle, wearing armor, etc.
  • Joan might have said, if asked: "I am a woman wearing a man's clothing for perfectly utilitarian reasons."
  • Joan also might have said, if asked: "I am a man in my very essence and find it more appropriate to wear the attire of a man than the attire of a woman."
  • It is highly unlikely that Joan would have remain long unaware that his/her society regarded his/her wearing a man's clothing with strong disapproval.
  • Joan's society saw a female human wearing the clothing and armor appropriate to a male human. She was punished for that offense.

§ Joan wore clothing that went cross-code. On those grounds, in the eyes of his/her society Joan at least did what we would now call cross-dressing -- because they saw the mismatch between his/her genitalia and his/her costume from time to time.

§ Did Joan wear the armor and clothing as a way to express "the essence of her being"? Did she, for instance, maintain male clothing (and perhaps other aspects of a masculine gender identity) off the battlefield? The court that convicted him/her evidently judged that his/her motivation for wearing this clothing was for more than utilitarian reasons. If speaking in our terms it sounds to me as though they would have maintained that Joan was a cross-dresser. Joan's defense was that circumstances of life had motivated "her" to engage in what might be called "situational cross-dressing" and had nothing to do with complying with some perceived "true inner being". I believe we can reach no valid conclusion on this issue from the information adduced thusfar in the article.

§ Since this is an article on "Cross-dressing", it seems entirely appropriate to mention Joan, and to mention the trouble it landed him/her in. It would probably be worthwhile to note that the court concluded that something more was going on. (I wonder what the standard was at that time. For instance, if some woman was home alone taking a bath and the house caught fire, would she have been guilty for running out naked? Guilty for running out in her husband's trousers? Somehow I suspect that the average community wouldn't have thought anything at all of such a case of situational cross-dressing. I don't know about public nakedness.) P0M 04:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to deal with Patrick0Moran's main points as briefly as possible since a number of these same points were already dealt with either in here and/or with the mediator, and of course the discussion in here is supposed to have ceased long ago. I will therefore cover them and then ask that mediation be allowed to work without further argument in here: 1) The evidence in question does not merely come from the trial transcripts, but is also corroborated by multiple other sources which include quotes from Joan that were not given "under duress". 2) Rather than treating her gender-identity in an ambiguous manner, Joan in fact chose the nickname "La Pucelle" ("the maiden" or "virginal girl"), thereby bluntly and overtly describing herself as female - this nickname in fact was how she always referred to herself. 3) Concerning the nature of her military role and whether it was considered subversive in that era: firstly, Joan said that she preferred to carry her banner (not a weapon) into battle, and had never killed anyone. Secondly: she was given a degree of command because she was accepted as a valid religious visionary by the clergy at Poitiers - religious figures were sometimes allowed command in that era. Nor was she the only woman to play such a role in that era, since there were numerous aristocratic ladies who filled in for their husbands or sons throughout that period - e.g., Countess Jeanne de Montfort, Duchess Marie de Bourbon, Countess Agnes of March, etc, etc. Thirdly, the armor she wore was provided by the Royal government to protect her from arrows, not chosen by her as a "fashion statement". 4) Except for cases - as with Joan's pro-English judges - in which a partisan tribunal convicted someone out of revenge (as I'll cover farther below), the society of that era did not normally punish people who "cross-dressed" for practical motives - as stated in the "Summa Theologica" itself, the "Scivias", and other medieval theological documents, an exemption was granted by the Church in such cases of necessity. In fact, this use of cross-dressing was fairly common in that era. 5) Concerning how she was viewed by others: her wearing of male clothing was, given the circumstances, supported by such prominent clergy as the Archbishop of Embrun, the Archbishop of Rheims, the future Bishop of Meaux, Chancellor Gerson, and numerous other clerics as well as by the common people of her faction. This ties in with the next point: 6) According to the statements of the pro-English clergy who served on the tribunal that convicted her, she was convicted on charges that were deliberately falsified by the simple expedient of ignoring the context - i.e., the pro-English judges knew perfectly well why she was wearing such clothing, but deliberately ignored this in order to provide a dishonest pretext for a conviction. In short: the extensive evidence shows that she never described her gender with any degree of ambiguity but in fact bluntly and flamboyantly identified herself as a woman, and she clearly described her reasons for wearing male clothing, as quoted in many different sources rather than just the trial transcript. Finally: if you're really interested in helping to resolve this debate, then the best way to help is to allow mediation to proceed without further duplication in here. This debate had in fact been halted for a while to let mediation occur, and I'm sure you will show the needed courtesy to allow the mediator to do her job. Regards, Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 01:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC))

§ I have looked through all of Fire Star's postings to this discussion and find no indication that discussion on this issue has been halted. P0M 03:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was understood that since the dispute was in mediation, further arguments in here were supposed to cease - since by definition, mediation is supposed to allow the matter to be resolved through dialogue with the mediator. You have my thanks for deciding to not continue the argument - it's appreciated. AWilliamson 04:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since mediation isn't exactly going forward, and since Patrick is a quite neutral third person, I don't see any reason not to discuss the matter. After all, in the - admittedly unlikely - event that we can resolve the difference without mediator, Ambi will certainly not mind. Besides, if you thank other people for not contributing to the argument, why do you contribute to it? -- AlexR 09:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, whenever I have previously refused to make additional replies (e.g., by referring you to prior statements already made), you have kept goading me to reply again by claiming that I'm "dodging" the issue. This is one reason I have continued to respond to the veritable deluge of messages you've been posting lately.
On another issue: Patrick is not "neutral", since he agrees with you on virtually every point. Nor is this bickering going to solve anything. AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Funny, when you brought people in here who changed not only the bit about Joan, but went through the article messing it up, you howled at me for not accepting those changes, who were made by people freely acknowledging that they know nothing about the issue at hand. Now we have somebody who actually tries to understand the issue, and when he comes to the same conclusion as I do, you howl again. Somehow you measure contirbutions with only one yardstick: Whether you like them. A bit bold for somebody who professed he knows nothing about the matter at hand in the first place.
Oh, and BTW: Where exactly have I claimed that you "dodged" the issue? I really cannot recall making such a statement. Nor have I been "goading" you to reply. But hey, you never needed facts when making statements about me, did you? -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, surely you must recall the incident only a few days ago, when you kept goading me to give an in-depth explanation of a comment I had made about the discussion between you and Patrick. When I tried to merely say that my meaning was clear (rather than restating or bickering about it further), you kept charging that this was "another" case in which I allegedly dodged the point. Surely you remember this (but let's not bicker about that all over again...).
Secondly: I never objected to legitimate changes that needed to be made to other parts of the article. I've reminded you of this many times before. AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, the comment Patrick and I requested was about a meta matter, namely, something you said implied that you did not approve of the debate between Patrick and me at all, a remark for which we indeed demanded clarification. It was not about the current debate.
Secondly, that may have been your intention (or not), but you surely sounded otherwise; that was when Benq and Fire Star rewrote parts of the article which had nothing to do with Joan and with very problematic content. -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since these issues have been dealt with numerous times already - i.e., I never objected to your discussion with Patrick (which should have been obvious without the need for repetition), nor to legitimate editing of other parts of the article that were not under dispute - I'm just going to leave it at that. AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
§ I repeat that there has been no request from anyone (other than Mr. Williamson) that discussion on this issue be halted. P0M 04:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The issue here is that mediation, by definition, is supposed to involve a cessation of bickering, otherwise there would be no point in having mediation as an option in the first place. While you may well be intending to help, the best way to do that is to allow the discussion in here to finally end (again) in order to give mediation a chance. AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, so let me put in my 2 cents. First of all, that debate does not belong here at all, but rather into the article about Joan of Arc. This article did, before Mr. Williamson decided otherwise, not contain any statements as to whether Joan was or was not gender-variant, or why she did cross-dress. And given the problems with making such statements (as explained in the article) about historical persons, this article should not attempt to make any such statements. If any further arguments were needed, this debate would make an excellent one. [AR]

§ I agree that this article need only show the bare essentials of the charges made against Joan of Arc. I've tried to trace the mushrooming of thing down. The first thing I can find to start everything was that Mr. Williamson on 9 October deleted mention of Joan of Arc.
I'd say a few days before, when the anonymous deletions started, since he has admitted it was him who did that. And there was the posting right at the beginning of this section, by PizzaPuzzle, that asked the same question, but didn't lead to any editing in the article itself. -- AlexR 09:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding mediation, this is exactly the point to be mediated about, namely that Mr. Williamson insists on inserting such definite statements, which don't belong here, and should not be here. They should not even be here if they were not so much debated. So much debated, I might add, not by me, since I do not exactly consider myself an expert on this particular person, but by numerous publications. By simply declaring all those publications as false, and his point of view as the only right one, Mr. Williamson is also very much violating the NPOV principle. [AR]

§ It seems clear to me that everybody admits that Joan did wear the clothing of a man, and that said behavior was the basis of one of the charges brought against her. It would fit the requirements of NPOV, I think, simply to say that she was so charged. To say (necessarily without conclusive evidence) either that the charges were valid or that they were invalid would be one-sided. An article on cross-dressing is not the place to try to ajudicate such a matter. I agree that even if the issue can be meaningfully explicated by references to available testimony and/or historical records, this article is not the place to try to do it.
The matter has already been decided by experts on the subject: there is exhaustive evidence proving that her trial was rigged by the English, with the cross-dressing charge being used as a deliberate distortion of the circumstances, according to a number of the tribunal members themselves. To claim otherwise, or to leave the matter ambiguous in this article, would be a falsification of history - and _that_ would violate the "NPOV" principle, not vice-versa. AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the matter has not been decided by experts, since those people you claim to be on your side are maybe experts on Joan of Arc (maybe they just claim to be, but that's another issue), but the question at hand is one about gender and possibly transgender, and on those issues, you and those experts are not experts, indeed, at least you know nothing about the issue and want to know nothing about the issue. And people who are perfectly clueless about something and seemingly proud of if can obviously not decide any issues about these matters. You cannot claim that the only people who are allowed to make statements about Joan are historians, especially when said historians flatout refuse to see anything that happens to be outside their particular set of prejudices. That is like refusing, say, any chemical evidence about historical matters because a text said otherwise. Not exactly the done think is history, so why should ignoring evidence that happens to disagree with your personal subset of prejudices allowed to be ignored in this instance? It is you who makes definite statements regarding matters you are clueless about, not me - I made no definite statements. -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again: if you want to talk about a specific person, a generalized knowledge of transgenderism would only be relevant if you can show, through specific evidence, that such issues would be indicated in this specific person's case. To use an analogy: if someone wants to argue whether Mother Theresa was a lesbian or not, such an issue could only be addressed by people who have the type of extensive knowledge about Mother Theresa to establish what the known facts are - all else would be mere speculation based on the generic possibility that literally anyone might have such tendencies. AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again: If a person shows cross-gender behaviour for an extended period of time, that is more than sufficient evidence that it might be relevant in the debate. Although, actually, before you insitsed on changing that, this article never said and is not supposed to say anything about motive; it was you who alleged that simply by mentioning her in this article that a gender-specific motive was implied (which was clearly not the case). Also, one should (in the appropriate article) certainly mention that speculations about Joan's gender identity are certainly not rare, and put them in perspective. Once again I may mention that all I think all we need to say about it is that there is a possibility of, not that she definitely was gender variant (or, but I think we do agree on this one, "a lesbian"). In Joan's case we clearly have more to say about that then that there is always a "generic possibility", sorry if that clashes with your accumulated prejudices. -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly: my main point has always been that the original versions of the article (there were several over time) variously cited the accusations against her or otherwise mentioned her cross-dressing but without providing the full context - i.e., mentioning only the accusations of her enemies while ignoring the remaining 90% of the evidence is a falsification of history and an attempt to censor most of the evidence.
These bits have been removed, without any objection from me. -- AlexR 06:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Secondly: since the issue of motive is dealt with in numerous sources for this particular case, and the "long period" of cross-dressing happened to have coincided with circumstances that fit the stated motive (much like a woman wearing "male" combat fatigues during her period of service), there isn't much legitimate reason for doubt here. Yes, I would agree that if there was no clarifying evidence to indicate what the motive may have been, then there would be legitimate cause for doubt; but this isn't one of those cases. Nor is there any need to add a caveat which merely repeats information the reader has already read farther above in the same article, and which is designed to cast doubt on evidence which can only be refuted with other specific evidence of an equal or greater merit. This is common sense. It is similarly common sense that you cannot use the views presented in a list of books written by non-specialists - regardless of how many of these books there may be - to "refute" the documentation itself, just as a medical article at Wikipedia should not rely on the views given in popular magazines. AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those books (at least some of them) were written by specialists - not on history, but on (trans)gender matters. Since both of these fields are concerned, you cannot insist that one half of the specialists are speaking almost by definition the truth, while the other half should not speak at all. Just as more than enough writings by historians are patently false when it comes to (trans)gender matters, so are some books on those not exactly correct on historical matters. That is trivial. The issue can however not be resolved by one side wanting to prohibit the other to mention their point of view, but only be collaborating. If one side constantly refuses the evidence of the other as being irrelevant, obviously this matter is never going to come to any conclusion. -- AlexR 06:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
These authors may well be experts on transgenderism, but since they were basing their analysis of Joan on a distorted or even fictional version - often with fundamental points being garbled beyond recognition - their analysis was based on misconceptions and therefore flawed from the beginning. Here's an analogy: an eminent psychiatrist could attempt to "psychoanalyze" a historical person, but if the basic facts about that person are being distorted through an ignorance of history, then the analysis is going to be flawed even if the doctor is perfectly qualified as a psychiatrist. This should be an obvious point. AWilliamson 05:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be a point if each and every person who ever claimed that Joan was or could have been gender variant needed to "garble fundamental points beyong recognition". That however is not the case - even assuming everything you said is true, Joan still showed cross-gender behaviour over an extended period of time. But since that was already obvious from what had been said much earlier, I can only conclude that you wish to set up a smoke screen to dodge the charges that it is you who is making a statement about a matter you know nothing about. -- AlexR 09:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The "extended period of time" was the period when she was either in the army or in prison - and therefore had a practical usage for the clothing, just as she and the eyewitnesses said. If she had also worn such clothing in her home village, then that might be an indication of an ulterior motive; but we know she wore a dress not only at home but in fact right up until the soldiers in her escort at Vaucouleurs gave her male clothing for the first time. Again, we are dealing with something analogous to the women who wear "male" combat uniforms during their extended period of service, but not otherwise - i.e., no matter how long their military service may be, if they only wear it during that period of time then there is no indication that they are wearing it as a preference. AWilliamson 03:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The fact that she did not wear them previously indicates very little, since not all cross-dressing that happens because of cross-gender feelings or needs starts in childhood; sometimes it does start in puberty or adulthood, and she would not be the only case where an external reason was the start for wearing cross-gender clothes, either. BTW, where does the "ulterior" motive come from? Are you trying to imply that if Joan (probably also) cross-dressed for any gender-identity-related reasons, the motives she did explicitly state would necessarily be invalid? I would not make such a claim. Furthermore, you don't quite get the thing of female soldiers right. Either those women were known to be women, regular parts of an army, and just wearing the same uniforms as men; in that case, the uniforms would cease to be exclusively male clothing, and it would not be cross-dressing. Or women would wear those uniforms and hide the fact that they were female-bodied, in which case, as far as the somewhat scetchy documentation we have shows, there was a variety of motives for that, from plainly patriotic to clearly transgender. Cases like Joan were - as you as a historian ought to know - decidedly the exception, that is women known to be women, but still part of the fighting army. And Joan definitely never stopped wearing them; although that was due to the circumstances, we simply cannot know what she had done if she had been free to decide. -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, Joan's case was not that exceptional - I can give you a long list of other women during the same period who had some military role (usually aristocratic ladies filling in for absent husbands or sons), some of whom wore armor and other "male" outfits. More importantly, it was fairly standard for women to wear exactly the type of male clothing Joan was wearing whenever necessity required it - in today's society people might wonder what the motive was, but in the 15th century it was accepted that necessity might prompt a woman to do this.
But the bottom line is simply this: since Joan only wore such clothing during those times when it was necessary, just as she said, there is absolutely nothing to indicate any other motive nor to doubt Joan's statements on this - you cannot simply raise doubts because you personally don't want to believe Joan's statements. If you really want to cast doubt on such statements, you would need to cite hard facts that might call them into doubt. To put it another way: since she never wore such clothing until the troops in her escort provided them for her to wear, if she had followed her own stated preference to "stay home and spin wool beside my poor mother" she would never have been placed into a position of wearing such clothing in the first place. AWilliamson 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As far as the issue currently debated (again) is concerned, Joan's reasons for cross-dressing, I already stated several times that making any definite statements is impossible. All of the behaviour Mr. Williamson describes, including claims that cross-gender clothing is only worn for non-gender related reasons and blunt statements that verbally acknowledge the originally assigned sex, can often be seen in the histories of people whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex, namely during the time when the person in question refuses to acknowledge their "problematic" gender identity, but has to find ways to express it somehow nevertheless. That is even true for individuals who happen to be aware of the existance of other individuals which are gender variant, and who do not have to fear for their life if they acknowledge it. And since Joan had not access to these informations, and would very much have to fear many unpleasant things, including death, had she explicitly expressed gender variance, her denial proves even less that she was not gender variant than the statements of people living today. The same point about information about gender variance applies to any other persons making statements about her as well; because, again, even today with that knowledge available, more than enough people think only in patterns that exclude that knowlege (see above). Not to mention that many of those people who spoke in her favour would have the additional reason of - well, wanting to speak in her favour - to use terms and concepts that placed her behaviour well into the basically accepted explanation of "cross-dressing out of necessity". [AR]

§ I agree.

Having said that, I want to point out once more (must be approaching a dozen times by now), that what I said is not intended to claim that Joan was in fact gender variant. I merely contend that a definte statements cannot be made. Which is why any such statements or debates do not belong into this article. [AR]

§ I agree.

And to come back to a point from the debate between Patrick and me, namely, the potential difference between what others percieve as cross-dressing, and what the person in question percieves their behaviour to be: If we would make any statements about reasons for cross-dressing, those would necessarily be statements about those persons view about their own behavior. However, if we assume that any of the historical persons listed was gender variant, we do still not know to what extend they were gender-variant. It would therefore be questionable to put them under cross-dressing -- after all, they might have been (theoretically speaking), not just something like cross-dressers in the modern sense, but could have been transsexual, or any other kind of transgender, or even intersex. In none of these cases (could such a statement reasonably been made) would that person belong under cross-dresser. So the only reason to list people here (at least historical ones) can be that others percieved them to be cross-dressing. And that is obviously the case for those listed, and it should be equally obvious that such plain listings do not require any references to long and ultimately pointless debates about these person's reason for their behaviour. We have links to the articles about these people, so these debates belong there, and only there. Which was the only point I ever tried to make here. -- AlexR 06:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§ Actually, I was not debating anything with you. (I do have one word in the article that I think needs changing, but I doubt that it will be helpful to engage in a side issue at this time.) I have simply tried to be sure we had a common understanding of terms. I would have to go over everything from top to bottom to make sure there are no lurking problems, but I think any differences we may have are matters of rhetorical approach (how to communicate with the general reader without swamping him/her with so much detail that the whole thing is difficult to assimilate). I think the article was originally quite clear. It defined "cross-dressing" (in contrast to "cross-dresser")in an appropriate way, and said that Joan of Arc was known, among other things, for dressing in what was considered to be, or at least said by many people of her time to be, "male-only" clothing, i.e., she "cross-dressed." Given the original definition it should be clear that all that really means is that she wore a man's clothing in some social contexts. It might be necessary to say something to the effect that "situational cross-dressing" was not necessarily considered illicit behavior even in those days. That leaves matter of criminal guilt according to the laws of her time open in the mind of the readers. Both taking Joan of Arc out of the article and leaving her in but giving "proof" of her "real motivations" prejudges the issue for the reader. To do so violates the NPOV standard. The fact that upon occasion she dressed in the clothing considered appropriate for a man, and the fact that she got charged in court for the crime of illicitly wearing a man's clothing are relevant to this article. A NPOV analysis of the evidence presented against her, and the defenses offered on her behalf, should go in a separate article.
"Debate" was simply to imply a meaningful exchange of information; in that sense, we debated ;-)
As for the rest, I agree, and I would like to mention that should this particular debate ever end, I'd be grateful if you could go through the rest of the article and mention everything that could be improved. -- AlexR 09:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(To Patrick) - I believe I covered this in my reply to you above: to word the entry in a way that deliberately ignores 90% of the historical evidence is called "falsification of history".

AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And to ignore evidence that does not come from this particular field (history) because it does not fit with ones set of prejudices is most certainly the very same falsificatin of history. You cannot judge about matters you are clueless about, and that is what you are doing. Well, you can, of course, but you can't expect it to remain in the Wikipedia. -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The only evidence that you or others have presented has been merely a collection of misconceptions about Joan's circumstances and time period -- e.g., the notion that we don't have any quotes from Joan herself on the matter, which isn't the case; or the idea that it was always a violation of 15th century doctrine to wear such clothing, etc. The generalized assumptions you have been presenting do not count as "evidence". AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wrong, and don't you know it! That we do have indeed quotes by Joan herself was not exactly news to me, nor was it news that cross-dressing out of clear necessity was perfectly permittable in her time. So sorry, another bit of slander that just does not work. And the evidence we have in Joans case are a bit heavier than your "genderalised assumption", too. Something anybody who really is an expert about her clearly would acknowledge. -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly: you had initially said that the quotes were "not by Joan" (or words to that effect), and rejected them for that reason. One of your supporters presented the assumption that cross-dressing was allegedly always illegal in that era. Secondly and more importantly: what "heavier" evidence do you have to support your view? The only rationale you have ever offered is the notion that all the documentation we have (concerning motive and context) should be considered inadequate, an argument which in previous replies was generally based on various misconceptions about what the evidence is, what it describes, or the nature of the male clothing in question, etc. A set of misconceptions about the documentation does not count as "evidence". AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, this is getting really really boring - I have cited my evidence so often that it would have made sense to write it down only once and then just copy it into this page. Also, your accusations of it being based on misconceptions are false, and of course you are fully aware of that. When you claimed something about historical evidence, I never contradiced that. Not that I trust you, but I do not have sufficient knowledge on these matters to refute it. But hey, it's not as if I had nothing else to do, so once again: 1) Joan wore cross-gender clothing for an extended period of time, and she did so voluntarily. The reasons she gave for that have by no means convinced everybody, although I personally am quite satisfied that at that time she meant what she said. 2) However, numerous people who indeed dressed for reasons going beyond pure necessity (or percieved necessity; but that's another debate) did for some time (usually an extended time) claim reasons of real or percieved necessity, or similar reasons not related to any need to express a cross-gender identity. 3) I doubt (and you have not been able to convince me otherwise) that Joan would have been able to express any cross-gender feelings or needs at that time, for two reasons: a) At that time, cross-gender behaviour was indeed known, but there was hardly any vocabulary to express cross-gender needs or feelings; and b) even if Joan had had such vocabulary available, she was hardly ever in a situation where it would not either have endangered her mission (because anybody doing that would certainly not be allowed to lead armies) or, during the court proceedings, endanger her very life. Therefore, the fact that we indeed do not have clear evidence for cross-gender needs or feelings counts, in cases like this, extremely little. I would, however, for that very reason, just as strongly object to any definite statements that she was a transgendered person (whichever way that is phrased). -- AlexR 06:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let's consider your evidence described in the above statements. Concerning points 1 & 2: since her period of cross-dressing corresponded with precisely the period during which we know that her circumstances fit her stated motives - just as we know that she wore armor at precisely those times when she was in need of armor for protection - her stated motives match the context and there is no evidentiary basis for doubting the matter. Concerning point 3: to state that we should doubt her stated motives because she lacked the vocabulary to express transgendered feelings would be analogous to arguing that since she lacked the vocabulary to describe a lesbian identity, therefore we should assume that she "may" have been a secret lesbian regardless of what the evidence says on that point (some authors do make that claim, too, you know). Moreover, and more to the point: all of your statements above are again based on generalized observations rather than hard facts concerning Joan's individual case, meaning that you again have not presented any documentation whatsoever. AWilliamson 05:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, you are wrong, since she did show cross-gender behaviour, but I cannot recall that she ever showed any lesbian behaviour. Those claims, as far as I am aware of them, are ususally pretty much based on "well, she wore men't clothes, so she must have been a lesbian", which is nothing but confusing gender and sexual orientation. A common error, but an error nevertheless. But while we agree on that one, your claims do not proove much, since she never had a change to voluntarily change her clothes back to female ones in a fairly free situation. Only that would have given us a clearer indication (although still not a guaranteed one, but a fairly clear.) Therefore the matter remains necessariy unresolved. -- AlexR 09:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all: the people who claim she was a lesbian use much the same specious arguments as are used to claim she was transgendered: they cite what they believe is "evidence" of lesbian activity (drawn from a few events in Joan's life which they misinterpret), and they will not listen to any historian who tries to explain the context. This leads us to the next point:
Secondly: your "evidence" - i.e., that she didn't voluntarily give up her male clothing - is similarly specious because the only reason she didn't voluntarily give up such clothing is because, as many eyewitnesses confirmed, a dress wouldn't have offered any protection against rape while she was in prison - unlike the male clothing, a dress does not have pants which could be laced securely to the tunic.
If a woman only clings to male clothing out of necessity, then there is no reasonable justification for claiming that her motives are in doubt. AWilliamson 03:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but that is exactly the point under debate - how far did that "necessity" indeed go? Necessity is of course one possible explanation, but it is not the only possible one. Oh, and since a freid remined me today: How about those indications that Joan might have been intersex? -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly: as you know, the evidence we have confirms that she was facing attempted abuse at the hands of her guards and therefore did in fact need protection, thereby confirming her statements about a necessity-based motive.
But since she did not start wearing them in prison, but in a different situation, that argument holds as much water as you previous ones - none at all. -- AlexR 14:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As you know, she gave similar practical reasons for having worn such clothing earlier, when with the army: i.e., when camped with soldiers, she either stitched her pants and tunic together or wore full armor when sleeping, as a safeguard of her chastity. There were also other practical reasons given. Moreover, she first wore such clothing when the soldiers in her escort provided it for her, and in fact they suggested that she wear it. Again, all of these are practical reasons based on necessity. AWilliamson 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm moving the intersex debate under its own heading, and especially to the left. Nothing else has changed. -- AlexR 03:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

§ Evidently as soon as one person uses regular HTML code to indicate the ends of paragraphs that will mess up the usual Wiki paragraph breaks. Alex's stuff was run together with mine in one long block, so I have split it back into paragraphs. I'm feeling too lazy right now to go back and look for all the early instances of HTML code and reformat. More later.

§ I think I've gotten this fixed now. Apparently the use of HTML code anywhere in a section makes HTML code the only thing that works for that section, but it doesn't mess up other sections. In future let's all avoid it. Leaving a blank line between paragraphs will automatically create paragraphs when the page is read in the regular mode.

§ So far I haven't gotten my ego singed (sinjed?) enough to feel any need to retaliate. Actually that is my "secret weapon" in getting my point of view across. I would like to suggest to others, for the benefit of my own peace of mind, that all of us put our egos in our back pockets and just sit on them for a while. I am not directing this remark at one individual or another. In fact I have had to remind myself of this advice from time to time. P0M 01:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was not my intention to discourage the debate about Joan's motives per se. I merely wanted to point out that there is, in my opinion, and for reasons already stated, a far better place to have it, and that's Joan of Arc. [AR]
§ I know. And I agree that the question of her motives does not belong here.
Besides that, I just tried to clean out the Paragraph/Break thing, usually the break can be used without any problems, and the page looks just fine in preview with Opera. And I'd like to ask Mr. Williamson to stop using HTML paragraphs, because according to Patrick, they messed up the page. (Maybe just in some browsers, but since they are useless in the WP anyway, just leave them out.) [AR]
I also sorted the discussion once more, those points not relating to the Joan debate should not stand between the flood of debate about it. Boy will I be glad when I can throw this debate into an archive ... 136kb and growing ... not good. I'd put it onto its own page right now, but I have a feeling that that might be a bit pointless at best. Or are there other people who'd agree to that? -- AlexR 02:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
§ It's getting to be quite a mess, with the time sequence of remarks impossible to determine without going to the "history" stuff. I have decided to put some of the peripheral issues into the archive. That shouldn't bother anybody since nobody has added to them recently, if I remember correctly. If somebody wants the stuff back here, I'll be glad to move it back. But, frankly, I couldn't find what I had just added at one point earlier this evening. It's time to simplify. P0M 08:16, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have moved that stuff back. Not only was the archive not reachable, it was neither at Archive 1 (well, obviously), nor at /Archive 1. Far more important however was the fact that, unlike this debate, the matters discussed there were actually relevant for more than two sentences of the article. And most of it was not that old, either. So if anything belongs into an archive, it's this Joan debate, but not the rest. -- AlexR 09:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To address AlexR's points, as briefly as possible (and please read through the whole thing first if you want to reply at all): 1) Just as the entries for the other historical people cited in this article include a brief summary of the known facts, the same needs to be done for Joan if she's to be included, which ties in with the next point.

The problem is that you did not just present facts, and that you very much fought to prevent other facts to be presented. Besides, all the other entries just give a bit of historical context, and do not try to attribute motive as you try. -- AlexR 09:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I presented those facts which have been accepted by other specialists on the subject. If you imagine that there are other facts somewhere in the historical record which support your view of the matter, then that's not the case. AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2) Since the motives described in the evidence fit the known circumstances rather than containing contradictions which might indicate an ulterior motive, what we are dealing with here is something analogous to the numerous women who wore uniforms or bullet-proof vests only during their time of military service -- i.e., while you can always claim that any of these other women "might" have been secretly transgendered, too, that type of vague supposition ultimately doesn't mean anything. This is a basic point of historical scholarship: corroborated evidence can only be questioned by presenting other specific evidence of an equal or greater merit, not merely by citing the type of generalized principles that have been mentioned here - yes, people certainly do sometimes cross-dress for gender-identity reasons, but you can't apply this general principle to cases for which the specific evidence does not indicate such a motive.

That no such motive can be indicated is your interpretation of events, but it is hardly unbiased. Now of course Joan of Arc is not exactly the only person about whom such debates arise; what you call "historical scholaship" is very well known to go rabid when both potential homosexuality and transgender is concerned (which are, BTW, two seperate issues). In those cases, people who freely confess to confuse their assorted prejudices with knowledge about homosexuality and transgender with facts, of which they sometimes even state that they are proud to know nothing, feel qualified to make definite statements that their pet historical person was nothing of the sort. Such debates are not exactly helped, though, by people who, wishing to claim some history for themself, go around collecting historical persons for that history, some of whom indeed don't care too much about facts, either. (Not to mention the habit of those wishing to claim as many people as possible as homosexual arresting many far more likely transgendered people as homosexuals into the bargain.)
To mention that many of these "our history" books are not exactly the most historically accurate books in the world, therefore, is quite correct. However, to claim that somebody can not have been transgendered (or homosexual, in other cases) because there are no statements to support it is not applicable in this case, because the statement that would support it is the cross-dressing itself. And unlike modern unisex uniforms what Joan was wearing was undeniably male garb. You might note, though, that I did not try to attribute a gender-related motive, but merely pointed out that such a motive is possible. I might also mention that not pointing that out would come close to dishonesty, because the amount of literature that does attribute such a motive is rather high, and by no means is most of it written by "our history" authors. Rather, Joan is usually cited as a historical example in about each and every book that touches cross-dressing or any gender-variant behaviour in female-bodied persons. [AR]
These books on cross-dressing are exactly the type of book that I was referring to - none of them were written by historians, much less specialists on Joan of Arc, and they are full of errors even on basic points. It would be analogous to getting medical information from magazine articles written by people who have no experience or training as doctors.
Concerning motives: as I said, I have presented what the evidence (as opposed to speculation) says about that. You know better than to claim that citing the evidence is "biased" but rejecting it is not - it's the other way around, needless to say. AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nice try, but the only person who is rejecting evidence is you - neither Patrick nor I rejected your citations as false, we merely come to a different possibe interpretation. -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But your interpretation is based on the idea that the documentation should be rejected in favor of speculation. AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Bullshit. Nobody wishes to reject the documentation, we merely state that there is another interpretation entirely possible than the one you give. You are the one who is rejecting facts, and nobody else. -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, there is no need for profanity. Secondly: if you'll allow me to avoid repetition here without you claiming that I'm "dodging" the issue, I will merely point out that I already covered the issue of evidence in the preceding replies today, farther up. AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's an analogy: you could say that some people secretly go into the child-care business because they have a sexual attraction to children, but it does not logically follow that we should therefore claim that it's impossible to ever prove otherwise for any given _individual_ child-care provider: if there is no evidence to connect that person to pedophilia, and if all the evidence in fact indicates the opposite, then we assume that they are not a pedophile.

Yes, comparing gender-variant behaviour to child molesting is exactly what I would have expected from you. Don't you get sick yourself when you write something like this? Probably not.
Not to mention that the "no evidence" argument is patently false, as I pointed out before. [AR]
It was a random analogy which was not intended to give offense; but I suppose I should have known you would decide to take offense anyway.
And there were not other analogies that you could have used? Oh well, if that is non-offensive, how about that one: "Some "historians" and "experts" try to interpret the matter at hand in a way that is akin to child molestors scratching together every shred that happens to support their position that sex with children is actually harmless, while flatout refusing to see anything that points to another conclusion." I hope you don't take offense now, after all, it was your analogy. -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suppose I could have spent the time to find a different analogy which would fit the debate (i.e. a different preference which is both hard to prove and also illegal in the current society), but I couldn't think of one offhand. Concerning your (deliberately incendiary) analogy: given that all the mutually-corroborating historical evidence fits my conclusion (not just a few "shreds" of it), your charge is both false and intentionally inflammatory. AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah! So when you use that as an example, that is merely "random" and "not intended to give offense", but when I do the same thing, that is "deliberately incendiary" and "both false and intentionally inflammatory". Funny, but just what I expected. I may add that evidence that intentionally ignores other evidence usually fits the conclusions of a person citing that evidence, but that does not make the argument particularly convincing. And repeating it again and again does not work, either. -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On the first issue: the difference, as you know, is that you designed your analogy as retaliation for a perceived offensive remark, whereas I did not intend to offend. Concerning the second issue: again, it should suffice to refer you to my previous comments today concerning the evidence - citing generalized principles does not count as specific documentation. AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of what analogy is used, the point is that you cannot analyze an individual based merely on generalized assumptions about what their circumstances "might" indicate - if the specific evidence concerning that individual does not prove your assumption but in fact indicates the opposite, then your assumption is simply wrong. AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but since they do not, it is your definite statement that is wrong. Just what exactly is so difficult to accept in a theory that points out that the facts may indicate yet another interpretation of events? I mean, even if Joan had any gender issues, it would not take away anything at all from her accomplishments. -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In order to possibly clarify the issues here, let me ask you this: why don't you also insist on adding a similar caveat to the entry for Dorothy Lawrence - which, like the Joan of Arc entry, similarly explains the historical context in Lawrence's case? If your argument were applied consistently, you could just as easily argue that Dorothy Lawrence - or literally any other woman in such a situation - "might" have had secret gender issues, too, based on your notion that we can never prove the matter from the historical context.
Because Dorothy Lawrence did what she did for a very short time, and gave it up voluntarily very quickly. Not to mention that nobody has insited very phony looking excuses for her behaviour into this article, where it does not belong, in the first place, something you tried repeatedly, and something that is still in the section about Joan. But the latter is a minor issue. -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, Dorothy Lawrence was forced to quit the army (and her male outfit) after her identity was discovered: she didn't give it up voluntarily, and her service was of short duration only because she was caught quickly. Secondly: both entries cite the context, and in both cases the person wore male clothing only during the period in which there was a necessary reason for doing so, not before. Thirdly: if you really want to claim that the evidence concerning Joan's motives is "phony", then you need to present citations from the documents, of an equal or greater validity, proving that they are false - all the previous attempts to declare them "phony" were based on misconceptions about what the evidence actually describes. AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me, I do not have to do anything if the sort. If a claim is phony (and I believe that you quote either out of context or another person) than one does not always need evidence from the same person or the same time period to say so. If somebody would claim that the Romans flew to the moon, I don't think anybody would need any Roman documents refuting that. The matter here is more complicated than that example, however, I think it illustrates my point.
Your analogy of Romans "flying to the moon" is hardly applicable here, since Joan did not make any far-fetched claims - on the contrary, not only are her statements perfectly consistent with reason (she wore and laced up the clothing in question during those times when we know it was needed), but in fact it was fairly standard in that era for women to use such clothing as either a protection against rape, or as a disguise when in danger. There is nothing far-fetched or "phony" about such a motive. AWilliamson 05:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, you are misquoting, either somebody else or out of context. Answer to what I say, not what you can easily refute, but what I didn't say.-- AlexR 09:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you're saying that you weren't the one who used the term "phony" in relation to Joan's statements, then I would invite you to look at the comment you posted on 09:07, 11 Nov, in which you said that Joan's entry contained, quote, "very phony looking excuses for her behaviour". Since the only "excuses" I inserted were a summary of Joan's own statements, these are the "phony excuses" you were referring to. The comment was signed "AlexR", so I assume you were the one who made the comment. AWilliamson 03:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What was inserted was not a direct quote, but a summary that mentioned only one single point, and that point indeed is not all that convincing. (Objectively, subjectively of course Joan might have believed that, but if you care to remember, somebody else made far stronger objections to that sentence than I did..) The summay was phony indeed, but not Joan's statement. So you were indeed quoting out of context, but that's not exactly something new from you, now, is it. -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alex, you know better than this. Firstly: the entry summarizes Joan statements concerning the reason she clung to this clothing in prison (since the entry specifically dealt with her conviction on that issue) - it's not a direct quote, but it says the same thing and is therefore a faithful summary of Joan's own statements on the subject. Secondly: the anonymous person you mentioned who had argued against Joan's statements was under the erroneous impression that Joan was claiming to have worn the clothing as a "disguise" rather than as protection, when in fact it was for the latter reason. Nor is there any legitimate excuse for rejecting her stated usage of this clothing for protection, since this specific type of clothing did in fact provide a good deal of protection, as has been dealt with many times before. AWilliamson 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As for Dorothy Lawrence, the WP article says otherwise: "She was concerned that if she was killed her true gender would be discovered and the men who had befriended her would be in danger. After 10 days of service she presented herself to the commanding sergeant, who promptly placed her under military arrest." In other words, she did give it up voluntarily. If the article is wrong on this point, correct it. If that is really the case, then the entry in this article also has to be rephrased. -- AlexR 06:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The most detailed information on Dorothy Lawrence that I could find states that she fell ill from the harsh conditions at the front, and felt she had no option but to turn herself in; but either way, we are dealing with someone who only gave up her stint as a soldier because she either had, or felt she had, no other choice: otherwise, her cross-dressing would have gone on much longer. Therefore, if you applied your argument concerning Joan to Dorothy Lawrence's case, you would have to argue that Lawrence's initial decision to cross-dress "may" have been motivated by transgendered feelings, too. In fact the standard stereotype about all such women is that they are secretly "male" in spirit, or a lesbian, etc, and this is ultimately the stereotype which originally led some earlier authors to reach such conclusions about Joan, followed by later authors who simply copied from the previous ones. More to the point: your caveat would make just as much sense in the Dorothy Lawrence entry as the Joan of Arc entry. AWilliamson 05:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No it would not, since Dorothy not only gave it up voluntarily, as far as we know she never took it up again, either. So why assume cross-gender needs or feelings? Also, I have never argued along the line of what you call "the stereotype that all such women ..." I merely pointed out that there is in Joans case a possibiliy, nothing more. That's a lot less than the indeed often heard assumption that "she must have been". And, once again, a debate that does not even belong here. -- AlexR 09:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dorothy Lawrence only gave it up out of fear that her illness or possible death would lead to a discovery of her identity and subsequent punishment of the men who had helped her. A decision based upon fear is not truly "voluntary", and therefore the distinction you make between Dorothy's and Joan's case is not valid. AWilliamson 03:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, there are several stories of females fighting disguised as men in all-male armies, and of those who initially passed, most did completely and utterly ignored such dangers; and the more reckless they were, the more likely it was that statements were made by them that clearly indicated cross-gender motives, and who also acted accordingly in other situations. On the other hand, those who gave up rather quickly made neither such statements not showed any other cross-gender behaviour. So from what the article about her says one can clearly place her into the second group, those who had very likely no cross-gender feelings or needs. -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The length of time involved would not matter in either of these cases, since, as you know, Dorothy Lawrence only gave it up quickly because she felt she had no other choice but to give it up, whereas Joan retained it because, under her circumstances, she felt she had no other choice but to retain it - in both cases, we're dealing with decisions based on circumstance, meaning that the length of time involved was dictated by events and would not reflect the person's preferences. AWilliamson 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
More importantly: once again, in all such cases we need to go by the evidence that we do have - meaning that if there is nothing to clearly suggest that "gender issues" were involved, then you cannot imply otherwise. AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wrong. If we have not pretty clear indication that they are not involved (like giving cross-gender behavior up after a fairly short time, voluntarily and for good, it is not inappropriate to state that cross-gender needs or feelings might be involved. Might, not had. -- AlexR 09:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Using that standard, you would have to state that transgender feelings "might" be involved in any other case in which a woman wore a "male" uniform for an extended period of time - as many of them have. In Joan's case, we have unusually clear statements outlining her actual motives, meaning that she is one of the least ambiguous of the group. AWilliamson 03:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is your interpretation. Other people came to different conclusions. I would not exactly call her the most ambiguous, either, but not unambiguous, either. -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By "other people", you mean your list of pop authors again. You could say that the writers of "Star Trek" have different interpretations of quantum physics than physicists do, but it would be pretty silly to use the former to refute the latter. AWilliamson 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the matter is not as clear as you would like it to be, that is the problem here. And, once again, the caveat states simply a "might", not a "was". -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Once again, where is your documentation to contradict the numerous accounts which clarify the issue beyond any reasonable doubt? AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The documentation, as I stated numerous times, cannot remove any reasonable doubt. -- AlexR 09:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That argument would only hold true if you are claiming that Joan's own statements are lies and therefore cannot be trusted. There is no justification for such a claim, since her statements are in fact confirmed by the rest of the evidence we have. AWilliamson 03:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nice smoke screen, to throw in "lies" here. However, a lie is a conscious effort to disguise something one holds to be true, and nobody implied that Joan did that. If she had any cross-gender feelings or needs, it is perfectly possible that she was not aware of them, given the circumstances. In that case, her statements would have been in perfect accord to what she believed at that time to be the truth, and therefore not lies. However, as I mentioned before, most people who eventually changed their gender role or tried to do so did at some point of their lifes make such statements and were perfectly convinced at that time that they were telling the truth. Only in hindsight it turned out that they prefered an explanation that was not cross-gender related (like "necessity") to acknowledging their feelings even to themselves. In Joan's case, however, we do not have such a hindsight, because she died at that point in her life. Which is the reason we cannot decide the matter with any degree of certainty. Had she lived and after the war gone to live a perfectly normal female life, the question would hardly be asked at all. Has she not done so, it probably would not be asked, either, but then she probably would not have gotten quite so much attention posthumously, either. -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Originally, you said you wouldn't accept the quotes I cited because you thought they were "not by Joan"; now you reject them based on the notion that Joan herself might not have known her own feelings? That isn't fooling anyone, and neither is the claim that since we can't know what Joan would have done if she had lived longer, therefore we should reject everything that we do know about her. The bottom line is that you don't have any actual proof to justify your rejection of Joan's recorded words. AWilliamson 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is very common for transpeople not to know (or rather, to admitt to themselves) their cross-gender needs or feelings, so that has nothing to do with "trying to fool" anybody. That is BTW something you could know yourself if you would not refuse to learn anything that might lead to you having to change your mind. Neither did I say that we have to reject everything we know about her, but hey, misrepresenting my statements is your favourite hobby anyway, isn't it?
Besidens, I rejected these statements exactly once, because I had not, I admitt, read them thoroughly. I admitted my mistake immediately. Another thing you constantly misrepresent. -- AlexR 14:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So let me see if I understand your argument: since some transgendered people do not realize their own transgendered feelings, we should therefore assume that anyone "may" be transgendered even if there's nothing specific to link them to it? AWilliamson 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Obviously not, and needless to say, I never said anything of that kind. What I said is that there is a possibility that somebody who shows cross-gender behaviour for an extended period of time is indeed transgendered, even if that person is not aware of the fact at that time. And I have repeated that for the last time now. -- AlexR 03:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you have certainly repeated that claim; but you have never responded to the crucial point here: since Joan's "extended period" of wearing such clothing was the period when her circumstances required it, just as she said, there is no evidence of a personal preference being involved. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3) The "publications" you referred to are pop books which garble the basic facts beyond recognition. This is not just my "opinion", but a matter of established record. Since this article covers the subject of Joan of Arc only very briefly, there is no need (and no room) to mention every fraudulent modern 'theory' (of which there are a great many) - in a brief summary of the facts, it is reasonable to include only those which are accepted by experts. This is all I've asked for.

Established record among a certain sub-set of historians, maybe, but to disregard any opinion other than your own as "pop book" and "fraudulent" is hardly anything resembling an argument. Once again, how "scientific" or becoming to an "expert" is it to judge about things one has, by one's own admission, not a clue about? Not very, in my opinion. [AR]
The "subset" of historians in question were those who knew the most about Joan of Arc. Dismissing their verdict would be a bit like arguing that an article on quantum mechanics should not be based on the mere "opinions" of experts on quantum mechanics. AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since this subset of historians know nothing about gender matters, obviously the analogy is false - what we have here is akin to a bunch of quantum mechanics trying to make definite statements about a matter they know nothing about, like say baking a cake, and then complaining that the cake is not quite as it ought to be, something that to their mind is impossible, since they are "experts". Sorry, you may be an expert on Joan, but you are judging about gender matters, and your statement on those carry no more weight than that of a quantum mechanic who tries to give advise to the cook. Stick with what you know (know as opposed to "prefer to believe") and don't make statements about matter you acknowledgeldy and proudly know nothing about and refuse to learn about, too. -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it would be analogous to an article which cites assumptions from a bunch of cooks in order to make claims about Quantum Mechanics which are rejected by experts on Quantum Mechanics - i.e., since this issue deals with Joan of Arc, the issue has to be decided by specific evidence about Joan of Arc, which only specialists on Joan of Arc have studied in any depth. To put it another way: since I have never contested other parts of the Cross-Dressing article outside those which relate to historical issues, I would ask that you should similarly keep within your own area of knowledge as well. AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just because the issue is about Joan of Arc, that does not mean that Joan's words are the only thing that can be taken into account. History would still claim a lot of strange things if only words written at the time were taken into account when talking about a historical event. When you make statements about possible gender-variant behaviour, knowledge about gender-variant behaviour ought to be present. Since you reject not only knowlege about those, but even complain about putting your pet saint's name into an article where such behaviour might be implied, it is you who is clearly moving far outside of the area where you have knowledge. So it is you who is the cook who's making claims about quantum mechanics (or vice versa), and no matter how many cooks agree with you, it just does not matter. (It does give that those particular group of cooks a bad name, though.) I might also add that you complained very much when I reverted edits that had nothing to do with Joan, just because they were made by people who also changed your pet sentences. -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The standard procedure when analyzing comments by historical personages is to compare them to the evidence in other documents which would clarify the matter - e.g., if you want to analyze the account of a soldier who claimed to have merely been separated from his unit rather than deserting, you need to look at other eyewitness accounts which might clarify the matter (e.g., a witness who saw the man making an effort to get back to his unit). In Joan's case the preponderance of the evidence confirms Joan's words. If you want to claim that she was lying, then you need to cite concrete proof of that - merely stating that such "might" be the case is not evidence, and is not sufficient to imply that she was lying. AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have never claimed that she lied, merely that if she had any cross-gender feelings or needs, she at least did not express them, and maybe was not even aware of them at that time. After all, she was quite busy with other things, and experience shows that such times are not exactly the best for introspection. As for evidence, well, I may have mentioned it before - there is only one of us who constantly ignores evidence, and it is not me. -- AlexR 06:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Literally everyone "might" have secret or deeply-buried transgender feelings, which is why you need to look at the person's specific case. In Joan's case, we know that she was very reluctant - according to her own statements at the beginning of her "mission" - to take on the normally "male" role of leading an army (i.e., rather than being enthusiastic about such a role); and we know that both as a child and as a young woman, she actually enjoyed traditional female roles - she told one of her soldiers, Jean de Metz, that she would have preferred to "stay home and spin wool beside my poor mother" rather than leading an army; one of the people who knew her at Vaucouleurs (at the beginning of her "mission") said that "she loved to spin wool, and spun well"; at her trial, she told her judges that she could rival any woman "when it comes to spinning and sewing", etc. She said she reluctantly embarked on her "mission" (after resisting the idea for several years) only because God had commanded it - nowhere do we find any desire on her part to behave like a man, and in fact she used the nickname "La Pucelle" ("the maiden", or "virginal girl") rather than pretending to be a man. In short, if you're going to argue that Joan "might" have been transgendered despite all the clear evidence that she would have preferred to maintain a purely feminine role if she'd been allowed, you'd need to make the same claim for literally everyone else. AWilliamson 05:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh really, we have been exactly there several times already, and I see no point to repeat myself again. You cannot win a debate by repeating questionable statements again and again, and what's questionable are not the quotes themselfes, but your interpretation of them. (Just to clarify that - again.) -- AlexR 09:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Given that my "interpretation" has involved merely quoting Joan herself on this point and accepting her words as truthful, "my interpretation" would only be wrong if Joan herself was lying. AWilliamson 03:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Or if Joan herself was not aware of any cross-gender needs or feelings at that time, which is, given her situation, not entirely unlikely, either. But I said that already several times; and it isn't as if you were listening. -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The same point I made in the previous message above (i.e., concerning the gradual migration of your argument to the claim that Joan herself allegedly wouldn't know her own mind) would apply again here.
As I already said, there was not "gradual migration" of my argument, but an immediate correction after I realised that I had not thoroughly read what you had quoted, particularly, the sources. Repeating your misrepresentations is not going to make them any more true. -- AlexR 14:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was referring mainly to the fact that you have now come up with the idea that Joan herself would not have known her own feelings, therefore quotes from her are "not relevant" - an argument which was introduced fairly late in the debate, and after you had initially indicated that quotes from Joan would be acceptable. AWilliamson 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moved to the left for reasons of readability, reply to statement from Mr. Williamson from 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is yet another misrepresentation of what I said. And since I am getting tired of pointing that out each and every time it happens (about twice a day, I'd guess) I'll reply to this one a bit more in depth, since one really cannot expect anybody trying to make sense of this debate to dig through this monster of a non-debate. One example should be sufficient to shed some light onto all the other times where I simply said that the readers should read what was said and judge for themselves.
Mr. Williamson claims that I initially indicated that quotes from Joan were acceptable, but changed that later to say "they are not relevant" since she might not "have known her own feelings". (A somewhat simplified summary, to put it mildly.) That is incorrect. Mr Wiliamson also mixes up two issues here.
1. Starting with my first reply to Mr. Williamson, I stated that quotes by Joan had to be judged carefully, due to a) the circumstances they were made in and b) due to the fact that if her behaviour was partly motivated or aided by cross-gender needs or feelings, and if one compares her statements with those of other people who undeniably were transgender, such statements have been made by many of those transgender people, who were at certain times of their life not aware of their cross-gender feelings or needs, or could not name them, or did not have a concept to fit them into (something that most certainly would have applied to Joan). Which is why, when examining whether cross-gender feelings or needs might have been present, once simply cannot take them at face value and claim they are proof that she was not. So I wonder where and when I am supposed to have changed my mind here?
2. I have also never said that quotes by Joan were "not acceptable". The "not acceptable" argument is based on a statement I made on October 9th. Mr. Williamson provided a link to a page which unfortunaltely I cannot find again. That page was most likely this one: [2], the only external link on this page now is [3]. If that was indeed the one, I rejected these statements because they had nothing to do with the matter at hand, and more importantly, they were not by Joan in the first place. If the link was to another page, I can only ask Mr. Williamson to provide it again, but nevertheless, statements by other people (even people quoting Joan) can be relied even less on, since at that time, people who had any concept of anything like transgender would not exaclty have been very common.
So much for this instance of misrepresentation of what I said. Such misrepresentations are happenig far to often to be accidental, but really, I don't see a point of explaining them each and every time Mr. Williamson makes them. One can only hope that he treats sources somewhat better when doing historical work. It will also not be necessary to reply to the issues mentioned, since they have already discussed to death repeatedly. This is just an example. I will not answer to any such attempts to revive the points mentioned for the umteenth time. -- AlexR 03:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alex, you truly know better than to say things like the above. Many points could be made here (again), but I think one crucial point is the fact that, given that the quotes we have from Joan are from many sources (not just the appellate testimony mentioned above), and all of these quote her as giving essentially the same reasons for what she was doing, there is no legitimate rationale for rejecting them - all of these quotes simply cite what she said rather than being a case of someone else trying to "interpret" her motives, and they corroborate each other. This shouldn't need to be pointed out. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since this discussion obviously isn't going anywhere, can we please focus on resolving things through the mediator instead, and allow the bickering in here to once again subside? AWilliamson 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed I have not replied to many of your latest "statements", since I have done so half a dozen times already, and I see no point in repeating myself again and again. I won't do so later, either, only to those points where actually there might be something of an outcome, or where you are misrepresenting my words and actions once again. As for the bickering, actually, I am not bickering, so if you feel there is bickering going on, well, just stop it. And I do hope the mediation will proceed, although looking at your behaviour, I am really decidedly not optimistic about its outcome. But anyway, it's worth a try. After all, miracles happen every day. -- AlexR 14:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you're truly willing to let mediation have a chance, will you finally allow this discussion to subside once again, as it had before? AWilliamson 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Funny you should say that - it was you who jumepd into the debate, under the extremely pretense that I had "goaded" you to do that (need I say that I did no such thing?). I have, however, already stopped replying to most of Mr. Williamsons rants, and the matter of intersex or not has nothing to do with the point that is being mediated, and neither does my attempt of dissecting one of Mr. Williamsons constant misrepresentations of what I said. I consider most of the debate that has been going on a debate on Joan of Arc anyway, not on this article, since it has absolutely nothing to do with it. (Although I won't try to NPOV that article until this mediation is finished.) So what exactly are you complaining about? -- AlexR 03:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is starting to take on the character of "troll" behavior. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say again, however, that since this is supposed to be in mediation, let's please drop the argument in here and let Ambi do her job - I've asked this many times before, but you keep wanting to argue in here. If you haven't rejected mediation, then please demonstrate that by allowing this to proceed only with the mediator from now on. AWilliamson 04:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you do indeed not wish to debate the matter any further, then why do you do it? -- AlexR 09:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You may remember that, during the dispute regarding my comments about the discussion between you and Patrick, I tried to refrain from arguing or repeating my original statements, but you kept goading me with the accusation that I was "dodging" the issue. Since you would presumably do the same if I refused to respond to the current argument - or you might alternately decide to "resolve" the issue without me if I refrained from further replies - I would seem to have little choice but to respond to any arguments you choose to add in here.
Since you want to argue the matter without the mediator, am I to assume that you have rejected mediation? If not, then please let us go back to allowing mediation to work - the bickering in here had been allowed to end for awhile, remember? AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I guess that Patrick simply tried to help with this issue, and the only one who is bickering is yourself. If you are not going to accept any arguments anyway, just how is mediation to work in the first place? Not to mention that mediation is not exactly coming forward, is it? Besides, mediation is supposed to stop editing the article itself, it is not necessarily supposed to halt all debates. I have not and don't intend to, though, reject mediation, and your assumption that I would have used any silence on your side as an argument to edit the article is nothing but the usual slander, since I would have done nothing of the sort. Besides, all your answers were mere repetitions of what you said before: "I have my quotations, and I flatout refuse to take them at anything other than face value, and everybody who does not agree with me on that is clueless, anyhow." So who's bickering here and obviously unwilling to see any reason anyhow? That does not make me too optimistic about mediation, but I do not refuse it. So if you are looking for a cheap excuse to edit the article again, look elsewhere, it's not going to come from me. -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all: as you know perfectly well, I have merely been responding to the renewed comments in here - which I did not initiate, and which frankly have covered very little new ground.
Secondly: since you have repeatedly criticized my previous refusals to make in-depth replies on issues already covered, I have little choice but to respond point-by-point. If you don't want repetitive replies, then please don't make them yourself and/or please don't criticize me whenever I refuse to explain my position yet again. AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have only criticised exactly once refusal to make a reply, and that was about a meta-matter. Stick to the facts, why don't you, since you insist that other people do the same. Rather, that is they should stick to the facts which you graciously accept as facts, which is not a very general attitude with you, at least in this debate. -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You have also repeatedly accused me of failing to address your points whenever I have tried to avoid repetition by referring you to other comments farther below, etc; or for refusing to answer questions that do not relate to the matter at hand. AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed your by now infamous "See above/below" does not always come with any answers to the question, either above or below. I have repeatedly asked for an answer however only once, on the matter mentioned. Besides, do you really want to tell me that you are affraid of repetition? To me you sound like a broken record. -- AlexR 06:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, here we go again with the charge that I allegedly didn't answer your questions whenever I referred you to another reply rather than repeating myself - that was exactly the claim I was referring to when I said that you frequently made such accusations. Hence my decision to repeat myself in some cases rather than be told again that I have allegedly dodged the issue. AWilliamson 05:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Finally, to both Alex and Patrick concerning your frequent rearranging of the text on this page:

The recent reshuffling, archiving, and de-archiving of the debate has made it almost impossible to tell, even from the page history, what has been added recently. I would ask that you please stop rearranging the debate while it's still underway. If you would consent to finally end the discussion in here, then we can archive it. AWilliamson 04:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, we can end this debate any time that you start to see reason and stop pushing you POV, but since you obvioulsy won't, how can the debate end?
Besides, the only things that were removed and reinserted were the debates about matters that do not concern the Joan-debate, so that should not be a problem. Nothing had been added to those debates; except maybe the one between Patrick and me. That however remained intact, if moved. -- AlexR 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would you allow me to merely remind you that I've already previously explained why my viewpoint is not "POV"? Or will you again accuse me of dodging the issues if I don't give another (redundant) in-depth reply? AWilliamson 02:46, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, you keep claiming that, of course, but merely claiming that you POV isn't POV does not make it NPOV. -- AlexR 09:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I gave the reasons for that view - to wit, citing documented historical evidence is no more "POV" than citing archaeological data in an article on Pompeii, or citing the results of a physics experiment in an article dealing with physics - this is the only evidence we have, and is not someone's mere "opinion". AWilliamson 05:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But refusing to acknowledge any interpretation that is also based on proofable facts which you just happen not to like is POV. You are not just citing evidence, but you also object to other people mentioning another possible interpretation of aforementioned facts - and that is POV. -- AlexR 06:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your alternate interpretation, as I noted in detail today in my reply farther above, is not based on "provable facts" but merely a list of generalized observations. AWilliamson 05:02, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I'm moving the intersex part to its own heading, for reasons of legibility. The first question is copied from above, the rest remains as it was, just with significantly fewer colons. Mr. Williamsons first answer starts with "secondly" since he repied first to another point which is unrelated to this question.

How about those indications that Joan might have been intersex? -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Secondly: there are no indications that Joan might have been "intersex" - that's another misconception promoted by pop authors, nothing more. AWilliamson 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Funny, just why I am not surprised to get that answer. If you had read what I said, you might have noted though, that I explicitly asked your opinion, so no need to become insulting. And do you happen to even know what intersex precisely is? Anyway. there are usually quite a few points listed, so since you seem to be familiar with the source material, I thought you might be able to give a somewhat more credible reply than "pop-books". Since I am obviously a very optimistic person, I'll list those two that seem quite clear (since they relate to phyisical features) again, and the one where any input from somebody who claims to be a historian specialising on her would be most useful. Maybe I get something of a reply - this debate must have some use. [AR]
  • She never mensturated, and at 19 years of age, that is quite remarkable. [AR]
  • She had neither public nor underarm hair, something very unusual in healty women of 19, but perfecty common for some intersex conditions. In fact, one intersex syndrom, AIS, is sometimes known as "hairless women syndrome". No public or underarm haif with normal breasts (which she had) sounds very much like AIS, although other conditions can't be ruled out, AFAIK. [AR]


I'm moving the intersex part to its own heading, for reasons of legibility. The first question is copied from above, the rest remains as it was, just with significantly fewer colons. How about those indications that Joan might have been intersex? -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Secondly: there are no indications that Joan might have been "intersex" - that's another misconception promoted by pop authors, nothing more. AWilliamson 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Funny, just why I am not surprised to get that answer. If you had read what I said, you might have noted though, that I explicitly asked your opinion, so no need to become insulting. And do you happen to even know what intersex precisely is? Anyway. there are usually quite a few points listed, so since you seem to be familiar with the source material, I thought you might be able to give a somewhat more credible reply than "pop-books". Since I am obviously a very optimistic person, I'll list those two that seem quite clear (since they relate to phyisical features) again, and the one where any input from somebody who claims to be a historian specialising on her would be most useful. Maybe I get something of a reply - this debate must have some use. [AR]
  • She never mensturated, and at 19 years of age, that is quite remarkable. [AR]
  • She had neither public nor underarm hair, something very unusual in healty women of 19, but perfecty common for some intersex conditions. In fact, one intersex syndrom, AIS, is sometimes known as "hairless women syndrome". No public or underarm haif with normal breasts (which she had) sounds very much like AIS, although other conditions can't be ruled out, AFAIK. [AR]
  • And the one which keeps getting cited, but behind which I put a question mark: There were several attempts of rape of Joan in prison, but none ever succeded. The intersex theory has it that this could have been because Joan's vagina was too shallow, which indeed would point to an intersex condition, probably AIS, too - if it can be verified. And don't mention her clothes now, one woman against several men in a situation where nobody would come to her rescue stands little chance no matter what she wears. [AR]
How much of that can you verify or falsify? Just curious, since even if she had been IS, it does not automatically follow from this that there were any cross-gender needs or feelings because of it. -- AlexR 14:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, concerning the symptoms you listed (and yes, I already researched this "theory" and so I am familiar with both the claims and what the medical literature says on the subject), let's take these symptoms one at a time: the idea that Joan never menstruated is based (sometimes rather loosely) on the testimony of Jean d'Aulon at the appeal, who repeated some hearsay he heard from women who had known Joan or conducted the first medical examination on her. Since there are numerous reasons why a woman might not menstruate - quite a number of different medical conditions such as Leydig Cell Hypoplasia, as well as the malnourishment caused by Joan's constant fasting and other deprivations - even if this notion is accurate and not merely hearsay, it would not be proof of AIS. More importantly, the idea that she lacked pubic hair is fictional: there is no mention of any such thing in the actual accounts. The same is true of the idea that she had a "shortened vagina" - there is nothing to indicate that, and it is not an explanation for the failure of her guards to rape her. For one thing, a "shortened vagina" would not prevent some degree of penetration; but more importantly, you've entirely misconstrued the circumstances on several points: 1) The guards would have only been able to take off her sewn-up pants by cutting her clothing apart, which would thereby likely cut Joan as well - and the guards had been forbidden by English commanders from doing anything that might lead to her premature death since they wanted her formally executed as a heretic, not killed in prison. 2) Since they also wanted the trial to be viewed as a valid judicial procedure rather than an illegal bout of abuse, they were bound by law to at least try to intervene if the guards tried to rape her - which is why Joan's laced pants and tunic bought her enough time on at least one occasion to cry for help, to which the Earl of Warwick responded by coming to her rescue. You need to remember that while her guards were abusive, they could not legally be allowed to do whatever they saw fit, and the English commanders knew that. In short: her male clothing was both reasonably effective and (more importantly) the best defense she had available at the time. In any event, there is certainly no indication that she had an abnormal vagina - a point which would have been noticed and reported during the three medical examinations conducted by first the Royal Court, then by the English. There is no evidence of a medical condition such as AIS. AWilliamson 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • And the one which keeps getting cited, but behind which I put a question mark: There were several attempts of rape of Joan in prison, but none ever succeded. The intersex theory has it that this could have been because Joan's vagina was too shallow, which indeed would point to an intersex condition, probably AIS, too - if it can be verified. And don't mention her clothes now, one woman against several men in a situation where nobody would come to her rescue stands little chance no matter what she wears. [AR]
How much of that can you verify or falsify? Just curious, since even if she had been IS, it does not automatically follow from this that there were any cross-gender needs or feelings because of it. -- AlexR 14:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, concerning the symptoms you listed (and yes, I already researched this "theory" and so I am familiar with both the claims and what the medical literature says on the subject), let's take these symptoms one at a time: the idea that Joan never menstruated is based (sometimes rather loosely) on the testimony of Jean d'Aulon at the appeal, who repeated some hearsay he heard from women who had known Joan or conducted the first medical examination on her. Since there are numerous reasons why a woman might not menstruate - quite a number of different medical conditions such as Leydig Cell Hypoplasia, as well as the malnourishment caused by Joan's constant fasting and other deprivations - even if this notion is accurate and not merely hearsay, it would not be proof of AIS. More importantly, the idea that she lacked pubic hair is fictional: there is no mention of any such thing in the actual accounts. The same is true of the idea that she had a "shortened vagina" - there is nothing to indicate that, and it is not an explanation for the failure of her guards to rape her. For one thing, a "shortened vagina" would not prevent some degree of penetration; but more importantly, you've entirely misconstrued the circumstances on several points: 1) The guards would have only been able to take off her sewn-up pants by cutting her clothing apart, which would thereby likely cut Joan as well - and the guards had been forbidden by English commanders from doing anything that might lead to her premature death since they wanted her formally executed as a heretic, not killed in prison. 2) Since they also wanted the trial to be viewed as a valid judicial procedure rather than an illegal bout of abuse, they were bound by law to at least try to intervene if the guards tried to rape her - which is why Joan's laced pants and tunic bought her enough time on at least one occasion to cry for help, to which the Earl of Warwick responded by coming to her rescue. You need to remember that while her guards were abusive, they could not legally be allowed to do whatever they saw fit, and the English commanders knew that. In short: her male clothing was both reasonably effective and (more importantly) the best defense she had available at the time. In any event, there is certainly no indication that she had an abnormal vagina - a point which would have been noticed and reported during the three medical examinations conducted by first the Royal Court, then by the English. There is no evidence of a medical condition such as AIS. AWilliamson 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, I would ask you to reply to the three points I asked about seperately, otherwise matters do get confused - in fact, you have confused them already. Whether that was an accident only you know. Second, there is no need to assume that I am assuming she was or might have been intersex - I am curious about the matter, and since you were so happy to provide references when they suited you needs, I - maybe somewhat naively - assumed you might provide some about this question. So far you have presented very little ... to put it mildly, and your rather aggressive reply was uncalled for. So one last try:
  • Did Joan ever mensturate? The book I have here (none I would trust on historical facts since it is a tertiary source on those, but I am trying to verify or falsifying them right now) indeed mentiones that this is based on d'Aulon, but if he based that on the testimony of "women who had known Joan or conducted the first medical examination on her" that's not the worst possible source, is it? And, very important, did she not mensturate during a certain period of her life (which could be explained by the circumstances) or did she never start to mensturate, which could not be so easily explained away?
    BTW, I never stated - as you imply - that not mensurating alone could possibly be sufficient for a diagnosis of AIS. It would be insufficient for any diagnosis. Together with other points, though, it becomes relevant. [AR]
The testimony by d'Aulon on this point is very brief and far too vague to determine anything - he merely says that these women thought that she didn't have the "private illness of women" (menstruation). And as I said, since there are numerous medical conditions that could interfere with a woman's menstrual cycle - Joan's fasting alone might do that - this condition would not prove anything related to the discussion. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Did Joan have public and underarm hair? I have read that more than once, and the book here (and, as far as I remember, other texts) claim that was stated by the midwifes that examined her, the same ones that testified she was still a virgin. Since you too referred to these examinations, I wonder where those authors have that information from? I mean, I have met quite a few "history" books that made quite outragous claims, but usually facts were not completely made up. So is there a link maybe to the reports of those midwifes (preferably not put up by you) where one could check your claim that "there is nothing in the sources"? Or a book that is easily available? Because if there is something in the sources after all, that very much points, especially together with point one, to some physical problem, maybe AIS.[AR]
There wasn't any written report by the women who examined Joan - they announced their findings verbally to the Royal Court, and the only description we have of their findings is found in the testimony of the witnesses at the appeal - none of whom said anything about a lack of pubic hair. I have personally translated all 123 depositions, and it isn't in there. If you want to confirm this, you can look at books which have all of the relevant testimony, such as Oursel's "Les Procès de Jeanne d'Arc".
Pop books on the subject do, in fact, sometimes include a large amount of pure fiction, which is what this is. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • How about the "shortened vagina" claim? First of all, it was not I who "entirely misconstrued the circumstances", I said specifically that I put a question mark behind that claim myself. So there was no reason to misrepresent what I said. (But when did you ever need a reason for that?) But back to the question, for which I need to mention one topic that you seem to be obsessed with, but which is obviously not all that relevant (even if it brought her time to call for help once), that is her clothes, which cannot have offered her the protection you ascribe to them. First of all, there had to be some opening, unless you wish to claim that she urinated and defecated into her clothes, and kept the waste there, too. Not completely impossible, but somewhat unlikely. Only clothes that are closed that much offer some protection. Furthermore, previously, around the 9th of October, you only stated that those clothes had laces and points so they could be tied together, now they are sewn together. However, the quotes you brought into the debate on Oct. 11th say "tied", too. In both cases, though, the clothes could still be removed, and certainly without cutting her skin, too. That is especially true when they were only tied together. What is tied together can be untied. Countless reports by women that were raped confirm that. So we come back to the question: Was there any attempt of rape that might have not succedeed because she just had no or not enough of a vagina to be penetrated? BTW, a vagina might have been so shortened that penetration would be impossible, and such a vagina might also be extremely narrow. And those examination: Was indeed her vagina examined in depth, like a modern doctor would do, or how were those examinations conducted? Such a vagina could, after all, be easily confused with the very tight (but normal) vagina of a virgin. [AR]
First of all: you obviously have not seen the type of clothing in question here, and you obviously aren't reading anything I've written about it. The laces went all the way around (there wasn't, and didn't need, to be an "opening", as I'll explain in a bit), and they could be stitched so that the pants and tunic would practically be connected into one piece (whether you want to use the term "tied" or "sewn" or "stitched", etc, is all the same). When the person needed to "go to the bathroom" (which you thought would necessitate an "opening"), they would have to laboriously unlace the garment - and yes, a would-be rapist could possibly do so as well, but it would be very difficult if the woman wasn't cooperating; and it would certainly give her time to cry for help - as Joan did on one occasion when the Earl of Warwick came to her aid. But again, the issue of protection simply comes down to the following analogy: while a determined thief can always get past the lock on your door by using various means, I suspect you still lock your door at night anyway, do you not? Similarly, Joan clung to this clothing both because it provided at least a reasonable protection and (more importantly) it was the only possible protection she had available - as was fairly standard practice in that era, in fact. This shouldn't need to be pointed out, much less explained in such a painstaking fashion over and over again.
Concerning her vagina: first of all, there is no evidence whatsoever that any rape attempt was prevented by her having a "shortened vagina" - we know that one attempt was prevented by the Earl of Warwick, and we know that her outfit helped prevent rape, but there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that an abnormal vagina was a factor. Secondly: the examinations are only described very briefly, but there is certainly no mention of anything concerning a shortened vagina - they said that she was found to be a virgin, and had a scar from a riding accident. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • And there is a fourth point, also allegedly coming from the examinations: That her labia were swelled, which could indicate undeveloped testes inside them. Again, certainly on its own not sufficient for a diagnosis, but together with other points maybe significant. [AR]
There was no mention of a swelled labia - that seems to be very loosely based (via distortion) on the fact that one examination found that there was a scar from a riding accident. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And let me mention one last thing: The whole time you have said that one should examine the evidence (at least the evidence you deem relevant) but now that I ask for some of your quotes, I don't get them. If you still refuse to answer with anything but "Can't be, all pop books" I cannot help assuming that evidence matters only to you when it suits you, even if it is historical evidence. In that case, your claim of being a "historian" would be bogus. But then, maybe you just had a bad day yesterday, so maybe today you will give some actually usefull reply. -- AlexR 03:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alex, most of the information you are citing from these books simply is not in the original documents, as any historian who has translated them will tell you. I label this stuff fiction because it IS fiction. To question my credentials for doing so is both absurd and also borders on libel. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are constantly refusing to even consider evidence or possible evidence that does not agree with your prejudices, and you constantly misrepresent things I said to make your rants look better. Requests for actual evidence in this debate you have flatout refused to answer, instead you are asking me to rely on "I say so". (Just to mention the most obvious points.) And you seriously wonder why I don't quite trust your statements? That's not libel, that's something that naturaly follows from your behaviour here. I also do not rule out that you have any formal credentials as a historian, but certainly you don't bother with behaving like one here. You know, like in not being biased one way or the other, or in being willing to examine evidence.
Needless to say that I am still not quite willing to believe that everything you don't like to hear about was made up by authors who after all have a reputation to loose as well, if not as historians. "Mr Williamson said so" certainly does not count as evidence to me. Not even remotely. -- AlexR 09:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alex... in my replies yesterday, I referred you to a book (written by another historian, Raymond Oursel) that you could read to see the entire relevant testimony for yourself and thereby confirm that what I am saying is true. I also addressed, again in my replies yesterday, each of your points on menstruation, the idea of a "swelled labia", "lack of pubic hair", "shortened vagina", etc, by citing what the testimony actually says. Since this is obvious, I can only assume you're deliberately engaging in classic "troll" behavior here; but if not, then take a look at the Oursel book and see for yourself what the evidence is. Can you do that? AWilliamson 03:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The book you referred to seems to be useless to me, since I do not speak french, and the title is French. Should I be able to find something in English or German, I might have a look. How about you, though? So far you have flatout refused to look at any evidence that goes against your prejudices, how about you then looking at evidence for a change? As for your replies you allegedly made, well, there were letters on that page, but they consisted of nothing but another round of "because I say so". That's not a reply. And as for the trolling, sorry, but you come into this article and delete parts of it without explanation, and only start to debate when I had the article locked, you tried to stop changes that had absolutely nothing to do with your pet saint, you constantly misrepresent what I said, so often that it cannot be attributed to accident, you flatout refuse to even think about anything that goes against your prejudices, you expect everybody to believe whatever you say, just because you call yourself a "historian", you are patronizing into the bargain, and you accuse me of trolling? That's a joke, right? -- AlexR 04:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you don't read French, then the only English-language book I could suggest is "The Retrial of Joan of Arc" by Régine Pernoud (translated by J.M. Cohen), which has the important sections of the appellate testimony. The other issues you mentioned again above have already been refuted numerous times, and do not need to be refuted again.
Take a look at the Pernoud book, and you can confirm that I have been accurately describing the testimony, and have not "rejected" anything except the fiction you have been citing from pop books. AWilliamson 03:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If the book contains only parts of the testimony, it can't be usefull, since those bits I would be interested in are probably not in it. And how could I know whether you described the testimony accurately if I don't have access to all of it? Because, you know, I still flatout refuse to believe that more than one author made up the points mentioned, especially since by no means all of those texts are from "pop books", as you well know. (A book isn't a "pop book" because you don't like what's in it.) Also, I have no idea what you think has been refuted, so far you have refuted very, very little. And the way you have behaved, I wonder whether I was not somewhat naive to trust your statements about the "relapse" and similar things whose removal I did not object to, as well. -- AlexR 05:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly: you've been warned often enough already about misrepresenting the debate. Secondly and more to the point: if you're going to reject any translation of the testimony that can be suggested, then it seems you're just looking for an excuse not to confirm the information. Moreover, since "my" view was also accepted by the other historians who specialized in this subject, it is not legitimately in dispute. This is a bit like trying to argue with the people who believe that since there are so many books claiming that Joan was English or Italian, therefore these "must" be based on authentic evidence rather than fiction, therefore historians must be wrong about her ethnicity.
If you're not going to read the testimony, then you'll have to drop the subject. AWilliamson 03:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh please, Mr. Williamson, mind pointing out to me where I misrepresented the debate? I thought that was your speciality, you have certainly done it often enough. And what do you mean by "you have been warned"? Going to sent some hitmen after me or what if I don't cease and desist? Really, that's a bit cheap, making vague threats. [AR]
As for rejecting any translations, I did nothing of the kind, I said that if the translation you pointed out was incomplete, it was probably useless, that is not quite the same thing. And I most certainly not to stop editing because I do not have read the testimony, since I know what I am talking about well enough, where the possible gender variance is concerned, and I think I made it very clear that I am decidedly undecided about the intersex question. I asked for your alleged experts help on getting more information, but what you provided, and how you provided it, was nothing I personally deem believable. ("All made up, because I say so" - what an argument.) However, the article (that is Joan of Arc, to mention that for the umteenth time, since the debates certainly do not belong here) should represent the debate, that is, this theory and that theory exists, and not one persons opinion, not even yours. [AR]
As for "other historians who accepted your view", that may or may not be the case, but it is utterly irrelevant. If these historians refused, just as you do (and not just on this matters, as talk:Joan of arc shows) to even consider much of the evidence brought forward by non-historians, or historians who do have a different view on the subject, well, how much is their judgement worth? Nothing at all. Not that it matters, the articles here should, again, represent the debate, not one persons (or possibly one groups) conclusion. If you want a text that contains nothing but your own opinion, write a book. This is the Wikipedia, and therefore the wrong place for such attempts. -- AlexR 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since you didn't reply to my responses yesterday and instead reverted the attempt to relocate the debate, I suppose I'll recopy my responses here - although this personal dispute really belongs elsewhere.
- - (yesterday's reply recopied below) - -
Alex: I gave you the only sources that are in languages you might be able to read - since the full transcript is only available in the original Middle-French and Latin, if you're not able to read these languages then what makes you qualified to reject the verdict of all the historians who _have_ read it? (You know better than this, Alex).
The rest of your comments have been dealt with repeatedly, and do not require further repetition. AWilliamson 03:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Back to the Future

Could we please deal with what does need to go into the article on Cross-dressing? The article defines cross-dressing in a way that is a very clear, and also a way that assigns no value judgment. If people in a community agree that somebody, e.g. Milton Berle the 50s commedian, is a man, and Milton comes on stage in a dress, then he is cross-dressing during that period on stage. I suspect that if you find an account of his career as a comedian somewhere it will mention his use of cross-dressing in his attempts to make people laugh. We know he cross-dressed because we saw him on TV. In fact, there may be old kinescopes that preserve the evidence. Whether he had other motivations for wearing a dress or not is irrelevant to the subject of cross-dressing. (If there is an article on cross-dressers, i.e., on people who habitually rather than situationally cross-dress, then listing him on that page would require a very different kind of proof.) P0M 05:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent idea. But each time I see light at the end of the tunnel it's just another freight train with pointless repetitions coming. -- AlexR 09:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. From Berle's obituary: "His zany, cross-dressing entrances on the variety show, which he hosted from 1948 to 1956, made him the medium’s first superstar." P0M 05:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In reference to the above debate on Joan of Arc's supposed intersexuality, and if we come to the decision of keeping motivations out of this article, then the discussion to Joan's intersexuality should be discussed on her page. As an auxilliary statement, whether the arguments regarding her intersexuality or not have a correct or incorrect basis, they seem to warrant inclusion and discussion since the argument has an obvious notoriety. Dysprosia 04:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This subject is under mediation and is being handled accordingly - meaning not on the Talk page. AWilliamson 03:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's important for me to be clear here that mediation does not mean that other editors cannot discuss the issues, and that mediation will not produce some unchangeable product that other editors cannot vary. The intent of mediation is to try to resolve differences between the editors involved in conflict and to try to come up with alternatives to disputed wording. If we do come to an agreement, that won't mean that the agreement is binding on all authors - but hopefully it will be a sensible and balanced option that will help the article go forward -- sannse (talk) 19:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) (mediator)

Pants against rape?

An anonymous user has been revising my edits on the subject of the clothes of Joan of Arc. I' don't want to experience another edit war with this anonymous user (as I assume it is AWilliamson all over again that has been using this IP number: correct me if I'm wrong). I therefore seek assistance from real experts on medieval clothing, especially on clothing of the early 15th century. Please join the discussion on this matter on the Joan of Arc Talk page. No need to discuss the same subject on two pages, as the same debate is on over there (same users, same opinions). — HAJARS 10:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)