Was Joan De Ark a man? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

End of Roman society, feudalism, rise of religious power, beginnings of the nation-state, renaissance (476 - 1492 CE).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Joona
#13149315
I've recently had a suprising revelation in medieval history, through a friend who has a degree in medieval literature. We got into a discussion about Joan De Ark. He proposed this idea, which made obvious sense to me. I have forgotten some key elements about the history and legend behind her, but I will tell you what I can remember off the top of my head.

What he proposed was that Joan was actually a John. He had been reading about a very rare disorder in males, where in fetus formation the testicals and penis do not descend from inside the body. The result is what looks like a slit, a vagina. The person is still male, lacking any female sex organs, but with the testicals inside the body they produce more estrogen, resulting in very small but visible breasts. This condition also causes schizophrenia in most cases, and a profound ringing in the ears, notably the left. He couldnt remember the name of the condition, but I have definetly heard of it before.

Therefore, joan de ark could very well have been a man. Here is what adds up. Joan d'Ark never menstruated at all. She had no period and was believed to have been saintly because of this. Joan d'Ark is reported to have had very small breasts, by those soldiers she led. She also heard voices starting around her late teens, which she believed to have been the voice of god. Schizophrenia starts showing signs at the late teens, and it most commonly accompanied by hearing voices. She is also recorded as saying that she always heard the bells of heaven in her left ear when god spoke to her.

Does this not add up? Has no one thought of this before? What are your opinions of this?
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#13149326
If she was viewed as a female, and thought of herself as a female then she was a female.
User avatar
By The Immortal Goon
#13149515
She was probably female if nobody mentioned the fact. Women tend not to menstrate if they're very physically active and have poor nutrition, as a feudal soldier would be.

Further, depending on the source, many of the mannish qualities were probably played up. The British accused her of breaking God's law by acting like a man, for instance.

It's possible, but it's one of those things that doesn't have very good circumstantial evidence.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13149814
There is such a fuss made about her being a dike, that I would find it surprising to find out she was actually a man dressed as a woman dressed as a man.

But you just made me think about something related: If Mary the mother of Jesus was a man, then the birth really was a miracle.
By Varilion
#13191134
Everybody who met her referred to her as a woman, so we have no reason to suppose that she isn't. It's also quiet sure that more than once they checked if she was maiden..... so...

and btw... she wasn't really a soldier, but mainly a leader.


(in which University got his degree this your friend ? :P)
User avatar
By Le Rouge
#13191135
The theory goes in the face of evidence and that great old standby, Occam's Razor. But he's talking about androgen-insensitivity syndrome. Though I don't know where he gets the schizophrenia nonsense from.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#13191321
Joan De Ark.

English: Joan of Arc

French: Jeanne d'Arc

What language is Joan De Ark?
User avatar
By Bosnjak
#13248567
I think the Inquisitors have tested her well (if she is a women or not) before they burned her.
By Icon
#13248586
What he proposed was that Joan was actually a John. He had been reading about a very rare disorder in males, where in fetus formation the testicals and penis do not descend from inside the body. The result is what looks like a slit, a vagina. The person is still male, lacking any female sex organs, but with the testicals inside the body they produce more estrogen, resulting in very small but visible breasts. This condition also causes schizophrenia in most cases, and a profound ringing in the ears, notably the left. He couldnt remember the name of the condition, but I have definetly heard of it before.


The condition you are referring to is called androgen insensitivity syndrome. The source of the condition is that the androgen receptors in the person's body either do not exist or do not work properly.

Consequently, it doesn't matter how much androgen (e.g. testosterone) the body produces; it will not 'masculinize' because the body isn't able to use the androgens it is making.


The real problems with this reasoning are:
A. AIS is not known to cause schizophrenia itself. If a person with AIS is schizophrenic, it is because of shame related to their condition (which was likely not widely known, if even identified at Joan of Ark's time) or because of mental illness unrelated to AIS.

B. Individuals with 'complete' AIS typically are externally indistinguishable from normal women except for the lack of pubic hair. They do not have smaller-than-average breasts. Anecdotally, if anything, their breasts are slightly larger than average because the anti-estrogenic effect of testosterone does not come into play.

C. People with higher degrees of AIS almost always have a female gender identity, and consequently are considered female, regardless of what chromosomes they possess.
#13908084
Oh for fuck's sake, the English with whom the French were fighting.

The Duchy of Brittany was on Joan's side. I know that.

This is like those assholes who say, "What do you mean 'American?' Do you mean, Taino culture? That was the first place found in the Americas."
#13908125
I think the Inquisitors have tested her well (if she is a women or not) before they burned her.

I believe she was given a medical examination by the English before she was interrogated, and was found to be female and to be a virgin.

Who are these 'British'? There are no such people in any Mediavel histories I know of. Do you mean the Duchy of Brittany?

TIG nurtures a sacred hatred of the British in his proud Irish heart, houndred. The slogan "Brits out (of Ireland and/or France)!" resounds across the battlefields of history. The Brits are, of course, the infernal power whose taloned claw is behind every bad thing that ever happened anywhere in the world, ever. Even before we existed. That's how devious and crafty we are. Mwuhahahahaha!! :muha1:
#13908307
Oh for fuck's sake, the English with whom the French were fighting.


Then use the term English.

TIG nurtures a sacred hatred of the British in his proud Irish heart, houndred.


How very tedious. His spelling indicates he is an American. Irish people I know are generally sensible folk and not given to such nonsense. You get far more of that blarney from 'Oirish Americans'.
#13908373
Who are these 'British'? There are no such people in any Mediavel histories I know of. Do you mean the Duchy of Brittany?
Did you really find it necessary to resurrect a two and a half old thread for the express purposes of acting like a nitpicky dick?
#13908391
Joan of Ark was a female. Having small breasts doesn't make her a man, and neither does the fact she apparently never had a period. She may have been born with a womb or ovaries.
#13908404
Publius wrote:Well, she did talk to god. That's generally a good sign of some kind of mental illness.


I would certainly agree with that, but the comment had nothing to do with her gender - unless males are more likely to be diagnosed with the illness.
By Wolfman
#13908406
The comment was made, I responded. Its relation to gender questions are irrelevant. If someone said they didn't believe Einstein was autistic in a thread about relativity, I'd correct them too.
#13908409
houndred wrote:Then use the term English.


And then I have some asshole going out of his way to point out that half of Ireland was part of the Angevin dynasty, and that there were Scotsmen and Welshmen fighting alongside the English forces. So then I have to go back and say, "British." Then some other asshole comes on and says that the head of the forces were English. Then some asshole comes on and says that half of France was part of the Angevin dynasty, so then we have to qualify that. Then I have to go back and explain this all again to stroke all of your precious egos.

Jingoists are the worst. They're like fat American assholes wearing American flag shirts and arguing with everybody about anything that even remotely implies you're not a special snowflake. It's the same in every country.

houndred wrote:How very tedious. His spelling indicates he is an American. Irish people I know are generally sensible folk and not given to such nonsense. You get far more of that blarney from 'Oirish Americans'.


My PhD in history is from the National University of Ireland, where I also got my MPhil, published my papers, keep academic relations, and lived for a very long time. I'm guessing I'm far more qualified to speak about this than you are—your qualification, judging from the implication, was that you were born. Congratulations.

But yes, I was born in the United States, and any nationalistic allegiance I'd theoretically have would hardly be for Ireland.
#13908459
And then I have some asshole going out of his way to point out that half of Ireland was part of the Angevin dynasty, and that there were Scotsmen and Welshmen fighting alongside the English forces.


Ireland is part of Britain is it?

I think the Plantagents hadn't been Angevins for over 200 years by the time of Jeanne d'Arc. There were two countries fighting the French: Burgundy and England, Not 'Britain' because there would be no country called that until 1707 and that was when two countries merged into one just over 100 years afterthe Scottish King added England to his realms.

Jingoists are the worst.


Irish nationalists included?

My PhD in history is from the National University of Ireland, where I also got my MPhil, published my papers, keep academic relations, and lived for a very long time.


Did you use terms like "British" when dealing with Medieval England in your alleged Phd? The Irish Historians I know rather frown on trying to bring modern causes into medieval history. You say you 'lived there' as if the National University of Ireland was a single place

But yes, I was born in the United States, and any nationalistic allegiance I'd theoretically have would hardly be for Ireland.


Really? I've seen plenty of Americans flying the Tricolour in Massachussets and Connecticut outside their homes. Indeed the most pathetic jingoist Irish nationalists never seem to have been born in the republic. Plenty of them with American accents.

Naw, what you are saying is obvious, I even put p[…]

A brief impression I’ve taken from Soloviev is th[…]

Perfect storm?

No, the talented merely have advantages , which […]

How much do the Chinese pay you to post? Pr[…]