User:Accessible Content/Joan of Arc : cross-dressing, lesbian, sexuality and transgender issues

Joan of Arc was a 15th century French woman executed by a pro-English tribunal in 1431 on allegations that her use of soldiers' clothing would qualify as the sin of cross-dressing. Certain modern writers have also alleged that cross dressing would imply a lesbian sexual orientation and/or a transgender identity. The latter positions have mostly been taken in books, articles and blogs written by gay, lesbian, and transgender authors. Historians, on the other hand, have argued that the eyewitness accounts include quotations from Joan of Arc herself stating that she only wore soldiers' clothing for practical reasons. These reasons included the needs of a military campaign and (while in prison) the need to keep her English guards from pulling her clothing off by wearing long, waist-high cavalry boots which could be tied tightly to the tunic with straps, which would make it more difficult for her English guards to rape her by pulling her clothing off. The eyewitnesses said she had always worn a dress before setting off to take part in a military campaign, and she went back to a dress whenever there was no need for a soldiers' outfit; all of which would contradict the allegation that she had a transgender identity. The evidence for this issue can be found farther below in this article. The allegation that she was a lesbian is ultimately - if loosely - based on the common medieval practice of placing two or more people of the same gender in the same bed whenever there weren't enough beds to accommodate guests. The eyewitnesses said Joan of Arc was sometimes placed with little girls (one of whom was nine years old, another less than twelve), or both a little girl and her mother, or similar arrangements when Joan was staying as a guest at houses in Orleans and other cities during her travels. Historians have pointed out that this was the common practice in that era, and doesn't indicate lesbian activity or orientation any more than it would for anyone else during that time period. The evidence on this issue is also covered farther below.

Joan of Arc and cross-dressing

Eyewitness accounts say that Joan of Arc had worn the customary long red, woolen dress typical of the women of her region up until she set out with a military escort to seek a meeting with Charles VII at Chinon. Her departure from Vaucouleurs occurred on 22 February 1429. Information on this comes from eyewitness accounts by two soldiers at Vaucouleurs who were ordered to escort her through English- and Burgundian-occupied areas on the way to Chinon, Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy. These soldiers said that they first suggested that she should wear a male disguise, and they and the other people there provided her with this clothing. Jean de Metz described these events as follows: "When Joan had arrived at Vaucouleurs... I saw her wearing a peasant woman's red dress... I asked her whether she was thinking of leaving wearing this clothing [that she had on]; she replied that she would be willing to put on male clothing. So I gave her an outfit and boots which belonged to one of my officers; after this was done, the citizens of Vaucouleurs made for her a male outfit with boots, leg pieces, and the rest". Jean de Metz provided an additional detail which would become especially important, equally on this initial journey and even more so during Joan of Arc's trial when she was guarded by English soldiers: the male clothing she was wearing had thick laces to fasten the tunic to the long hip-boots and hose (woolen trousers worn underneath the boots), which replaced the use of a belt and gave her the ability to make it difficult for someone to pull off her clothing, which therefore functioned as a defense against rape. Jean de Metz said: "Each night, Bertrand [de Poulengy] and myself slept beside her; she was next to me with her tunic and trousers laced together". Bertrand de Poulengy confirmed all these points, : "Myself and Jean de Metz, with the help of the other people of Vaucouleurs, made sure she could leave off her feminine clothing, which was red in color; we made for her a tunic and [other] male clothing, trousers, leg pieces... Each night, Joan slept alongside Jean de Metz and myself, without removing her tunic and trousers, always tied securely together."

Later while encamped with the army, she was said to have worn either this type of outfit or a full suit of plate armor even while sleeping, for protection against rogue soldiers: "whenever she had to camp out in the fields with the troops, she never took off her armor."

Whenever she didn't have any direct need to wear this soldier's outfit at a given time, she was said to put her woman's dress back on. As described in one 15th century account, "[when she dismounts after battle] she resumes her usual feminine clothing".

Joan of Arc was captured on 23 May 1430 north of Compiegne, and was handed over to the English government. She was imprisoned at Rouen in the castle which served as the English headquarters in France, and then placed on trial by a court whose chief judge was Pierre Cauchon, who had worked for the English since 1418.

Surviving tower of the fortress in Rouen in which Joan of Arc was held during her trial.

During her imprisonment and trial, she continued wearing her soldier's outfit for the same stated reason she had worn it while encamped with soldiers. The trial transcript gives us a few details about the clothing itself which corroborates the description by others of its laces which were used to tie the parts together. It describes her clothing as "long connected trousers, fastened to the aforementioned tunic with twenty laces" and "tight waist-high boots".

Several of the theologians who put Joan on trial in 1431 later explained that she had told them she retained this male outfit and kept it tied securely together while in prison because fastening the tunic and trousers together was her only chance to protect herself from rape by the English soldiers who were tasked with guarding her. The chief notary at the trial, Guillaume Manchon, later said : "when they asked her why she didn't wear a woman's outfit, and that it wasn't decent for a woman to wear a man's tunic, with trousers firmly tied together with many laces; she said she didn't dare give up these trousers, nor to keep them but securely laced up, because the Bishop and Earl knew perfectly well, as they themselves admitted, that her guards had tried to rape her several times".

The trial transcript leaves out most of these crucial details, aside from brief quotations from Joan in which she protests that she isn't committing a sin. A couple decades later she would be vindicated by the theologians who presided over the postwar appeal of her case in the 1450s, who ruled that she wasn't committing a sin by wearing this clothing to prevent rape, since the medieval Catholic Church allowed an exception if cross-dressing was done for a necessary purpose.

But during her trial itself, she had no such theological help. Judge Cauchon accused her of cross-dressing while refusing to acknowledge her motives. It might be noted that, although later authors would introduce the idea that she was a lesbian or transgender, nonetheless there wasn't any charge relating to any lesbian sexual activity brought against her at her trial, nor anything related to gender identity, transgender issues nor sexual orientation.

Cauchon finally decided to utilize the cross-dressing issue as the basis for her conviction after first inducing her to give up this clothing and then "relapse" in order to provide a justification for condemning her to death as a relapsed heretic. Only a relapsed heretic could legally be executed. This plan was set in motion on 24 May 1431 when Joan was brought to Saint-Ouen cemetery and told she would be immediately burned at the stake unless she signed a confession and promised not to wear male clothing any longer. One eyewitness said she defended herself by saying that "she had put on male clothing because she was forced to be with soldiers, among whom it was safer and more convenient to be in male clothing rather than female clothing". The court had prepared a confession for her to agree to, which was read out to her. Told she would be burned on the spot unless she signed, she made a "signature" by scribbling a circle on the paper. Afterwards a much longer, very different confession was later substituted for the one she had signed, and it was this second confession that was inserted into the trial record.

Four days later, on 28 May 1431, Joan of Arc put the soldier's clothing back on, triggering a renewed charge of cross-dressing. On this point the eyewitnesses also contradict the trial transcript's version of events. The main notary, Guillaume Manchon, later explained that "she was asked why she had put this male clothing back on, and she replied that she did this to safeguard her virginity, for she wasn't safe wearing female clothing while with her guards, who had attempted to rape her; and she had complained about this many times to the bishop [Pierre Cauchon] and earl [Earl of Warwick]; and [she added] that the judges promised that she would be given into the custody and prisons of the Church, and that she would have a woman [a nun, as the Church required for female prisoners] with her. She stated furthermore that she would be willing to put female clothing back on again if the lord judges would be willing to put her in a safe place where she wouldn't need to have any fear." She further clarified the situation to the judges by "...protesting that she couldn't leave off wearing [the male clothing], as she was afraid that her guards would commit sexual assault against her during the night. On one or two occasions she had complained to the Bishop of Beauvais, the Deputy Inquisitor, and Master Nicolas Loiseleur because one of these guards had attempted to rape her." This scenario was further corroborated by other eyewitnesses, such as the trial member Friar Martin Ladvenu, who later said that he had "heard from Joan that a high-ranking English nobleman had come to see her in prison and he tried to forcibly rape her. And she told me this was why she had put the male clothing back on after the first sentencing." The trial member Friar Isambart de la Pierre also corroborated this by saying, "as I heard from Joan herself, she was subjected to a rape attempt by a person in authority; and because of this, to be better able to prevent this [in the future], she said she put the male clothing back on, which had been deliberately left near her in prison. Furthermore, after she had put this clothing back on, I saw the Bishop [Cauchon] with other English partisans, and heard him rejoicing and saying openly to everybody, to Lord Warwick and other people: 'It is done!'" He said furthermore that Joan had also alluded to ongoing rape by the English guards when she accused the judges of creating an environment in which she had little choice but to protect herself with soldier's clothing, since they had refused to follow the normal inquisitorial procedure of allowing women to have other women to guard them in order to reduce the possibility of rape: "when she was labeled an stubborn and relapsed heretic, she replied openly: 'If you, lords of the Church, had brought me to your own prisons and kept me there, perhaps things wouldn't be like this for me.'" A citizen of Rouen who visited Joan in prison, Pierre Cusquel, said, "people were declaring that there wasn't any other reason for her condemnation except the fact that she had put male clothing back on, and that she was only wearing this male clothing in order to obstruct the actions of the soldiers who were with her; and on one occasion while in her prison I asked her why she was wearing this male clothing, and she replied that way."

There was another dimension to this issue of cross-dressing in the final phase of the trial. The bailiff, Jean Massieu, recalled that the English soldiers guarding her made sure she had no other choice but to put the forbidden clothing back on, as they left her nothing else available: "When she had to get up out of bed... she had asked the Englishmen who were guarding her: 'Unfasten my chains, so I can get up'. And then one of these Englishmen removed the female clothes which she had, and they then emptied out the bag which contained the male clothing, and threw this clothing at her while ordering her, 'Get up'; and they then put the female clothes in this bag. And as she herself said, she then took the male clothing they had given to her, while saying, 'Gentlemen, you know this isn't allowed for me; without fail, I won't accept it.' But they wouldn't give her anything else nonetheless, with the result that she persisted having this argument with them until noontime; and eventually she was forced by bodily necessity to leave the cell and therefore to wear this clothing. After coming back, they still refused to give her anything else no matter what type of plea she might make."

Cauchon declared that she had reverted back into cross-dressing, and this was used as the rationale for handing down the death penalty. Two days later, Joan of Arc was executed by burning in the Old Marketplace at Rouen on 30 May 1431, wearing a long white dress. Her garments at the moment of death perhaps provided a final irony for the cross-dressing charge against her.

But this was not the end of the story. As the war drew to a close in the late 1440s and early 1450s, Joan's family, especially her mother Isabelle, pushed for an investigation and retrial of the case. The first investigation occurred in 1450 shortly after the English lost control of Rouen, which allowed for an examination of the documents and questioning of the eyewitnesses. Another investigation occurred in May of 1452, this time overseen by the chief inquisitor. Finally, an official appeal of the case began on 7 November 1455. 115 witnesses were questioned during the following several months, giving us detailed accounts of the trial and many other stages of Joan of Arc's life. A final verdict was read out on 7 July 1456, overturning her conviction.. The inquisitor who served as the primary judge ruled that Joan should not have been convicted for cross-dressing, since her motives were not sinful and her circumstances would justify it for practical reasons.

Theological issues on cross-dressing

The medieval Catholic Church's views on cross-dressing are clearly stated in many documents, and its doctrine on this point was nuanced and based upon context. Although cross-dressing was usually forbidden based on the Biblical prohibition, the medieval Catholic Church allowed exceptions in cases of dire need or other contexts in which the motive did not involve any sinful purposes, since the point of the normal prohibition was to prevent sin. A concise summary of the Church's doctrine on cross-dressing can be found in St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica" (section IIa-IIae, q. 169 a. 2 ad 3), which states : "it is sinful for a woman to use masculine clothing... Nonetheless, this may be done in some cases without sin on account of some necessary purpose, whether for the motive of hiding from adversaries, or because of a lack of any alternative clothes, or for some other reason of this nature" This principle is consistently stated in other medieval compilations of Catholic theology, such the "Summa" of Huguccio (Hugo of Pisa) written around 1187; and "Rosarium super Decreto" by Guido de Baysio written in the 13th century. The latter book gives the following statement on the matter: "If a woman has a respectable motive [for cross-dressing], for instance while travelling [i.e. through potentially dangerous territory], or in order to safeguard her virginity in other case in which there is reason for her to be in fear of having it taken away, or if there is some other practical need, then she would not be guilty of sin if she would utilize masculine clothing in order to avoid peril more easily or similarly do something that is respectable and reasonable." The 12th century book of visions called "Scivias" by St. Hildegard von Bingen also contains quotations which the Church accepted as Divine revelation on this subject: "A man should never put on feminine dress or a woman use male attire... Unless a man's life or a woman's chastity is in danger; in such an hour a man may change his dress for a woman's or a woman for a man's"

Based on all the above and other rulings in medieval Catholic theological sources, it should be clear that the Church viewed cross-dressing in a nuanced, contextual fashion, rather than prohibiting it in every case. This point was consciously ignored by the tribunal which had convicted Joan of Arc in 1431, but it became a crucial point when her case was reviewed during the appeal of her trial in 1455-1456.

15th century views on Joan of Arc

During the fifteenth century, both during Joan of Arc's own brief lifetime and in the decades following her death, opinions about her varied enormously, almost always based on whether the person supported the English and Burgundian faction or supported the Charles VII's faction (the Armagnacs).

The French Royal court and nobility were initially wary but came to support her due chiefly to two events. She was examined by theologians in the city of Poitiers at Charles VII's urging in order to determine whether she was trustworthy and orthodox. The clergy ruled that Charles VII could accept her aid, as "nothing disreputable about her as been found, but only virtue, humility, virginity, piety, decency, simplicity." The second event that changed minds was the lifting of the siege of Orleans while Joan was there, an event which she had predicted as part of her mission and also a symbol of her genuineness. Her arrival led to much affection and support amongst the population of Orleans and the soldiers fighting to defend it, and the victories won there as soon as she showed up gained her even more support. A merchant from Orleans named Jean Luillier said that as soon as she first entered the gates of Orleans, "she was greeted with as much joy and welcome by everyone of both sexes, both commoners and nobles, as if she had been an angel of God."

There was some initial skepticism from the commanders when she first arrived, but they quickly switched to supporting her. Some joked about a teenage girl taking part in a military campaign, and the commanders didn't tell her their plans unless she specifically asked. But the army soon became amazed at the manner in which their fortunes shifted suddenly beginning with their first battle after she arrived. They took the English fortification at St. Loup to the east of Orleans on May 4th, 1429, followed by several other fortresses in the next few days. Many of the troops became convinced that something supernatural was occurring because of her presence.

These events also garnered her more support from various clergymen. Jean Gerson, a noted theologian and candidate for sainthood due ot his reputation, defended Joan against the pro-English clergy who were already writing treatises criticizing her. Gerson's response, dated 14 May 1429, argues that she wasn't violating the Church's doctrine by wearing soldiers' clothing and armor, pointing out that cross-dressing for necessary practical reasons has never been condemned by Catholic theology. He directs a warning at her critics by exclaiming: "let the unfair talk come to an end and be silenced, because whenever God's power is underway... it is not safe to criticize or condemn, with rash presumption, matters which were orchestrated by God".

Jacques Gelu, the Archbishop of Embrun, likewise argued in Joan's favor in a treatise written in May of 1429. Gelu's treatise makes much the same points as Gerson's : if a woman needs to accompany an army she needs to wear clothing which is right for the situation. Responding to those who criticize her, he says that her case contains "nothing inconsistent with feminine propriety". He calls her "the angel of the Lord of Armies" and asks Charles VII to give her full support.

In September of 1429, Jean Dupuy, a member of the Papal Court and a former bishop and inquisitor, weighed in on the matter by defending her cross-dressing. He invokes Gerson's "three-fold truth" concerning the issue, and declares her situation to be "divine rather than human". He further expresses his admiration by stating that her example is "so great, so elevated, something never seen before, that nothing similar can be read of anywhere since the world's beginning".

The opposite faction, the English and Burgundians, usually had nothing good to say about her, perhaps not surprisingly. At Orleans, enemy soldiers shouted insults at her. When she tried to talk with them on 30 April 1429, they called her a "cow-girl" and threatened to burn her if they could capture her. When she sent them a message on 5 May 1429, they called her the "Armagnacs' whore", causing her to "weep copious tears, calling the King of Heaven to her aid", according to an eyewitness. Sir William Glasdale called her a "whore", either on that occasion or a different one. The English government accused her of defeating their troops through the use of black magic, causing many of their troops to desert the army out of fear. On 3 May 1430 and the following December 12th, the government issued decrees against "deserters terrified by the Maid's enchantments". The chief English commander, John of Lancaster (Duke of Bedford), continued this theme when he later explained English battlefield losses by blaming Joan as a "disciple and lyme [limb] of the Feende [Devil]". Some of them also claimed she was allegedly a prostitute or worked as a serving wench; but it could be noted that none of them claimed she was a lesbian or transgender, two claims which have only surfaced in modern times.

These polarized sets of opinions became the primary factor at her trial in 1431 and the later appeal conducted in 1455-1456 by a group of clergy appointed by Pope Calixtus III after Joan's mother filed a petition.

France was divided into "Armagnac" and "Burgundian" factions - supporters of Charles VII and the Duke of Burgundy, respectively - as well as between the French and English Royal families vying for the throne. The tribunal which put Joan of Arc on trial in 1431 was composed of clergymen who loyalties are well-established in English government records and other sources : they were all pro-English and pro-Burgundian. After the tribunal rendered its verdict and executed its prisoner, the English remained in control of the site of the trial (Rouen) until November of 1449, which prevented anyone else from investigating the trial's manner of conduct. This situation changed after Rouen changed hands : the first investigation into the trial occured two weeks after the English were expelled from Rouen. On 15 February 1450, Charles VII sent an order to a theologian named Guillaume Bouille to conduct an investigation into Joan's trial. Bouille questioned seven of the clergy who had served during the trial. The next step occurred in May 1452, when the chief inquisitor of France, Jean Brehal, conducted his own inquiry by questioning a larger number of the tribunal members. The surviving family members of Joan of Arc, her mother Isabelle and two of her brothers, formally asked the Church to go forward with an appellate trial designed to settle the matter once and for all, and (they hoped) to punish those who had been responsible for the trial. This appeals process began on 7 November 1455 with a speech by Joan's mother Isabelle, which included : "I had a daughter born in lawful wedlock, whom I had furnished worthily with the sacraments of baptism and confirmation and had reared in the fear of God and respect for the tradition of the Church, as far as her age and the simplicity of her condition allowed, in such sort that having grown up amid fields and pastures she was much in the church and received every month, after due confession, the sacrament of the Eucharist, [i.e. Communion] despite her youth, and gave herself up to fasts and orisons with great devotion and fervour... yet although she did never think, conceive or do anything whatever which set her out of the path of the faith, or spoke against it, certain enemies... had her arraigned in religious trial... and... despite her disclaimers and appeals, both tacit and expressed, and without any succour given to her innocence, in a trial perfidious, violent, iniquitous and without shadow of right... did they condemn her in a fashion damnable and criminal, and put her to death very cruelly by fire... for the damnation of their souls".

The trial in 1431 had condemned Joan based on a charge of cross-dressing. The accusation concerning transvestism ignored the circumstances she was in, deliberately dodging the medieval Church's full theology on the issue. The appellate trial examined all the important issues from the original trial, including the accusation of cross-dressing. The witnesses who testified during the course of the appeal emphasized the necessary reasons for her clothing, especially to protect herself against rape. Guillaume Manchon, who had previously been the main notary during the first trial, explained her motives by saying : "she said she had done it to safeguard her virginity, because she wasn't safe when wearing female clothes while in the company of her guards, who had attempted to rape her... [she also said] that if the lord judges would be willing to put her in a secure place where she wouldn't live in fear, she was ready to wear feminine clothing again".

Several other eyewitnesses - e.g., Friar Isambart de la Pierre, Friar Martin Ladvenu, and Pierre Cusquel - described the same reason for Joan's resumption of male clothing. An additional reason was described by Jean Massieu, Guillaume Colles and Pierre Daron, who said that Joan's English guards set a trap for her which forced her into this course of action. The bailiff Jean Massieu recalled, "when Joan was charged with relapsing, she said that while she was laying in her bed, her guards took away the feminine clothes from the bed which she was lying in, and they gave her back the masculine clothes. And despite the fact that she told the guards to give her back her feminine clothes so she could get out of her bed... they refused to return it to her, telling her that she wouldn't be given anything else except this masculine clothing."

The appellate trial ended with the original verdict being overturned. The chief inquisitor handed down the opinion that Joan's act of cross-dressing, under the circumstances, didn't merit condemnation and should not have been utilized as an excuse for executing her. Other theologians who were asked to give rulings during the investigation ruled in a like manner. They cited, among other theological sources, the Summa Theologica's section on cross-dressing.

There were also theological commentators after the appellate ruling. Several years after the appellate trial concluded, Pope Pius II devoted a section of one of his books to Joan's life, military campaigns, condemnation, and rehabilitation, using the testimony taken during the appellate investigations. His portrayal of her life is supportive. He mentions the issue of her clothing, saying that she didn't realize she was setting the stage for her own death by wearing soldiers' clothing.

Other cross-dressing saints

There were a number of Catholic saints who engaged in necessity-driven cross dressing and were described as such in medieval Catholic writings. Some of these saints were invoked during the appeal of Joan of Arc's case to argue that she had been justifiably operating within this accepted tradition. The appeals judge mentioned Saint Marina, Saint Pelagia, Saint Euphrosyne, Blessed Natalia, Blessed Eugenia, and Blessed Thecla. For example, he described how Blessed Natalia had dressed in male clothing to disguise herself in order to see her husband Saint Adrian and his comrades while they were held in prison. One of the other theologians consulted during the appeal, the Bishop of Périgueux (Élie de Bourdeilles), mentioned the Biblical Israelite woman Deborah, whom he assumed had worn armor while accompanying an Israelite army led by Barak. Teodoro Lelio (an ecclesiastic lawyer who also gave a ruling during the appeal) mentioned St. Marina (who disguised herself as a monk) and St. Eugenia as examples of saints who were accepted by the Church for doing much the same things that Joan of Arc did. Another theologian, the Bishop of Lisieux (Thomas Basin), cited the cases of St. Marina, St. Theodora, St. Margaret, and St. Euphrosyne. The Bishop of Le Mans, Martin Berruyer, listed the familiar cross-dressing saints - Saint Pelagia, Saint Marina, Blessed Thecla, Blessed Eugenia, and others, in addition to the prophetess Deborah from the Bible. Next up was the Bishop of Avranches, Jean Bochard, who gave as examples Saint Audoène, Saint Palagia, Saint Marina, Saint Euphrosyne, Blessed Thecla, Blessed Eugenia, Blessed Natalia and others. Guillaume Bouillé, a theology professor and Superior of the Cathedral of Noyon, mentions Blessed Natalia, Blessed Eugenia, Saint Marina, and Saint Euphrosyne. Robert Ciboule, a theology professor at the University of Paris and Chancellor of Notre Dame Cathedral at Paris, gives the example of Deborah.

In medieval Europe, there was a standard set of popular accounts of cross-dressing saints and beati going back in time to the early centuries of the Christian religion.

Cross-dressing as a disguise was a common trope in biographies of female saints written between the fifth and seventh centuries. One popular example was Saint Margaret, who was said to have disguised herself in male clothing in order to escape from an arranged marriage, making her escape on her wedding night. Another example of a saint who was popular among European commoners (especially women) from the eleventh century onward was Saint Uncumber (Wilgefortis), a princess from the Royal family of Portugal who was scheduled to be married to the pagan King of Sicily. Wishing to avoid such a fate, Uncumber prayed and asked God to be rescued, which was granted by supernatural disguise as a man. Since women were raised with these descriptions of cross-dressing saints who were acting out of need - as the Church allowed - some women followed suit in their own lives when trying to escape from a similar fate or some type of danger. Just as elsewhere around the globe in many societies throughout history, medieval Europe also had its share of legendary stories on the subject of cross-dressing and passing as the other sex. Sometimes these stories involve methods of determining the actual gender of the cross-dresser. There were relatively few of these for rooting out men who tried to pass as women, but a larger number of cases for the opposite situation. These varied from determining whether the person could spin wool (a task then only taught to women), or attempting to make use of the fact that men and women have differing leg and foot angles by scattering round peas on the ground so as to cause women - but allegedly not men - to lose their balance and fall. This pea technique is mentioned in fairy tales as well as the play "As You Like It" by Shakespeare. Some claimed that the method was first used by the Biblical King Solomon. The example of St. Margaret the Virgin took a familiar form: in order to escape an unwanted marriage, preferring to maintain her virginity instead, she escaped on her wedding night by disguising herself as a man and making her way to a monastery. Here she adopted the name Pelagius and passed herself as a monk. She was ironically charged with getting a local nun pregnant, despite the impossibility, and was expelled from the monastery. To maintain her disguise she continued to dress as a man until the end of her life, finally admitting her true gender only while dying. Blessed Thecla, according to the "Acts of Paul and Thecla" (a book classed within the sourced from the New Testament Apocrypha), was described as a disciple of the Apostle Paul (Saul) that she decided to leave the man she was engaged to and traveled with the Apostle Paul. During these travels, she sometimes was disguised as a man. This account was popular with the masses during this period, and spread widely throughout Europe. There were paintings of her and dedicatory items located from Spain to the western portions of the Middle-East.

Lesbian and transgender issues

Vita Sackville-West, a lesbian novelist, was perhaps the one who initiated the idea that Joan of Arc was a lesbian, although Sackville-West only made vague allusions to that effect rather than stating it outright in her book "St. Joan of Arc". This book brings up the issue of Joan occasionally being put by her hosts in a bed with "young girls" or sometimes several people (as was common in the middle ages, as a means of dealing with a frequent shortage of beds by placing guests in the same bed with other people of the same gender, often children and/or the host or hostess). Somewhat oddly, Sackville-West herself alludes to the fact that this was the common medieval practice : she says (in chapter VI) that Joan's periodic sleepovers with a little girl named Hauviette (who was "three or four years" younger than Joan and therefore under the age of twelve when Joan still lived in their village) was "a common custom, especially between girls who had made their first communion together". But she then proceeds to quote the Latin version of Hauviette's deposition, using the medieval Latin phrase "jacuit amorose" which Sackville-West alleges is "curious" but without giving any reason for this claim. If she's implying that the medieval Latin adverb "amorose" meant the same thing as the modern English word "amorous", then that is false because "amorose" meant "tenderly", without any implication of romantic or sexual activity. Innuendo is not evidence, and the book presents no evidence to back up the innuendo. Additionally, the lesbian theory would require us to believe that Hauviette was describing her own lesbian activity to an inquisitorial court in front of her friends and fellow villagers, and without even being asked about such a subject (she had merely been asked to recall her general memories about Joan of Arc). This is a very unlikely scenario which would require solid proof to establish, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A misinterpretation of a Latin adverb is not solid proof : it's merely a misinterpretation of a Latin word. The book also brings up the fact that Joan of Arc was sometimes placed in bed with other little girls such as a nine year old girl named Charlotte Boucher, as well as others, sometimes with their mothers or hostesses, as was the common practice in that era. But the same eyewitnesses who describe these incidents also specifically state that Joan of Arc was virginal and chaste rather than sexually active, which means that they couldn't possibly be describing lesbian sex while simultaneously stating specifically that she didn't have sex at all. For example, this was the situation with Marguerite la Touroulde : although Sackville-West alleges that Joan had slept with Marguerite La Touroulde "on terms of considerable intimacy", nonetheless Marguerite la Touroulde herself said that Joan "was a virgin". Sackville-West doesn't explain what she meant by "intimacy", but if she was implying sex acts then that would not be justified by the evidence, in fact the evidence soundly contradicts such a claim. In all these cases in fact, an interpretation of lesbian sex would be unjustified unless one believes that these eyewitnesses were contradicting themselves in the same breath. There is also another issue : most of her bunkmates were pre-adolescent children, which raises the question of whether Sackville-West and her followers are alleging that Joan was engaging in pedophilia. Professor Bonnie Wheeler (founder of the International Joan of Arc Society) commented that Sackville-West's book is "dead wrong".

Susan Crane also alleged Joan was a lesbian but for different reasons, alleging that cross-dressing would prove a lesbian sexual identity, claiming: "Isolating transvestism from sexual identity risks assuming both that heterosexuality is the only possible position for Joan and that self-presentation has nothing to do with sexuality". The reasons given by the eyewitness accounts for Joan of Arc's cross-dressing have already been covered farther above (i.e. her use of soldier's clothing to protect herself against attempted rape rather than as an expression of a lesbian identity). There is also another dimension to Crane's view : many people have objected to stereotyping women who dress in traditionally male outfits, as there are numerous women in modern militaries who wear uniforms that are traditionally considered masculine but most of them do not consider themselves lesbians.

Other authors have made related claims about transgender issues. Marina Warner alleged that Joan's cross-dressing caused her to "occupy a different, third order, neither male nor female". In like manner, Leslie Feinberg alleged that cross-dressing indicates that Joan was transgender. These claims can be opposed using much the same arguments as in the above arguments against a lesbian interpretation : the eyewitness accounts contradict these claims, and women who wear masculine outfits usually do not identify as transgender.

Olivier Bouzy has alleged that even pro-Armagnac clerics opposed Joan because of cross-dressing, rather than this issue being merely used by pro-English clergy at her trial. His argument is based on his claim that a letter by Jacques Gelu (Archbishop of Embrun) in May of 1429 "has hardly ever been consulted by historians", and that this letter allegedly "shows that in 1429, even the prelates who supported Charles VII were reluctant to accept a young girl dressed as a man." But this is not what Jacques Gelu wrote, as Deborah Fraioli pointed out in her book "Joan of Arc: The Early Debate". The excerpts from Gelu's letter contained in this book give a number of arguments defending Joan on the cross-dressing issue. Fraioli summarizes the archbishop's arguments as follows: the requirements of a military campaign mean that she must dress the part, in order to "subdue the rebels, expel the enemies, and restore the king to his dominion." He also stated that she never transgressed the Church's rules because she didn't violate the intention behind the rules, as the intention was to prevent sin whereas Joan was acting out of a practical need and therefore wasn't committing a sin. Bouzy's argument seems to sidestep these major points in Gelu's letter, passing them over in order to claim something that is the reverse of the letter's conclusions.

Another alternative idea, this time on the issue of transgenderism, is Steven Weiskopf's allegation that Joan was androgynous, based on the fact that the executioner was ordered to reveal her burned body to the crowd watching the execution after she had died. Weiskopf claims that this action was to convince people that Joan was a woman, allegedly because people weren't sure of that fact. This view is based loosely on a single ambiguous description by an anonymous pro-English 15th century author who says that her body was exposed to the crown but doesn't say why. Weiskopf asks 'What "doubt" haunts the crowd in the Bourgeois's description?' and goes on to offer the view of Anne Barstow who thought the "doubt" was due to the population's questions over Joan's gender. But a more precise description, and a reason for the action, is given by an actual eyewitness to the execution, Jean Riquier, who says that the English told the executioner to display Joan's dead body so that the people could see that she was truly dead, following the standard procedure when anyone was executed in that era; for example, after any beheading the executioner always hoisted the bloody head so that the spectators could see that the head had in fact been cut off. The entire point of a public execution was to prove to the public that a criminal or enemy of the State had been finally eliminated, and in an era before television cameras, the only way to prove the matter was to make a display of the dead body so that even the more distant onlookers in the crowd could see for themselves that the person was genuinely dead. Jean Riquier described the matter as follows: "And after she was dead, they [English commanders] ordered the executioner to rake back the fire a bit so that the people present could see that she was dead, so that no one could say she had escaped [death], as the English were afraid it would be said that she had escaped".

Although there are obviously other alternative viewpoints, the above are some of the more common.