John Haywood: Difference between revisions
imported>Armorica Online m (Added category) |
imported>Armorica Online m (Minor grammar fixes) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''John Haywood''' (around 1755 – unknown) was a (generally) masculine-presenting, possibly [[genderfluid]], [[Sexes|assigned female at birth]] person who was sued in the Birmingham Court of Requests in 1787. Haywood is described as having dressed and spoken in | '''John Haywood''' (around 1755 – unknown) was a (generally) masculine-presenting, possibly [[genderfluid]], [[Sexes|assigned female at birth]] person who was sued in the Birmingham Court of Requests in 1787. Haywood is described as having dressed and spoken in masculine ways for many years, also having regularly partaken in activities with male friends of theirs. | ||
Being accused of illegal female-female romantic relations, Haywood was sued in 1787. During the four day trial, there was an initial focus to "prove" that they were both female, and that they had been romantically involved with a woman. However, with Haywood claiming that they were, in fact, a woman, and that they were still married to their husband, some began to suspect that Haywood was actually a man in disguise instead. | Being accused of illegal female-female romantic relations, Haywood was sued in 1787. During the four day trial, there was an initial focus to "prove" that they were both female, and that they had been romantically involved with a woman. However, with Haywood claiming that they were, in fact, a woman, and that they were still married to their husband, some began to suspect that Haywood was actually a man in disguise instead. | ||
Due to a lack of evidence to support anyone's claims, Haywood | Due to a lack of evidence to support anyone's claims, Haywood ended up only being served with a fine. However, they were unable to pay this, and were sent to prison for the debt. After two days in prison, a man from Shropshire stepped forward, claiming to be Haywood's husband. This claim was accepted by the authorities and Haywood was released shortly thereafter. | ||
It is known for certain that Haywood was a woman at some point(s) earlier in their life, and a man at some point(s) later. | It is known for certain that Haywood was a woman at some point(s) earlier in their life, and a man at some point(s) later. Because of the possibility fluidity of their gender identity and expression, Haywood may have been genderfluid, sometimes presenting themself as male, and at other times female. This is not a certainty however, since Haywood presenting themself in court as female may have been to support that they were in fact still married, and hence could not have had a female mistress. Also, social expectations may have limited their willingness to present themself in a masculine way in court when trying to defend that they were female at birth. | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||