yeah i think Feinberg (writing mainly in the 90s) often uses the term “transgender” to describe “someone that has an unorthodox gender presentation” rather than “someone that identifies as a different gender than their birth assignment”.

nowadays we’d probably use the term “gender non-conforming” to discuss drag queens or butch lesbians or Joan of Arc, but we wouldn’t necessarily consider them trans

So Lesile Feinberg mentions through out the book that the history of transgender people has been greatly undermined by historians looking into the past and having their biases paint what they see. Joan of Arc crossing dressing is seen largely as a one off thing but in reality was a big part of their being. The ruling class saw a threat because Joan of Arc came from a very poor background. Lesile Feinberg mentions that a lot of like cultural imperialism swept into France, among other places, and displaced a lot of older religions for this new patriarchal one. But these older religions still persisted among the poor and because of Joan of Arc status as most likely ftm many poorer people saw Joan of Arc with power labeling them the second most important saint.

When captured by the british, France could have paid a ransom but choose not to and the church saw fit to try crushing Joan of Arc in order to cement their power. Joan of Arc at the time couldn't be killed for just cross dressing but was forced to sign a document saying no more cross dressing but the rub was Joan of Arc was illiterate. Joan of Arc was burned for going back on their word. Lesile Feinberg comes to this conclusion by looking into the trial of Joan of Arc and knowing the power play the church was up to.

This is what more or less Lesile Feinberg posits hopefully I didn't get anything wrong. I high recommend reading it and hopefully if I got any thing work more diligent comrades here can correct me.