>itt: people not knowing history
No, there were no female Knights. The confusion comes from the fact that there were orders of women, such as the Order of the hatchet, that supported female warriors and were endorsed by the Church.
Talking about "historical accuracy" in an Arthurian context is idiotic. We can talk about lore accuracy, but then we'd have to agree to which version. French? English? Welsh? Do we say that he was a Roman? Celtic? But we mostly talk about Mallory' so...
To address the anon who said historically lesbians were not accepted... Not true. Across history, across the world, there are NUMEROUS cultures and civilizations that accepted or to some extent venerated them. Egyptians have numerous examples of this. Not as heavily recorded as male homosexuality though. Certain Semetic tribes had lesbian priestesses. The Code of Hammurabi mentions women marrying women, but were not allowed to have kids. Or transgender. They were accepted in Mesopotamia (referred to as women-men), Japan (Wakashu, it's complicated), Bugis (they have words for MtF, FtM, both genders, gender fluid, and nogender, and psychology accepts these five, and everything else is just idiotic and made up for the internet). But there were those who didn't accept them. India has a history of prosecuting trans and gay people. Greece and Rome, depending on the era, didn't consider sex that didn't involve a pennis as sex. Point is, history is complicated. But I'm going to assume you meant Medieval Europe. In which case... Well again actually complicated. Much like the Greeks, women were SOMETIMES not considered to be CAPABLE of sex with another, since no penis was involved, and in other times and areas had to do penance for three years. Very few homosexuals were executed for it.
As for Jewish Knights. No of course there weren't. Knights were exclusively CHRISTIAN. It was religious. Though there WERE Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity that were Knights, even Templars.
