6

10 comments

[–] ProxyMusic 6 points Edited

for most of human history, menarche (age of first period) didn't happen til around age 16-17, with first birth around 19.

I believe this about the age of first birth, but not about the age of menarche. I've looked into the age of menarche cross-culturally and in history too, and I think this professor of anthropology is way off about normal age of menarche historically and in more recent times.

Normal age of menarche is anywhere from 8/9 to 15; most girls get their first periods from 11-13 - but some much earlier, some later. This has been the case for a long time. The youngest girl known to have given birth in the 20th century was 5 at the time she became pregnant still 5 when she gave birth.

The professor's mistake seems to be that she's viewing menarche as a sign that a girl is now fully and optimally ready to conceive, gestate and give birth to a baby. When it's not. Menarche simply means a girl's ovaries have matured to the point where ovulation can and does/will start occurring on a regular basis, and her uterus has developed to the point where it can build up and slough off the extra lining that one day would be needed for implantation of a blastocyst if conception occurs.

Although this professor might know anthropology, she doesn't seem to know about how human females develop in our tweens and teens, nor about all the processes that female bodies have to become capable of carrying out before a girl/woman reaches the point in physical development where she is ready to bear children.

Menarche is an important milestone in female puberty - but it's not the only marker or kind of physical development that girls have to go through during and after puberty of adolescence in order to become equipped with the capacity for healthy, safe childbearing - meaning healthy and safe for both mother and child.

There are other many other bodily changes that need to occur - such as growth of the skeleton and bones to adult size, increase in bone density, changes in the shape and width of the pelvis, the ligaments and connective tissues "learning" to become lax in response to changing female hormones - before a female human is capable of growing a healthy fetus to term, going through labor and giving birth to a fully-developed baby.

Because human female health and development are very poorly researched and understood, there are probably numerous other as-yet-undiscovered developmental changes that human female bodies and organs go through over the course of puberty of adolescence to put us in physical condition where we're ready and able to grow and birth children. Such as changes to the uterus that will allow it to expand to full size and to create the contractions involved in human labor, and changes to the kidneys that will allow them to take on the extra burdens that human pregnancy entails.

Isn't the thinking that in agrarian societies the age of menarche is lower while in hunter gatherers it's usually later? And that puberty seems to be earlier these days compared with the past?

Well you have to reach a certain body fat percentage in order to menstruate. Typically poor girls and girls who had less food would start their period at 16 or 17. Richer girls with more access to food would start at 12 or 13 like today.

I mean, duh, of course when you frame it like that, it's uncommon: 0% of boys menstruate. 0% of boys have ever menstruated. "Period."

But the gist of the thread is to point out that even if 10-year-old girls were capable of getting pregnant thousands of years ago, it doesn't make sexual abuse of children morally acceptable. Which is of course true. That being said, she shoots down her own argument when she insists that saying "pregnant people" is valid because "people" encompasses "children." So why not just say "pregnant girls"? Because (of course) we can't have the "erasure of trans people" getting in the way of combating child rape. Literally nothing is allowed to take precedence over boo-hoo twanz fee-fees. Presumably she doesn't want to hear safeguarding arguments about how gender bullshit in and of itself is sexualized child abuse. How many mastectomies were performed in the medieval era on developing girls to "make them into boys"? Perhaps she could weigh in on the castrati of yore -- was that barbaric or nah?

Her bio is fun. Drug rave and mushroom mom who wants to "organize, decolonize and abolish billionaires." Argues downthread that rape is a byproduct of capitalism, which is inherently racist and colonialist and needs to be "deconstructed." In other words sexual abuse of kids wasn't a thing until white people came along and took all the bad acid or something.

To deconstruct CSA is to condone it, I think is her ass backwards argument, but she probably doesn't think she's doing that. It's the latest woke noble savage trope. Everything was idyllic and perfect. It totally silences the abuse non-white children faced and face by people pf their own ethnic backgrounds. It's sick.

Breast ironing, FGM, circumcision. Honestly I'm surprised the wokeists haven't condemned the child gender-butchers of the West for cultural appropriation. But then, the wokeists seem to have adopted a sort of moral relativism when it comes to those activities too, even going so far as to excoriate someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who endured it in her native Somalia as being a hateful scold and even a "white supremacist" because she condemned not only the men in her own country who did that, but the white wokeists who tolerated it under a misguided approach to "combating prejudice."

[–] Carrots90 2 points Edited

I take it as she is excusing puberty blockers.

“Kids aren’t supposed to hit puberty until 19 anyway” or whatever

I don’t think she gives a poop about csa

I'm seeing a lot more of this language come up, not just this prof but other writings. "Pregnant child." So a girl is not old enough to consent to pregnancy but is old enough to consent to surgical mutilation or heavy-duty medication because she "feels" "like a boy" (or "feels" she would rather be, so as to escape exploitative sexualization). Only to get out of the frying pan and into the fire because she's just being roped into a different kind of exploitative sexualization.

There are no "trans kids."

[–] ProxyMusic 0 points Edited

She undermines her own reasoning, though. If it really wasn't normal and customary for kids to hit puberty until their late teens, then why do "trans kids" need to be put on "puberty blockers" at 10 or 11 - and cross-sex hormones so early too?

Or is she of the view that "trans kids" are unusually precocious in the same way they're supposed to be preternaturally wise, enlightened and even divine?