50

25 comments

[+] [Deleted] 23 points

What part of this is supposed to be the gotcha? The fact that when you have incredibly scant remains left that show some ambiguity, you will at times need to make an educated guess based on what's there in no way negates that the living person those remains belonged to had an essential, biological, immutable sex...or that said person's life was shaped dramatically by how gender roles were applied based on that sex. Just like if human remains are too degraded to extract DNA, it doesn't mean the living person didn't have genes.

Hehe, forensic investigators are sometimes at a loss to determine whether a murder occurred, this proves that murder isn’t a binary state of affairs :)

[–] BlackCirce enby jinping 39 points

That just makes archeologists look stupid and calls into question assumptions made about women’s roles and activities in ancient cultures based on archaeological evidence.

Pelvic bones are usually different shapes between males and females. Width is only part of what goes into determining sex. There are always going to be ambiguities out there, but thanks for reducing all of archaeology to "lol we got no clue duh look at comb".

Exactly. And the technology is only going to get better from here.

I'm currently watching Bones again and if a tv show from the early 2000s shows how the sex of a person can be determined from things like a skull alone, these archaeologists of the 2020s better step up their game.

(Yes I know a tv show is not a reliable source of scientific information)

[–] SakuraBlossoms transheight 7'3" 4 points Edited

If sex isn't biological and immutable, why is she acting like archeologists can get the sex wrong? Her premise admits that the person had an objective sex; just that long into the future, there is the (slim) potential for an archeologist to incorrectly surmise what that objective sex was.

To my understanding it's virtually impossible for archeologists to determine the exact age a person died from their skeleton alone. This doesn't mean the person wasn't that age. And yes, archeologists probably would use context clues to help pinpoint the person's age, even though they could potentially be misleading.

I think she's really optimistic if she thinks humanity will survive for another 1000 years.

[–] BlackCirce enby jinping 13 points

The highly evolved cockroach archaeologists will see the hello kitty necklace and say “yep this one’s an AGP”

Image Transcription


Florence of Northumbria, @ FlorenceHRScott

TERFs: Sex is essential, biological and immutable

Archaeologists: We tried to sex the skeleton by measuring the pelvis but that isn't surefire so we did some isotopic analysis and the results were inconclusive, anyway it was buried with a comb so it's probably a girl skeleton :)

Image Transcription


Florence of Northumbria, @ FlorenceHRScott

TERFs: Sex is essential, biological and immutable

Archaeologists: We tried to sex the skeleton by measuring the pelvis but that isn't surefire so we did some isotopic analysis and the results were inconclusive, anyway it was buried with a comb so it's probably a girl skeleton :)

Florence of Northumbria, @ FlorenceHRScott

fun fact, isotopic analysis for sex only determines the amount of copper and iron in bone which only *tends to* correlate with pelvis size, which in itself is not an exact determiner of sex. Sorry but in 1000 years your sex will probably be determined by your hello kitty necklace

Load more (5 comments)