[–] 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.

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 :)

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.

[+] [Deleted] 23 points

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”

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)

Giving the sex of children before puberty is very, very hard, if not impossible, if you do not already, independently, know the age of the person at death.

The failure to recognize this was actually important in the long, long delay in identifying two of the Santa Rosa Hitchiker murderer's victims. Found in 1979 about 6 months after death, their skeletal remains were identified in 1979 and again 1980 as probably belonging to a young female and young male. That skewed the whole investigation for decades. The first reconstructions of their faces, in 2011, were of a boy and a girl. It was only through the insistence of a relation of one of the two girls, Kerry Graham's sister Kelly, that in 2015 Kerry and her friend Francine Trimble were identified. As so often happens, Kelly had contacted police to tell them she recognized a very unusual ear-ring found on one of the bodies in 1979 and had been given the brush-off because they were convinced a boy and a girl had been murdered.

Q angle pelvis size pelvis angle pelvic outlet size of the skull the jaw the teeth the shoulders the density of the bones the length of the femurs and arms and the fact you can tell if someone's had a child by their bones. They just ignore it all in this person's fantasy world.

[–] 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.

Load more (5 comments)