5 ms·

Gender activists push to bar anthropologists from identifying humans by gender

15 points by notlukesky 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bakuninsbart 4y ago
> Weiss said the recent explosion in the number of people identifying as transgender suggests that trend is “social and not biological,” so “retroactively de-sexing obscures this obvious fact.” That's such an incredibly weak argument. The reason the number of left-handed people exploded in the 50s and 60s was indeed "social", in that a reduction in discrimination leading to more people publicly admitting to their natural state. - And "desexing" obviously doesn't seem to be the goal either, as the biological sex seems to be usually identifiable. Gender identity and its social context is indeed something that shifts across time and culture, so just applying our modern standards to hunter gatherers 8000 years ago is simply bad science.
- eesmith 4y ago
  > Gender identity and its social context is indeed something that shifts across time and culture, so just applying our modern standards to hunter gatherers 8000 years ago is simply bad science. Isn't that the point? Some cultures recognize three genders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender), some five (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society), and no doubt others. We don't know what hunter gatherers 8000 years used but that first Wikipedia link points out that 4,000 years ago Egyptians used three genders ("tai (male), sḫt ("sekhet") and hmt (female). Sḫt is often translated as "eunuch", although there is little evidence that such individuals were castrated."), so it's not like the concept of a non-binary gender is a new concept. The modern archeological standard assigns only two genders, right? We know isn't accurate because as the stigma against a non-binary gender has decreased, and recognition of non-binary genders increases, more people are "publicly admitting to their natural state", which doesn't align to a two-gender system based on bone structure. The point seems to be that applying that modern binary standard "to hunter gatherers 8000 years ago is simply bad science." You wrote "the biological sex seems to be usually identifiable." The devil is in the details. - What is "biological sex"? We know some people are intersex - what biological sex are they? - How many people are mis-identified? How much does that mis-identification affect our historical interpretation? Weiss pointed out how "robust female skeletons" were mis-interpreted as male, which "reinforced false stereotypes that females were not as hard working as males." - The goal seems to be to assign skeletons as "male" or "female." If someone in Bugis society is intersex, living as "bissu" (one of the five genders), and 400 years later that person's skeleton is assigned "male" ... isn't that de-sexing?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    At the end of the day, humans roughly fall into the sexual binary of either male or female. If gender is separate from sex, which seems to be the consensus these days, we can still identify a skeleton as "most likely" a male sex or female sex skeleton, while the gender is essentially unknowable because gender seems to be a neurological characteristic not a physical one. Yes, some people are intersex, and that is a physical characteristic, but also likely unknowable from a skeleton. So what's the problem? Are we seriously worried about mis-gendering a skeleton? Are we worried about saying "this skeleton is most likely male sex with a small margin of error that implies it could be intersex or even potentially female"? We are talking about long dead skeletons here right?
    - eesmith 4y ago
      > If gender is separate from sex, which seems to be the consensus these days, we can still identify a skeleton as "most likely" a male sex or female sex skeleton, Yes, you appear to agree with Palladino (who the article describes as a "gender activist") wrote at the linked-to thread, at https://web.archive.org/web/20220705135223/https://twitter.com/emmapalladino/status/1543800316352667648 https://web.archive.org/web/20220705135223/https://twitter.c... : ] While a bioarchaeologist might identify a set of remains as "probably female", it is understood that the gender of an individual is never necessarily the same as their sex, and that gender is a whole spectrum we've barely begun to unpack. > while the gender is essentially unknowable because gender seems to be a neurological characteristic not a physical one. Archeological evidence has more evidence than skeletons. The article quotes the Trans Doe Task Force (which concerns modern forensics rather than archeological) , which mentions how contextual clues like wearing clothing coded to another gender may be an indicator of that characteristic. > So what's the problem? The problem appears to be that the author of this piece is viewing the argument through a conservative gender-binary lens - the publisher is 'an American conservative news website ... designed to recruit "young conservatives for careers in the news media by placing college students in internships with right-leaning publications." says Wikipedia - and doesn't realize that none of the "gender activists" mentioned appear to want to "bar anthropologists from identifying human remains as ‘male’ or ‘female’". At least, I couldn't find any support for that conclusion among the linked-to sources. I think we're being played by someone who wants to push buttons that activate conservative outrage. > We are talking about long dead skeletons here right? That doesn't make it insignificant. See long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man .
eesmith 4y ago
> It is possible to determine whether a skeleton is from a biological male or female using objective observations based on the size and shape of the bones. That's not true. There is a probability assignment to pre-established categories. See "A review of sex estimation techniques during examination of skeletal remains in forensic anthropology casework" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073816300202 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907381... ] Accuracy of sexing of unknown skeletal remains depends on the element present for analysis and its preservation state ... A minimum threshold of 95% representing the optimum level of sex estimation accuracy and reliability is acceptable in forensic setting ... While the accuracy ranges from 85 to 95% in traditional osteometric methods for sex estimation [54], [61], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], the accuracy in the tunes of 96% has been reported using virtual morphognostic sexing methods Nor would we expect 100% accurate assignments of people to "biological male or female" because there are many examples which show that a strict binary classification does not have a scientific basis.
- FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
  > A: It is possible to determine whether a skeleton is from a biological male or female using objective observations based on the size and shape of the bones. > B: That's not true. There is a probability assignment to pre-established categories. This is how literally everything works. "Officer, the 'red-light, green-light' binary is simply false, because estimation errors make the state of the light unknowable!" It's just sophism.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Your "B" summary left out how I then pointed to a paper giving an overview of those accuracy numbers, across a range of methods. What's the error rate in telling if a traffic light is red or green? My own experience says it's very low. Even for people who are color-blind (due to the standardized orientation of the lights, and choice of a blueish-green that's easier for red-green colorblind people to recognize). What's the error rate in assigning gender based on skeletal remains using the approach mentioned in the article? That appears to be 5-15% -- high enough that the article should have used a qualifier like "It is usually possible" or "It is often possible". Even the 5% error rate "acceptable in forensic setting" is far higher than the error rate in your traffic light example.

15 points by notlukesky 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

> Weiss said the recent explosion in the number of people identifying as transgender suggests that trend is “social and not biological,” so “retroactively de-sexing obscures this obvious fact.” That's such an incredibly weak argument. The reason the number of left-handed people exploded in the 50s and 60s was indeed "social", in that a reduction in discrimination leading to more people publicly admitting to their natural state. - And "desexing" obviously doesn't seem to be the goal either, as the biological sex seems to be usually identifiable. Gender identity and its social context is indeed something that shifts across time and culture, so just applying our modern standards to hunter gatherers 8000 years ago is simply bad science.

eesmith 4y ago
> Gender identity and its social context is indeed something that shifts across time and culture, so just applying our modern standards to hunter gatherers 8000 years ago is simply bad science. Isn't that the point? Some cultures recognize three genders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender), some five (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society), and no doubt others. We don't know what hunter gatherers 8000 years used but that first Wikipedia link points out that 4,000 years ago Egyptians used three genders ("tai (male), sḫt ("sekhet") and hmt (female). Sḫt is often translated as "eunuch", although there is little evidence that such individuals were castrated."), so it's not like the concept of a non-binary gender is a new concept. The modern archeological standard assigns only two genders, right? We know isn't accurate because as the stigma against a non-binary gender has decreased, and recognition of non-binary genders increases, more people are "publicly admitting to their natural state", which doesn't align to a two-gender system based on bone structure. The point seems to be that applying that modern binary standard "to hunter gatherers 8000 years ago is simply bad science." You wrote "the biological sex seems to be usually identifiable." The devil is in the details. - What is "biological sex"? We know some people are intersex - what biological sex are they? - How many people are mis-identified? How much does that mis-identification affect our historical interpretation? Weiss pointed out how "robust female skeletons" were mis-interpreted as male, which "reinforced false stereotypes that females were not as hard working as males." - The goal seems to be to assign skeletons as "male" or "female." If someone in Bugis society is intersex, living as "bissu" (one of the five genders), and 400 years later that person's skeleton is assigned "male" ... isn't that de-sexing?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bluefirebrand 4y ago
  At the end of the day, humans roughly fall into the sexual binary of either male or female. If gender is separate from sex, which seems to be the consensus these days, we can still identify a skeleton as "most likely" a male sex or female sex skeleton, while the gender is essentially unknowable because gender seems to be a neurological characteristic not a physical one. Yes, some people are intersex, and that is a physical characteristic, but also likely unknowable from a skeleton. So what's the problem? Are we seriously worried about mis-gendering a skeleton? Are we worried about saying "this skeleton is most likely male sex with a small margin of error that implies it could be intersex or even potentially female"? We are talking about long dead skeletons here right?
  - eesmith 4y ago
    > If gender is separate from sex, which seems to be the consensus these days, we can still identify a skeleton as "most likely" a male sex or female sex skeleton, Yes, you appear to agree with Palladino (who the article describes as a "gender activist") wrote at the linked-to thread, at https://web.archive.org/web/20220705135223/https://twitter.com/emmapalladino/status/1543800316352667648 https://web.archive.org/web/20220705135223/https://twitter.c... : ] While a bioarchaeologist might identify a set of remains as "probably female", it is understood that the gender of an individual is never necessarily the same as their sex, and that gender is a whole spectrum we've barely begun to unpack. > while the gender is essentially unknowable because gender seems to be a neurological characteristic not a physical one. Archeological evidence has more evidence than skeletons. The article quotes the Trans Doe Task Force (which concerns modern forensics rather than archeological) , which mentions how contextual clues like wearing clothing coded to another gender may be an indicator of that characteristic. > So what's the problem? The problem appears to be that the author of this piece is viewing the argument through a conservative gender-binary lens - the publisher is 'an American conservative news website ... designed to recruit "young conservatives for careers in the news media by placing college students in internships with right-leaning publications." says Wikipedia - and doesn't realize that none of the "gender activists" mentioned appear to want to "bar anthropologists from identifying human remains as ‘male’ or ‘female’". At least, I couldn't find any support for that conclusion among the linked-to sources. I think we're being played by someone who wants to push buttons that activate conservative outrage. > We are talking about long dead skeletons here right? That doesn't make it insignificant. See long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man .

eesmith 4y ago

> It is possible to determine whether a skeleton is from a biological male or female using objective observations based on the size and shape of the bones. That's not true. There is a probability assignment to pre-established categories. See "A review of sex estimation techniques during examination of skeletal remains in forensic anthropology casework" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073816300202 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037907381... ] Accuracy of sexing of unknown skeletal remains depends on the element present for analysis and its preservation state ... A minimum threshold of 95% representing the optimum level of sex estimation accuracy and reliability is acceptable in forensic setting ... While the accuracy ranges from 85 to 95% in traditional osteometric methods for sex estimation [54], [61], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], the accuracy in the tunes of 96% has been reported using virtual morphognostic sexing methods Nor would we expect 100% accurate assignments of people to "biological male or female" because there are many examples which show that a strict binary classification does not have a scientific basis.

FooBarBizBazz 4y ago
> A: It is possible to determine whether a skeleton is from a biological male or female using objective observations based on the size and shape of the bones. > B: That's not true. There is a probability assignment to pre-established categories. This is how literally everything works. "Officer, the 'red-light, green-light' binary is simply false, because estimation errors make the state of the light unknowable!" It's just sophism.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Your "B" summary left out how I then pointed to a paper giving an overview of those accuracy numbers, across a range of methods. What's the error rate in telling if a traffic light is red or green? My own experience says it's very low. Even for people who are color-blind (due to the standardized orientation of the lights, and choice of a blueish-green that's easier for red-green colorblind people to recognize). What's the error rate in assigning gender based on skeletal remains using the approach mentioned in the article? That appears to be 5-15% -- high enough that the article should have used a qualifier like "It is usually possible" or "It is often possible". Even the 5% error rate "acceptable in forensic setting" is far higher than the error rate in your traffic light example.