3 ms·

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 the

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

> 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 .