3 ms·

I had thought not even skeletons were binary. US revolutionary war general Casimir Pulaski seems to have left behind a non-binary skeleton: https://en.wikiped

I had thought not even skeletons were binary. US revolutionary war general Casimir Pulaski seems to have left behind a non-binary skeleton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski#Exhumation_and_analysis_of_remains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski#Exhumation_and... A later study funded by the Smithsonian Institution, the results of which were released in 2019, concluded from the mitochondrial DNA of his grandniece, known injuries, and physical characteristics, that the skeleton was likely Pulaski's.[57] The skeleton has a number of typically female features, which has led to the hypothesis that Pulaski may have been female or intersex.[58][59][60] A documentary based on the Smithsonian study suggests that Pulaski's hypothesized intersex condition could have been caused by congenital adrenal hyperplasia, where a fetus with female chromosomes is exposed to a high level of testosterone in utero and develops partially male genitals. This analysis was based on the skeleton's female pelvis, facial structure and jaw angle, in combination with the fact that Pulaski identified as and lived as male.[55][61]

wongarsu 3y ago
Human hermaphrodites/intersex people have definitely existed throughout history [1][2]. They are very rare, modern estimates put them at somewhere around 0.02%–0.05% of all births. So for any random skeleton it's probably safe to assume it isn't intersex, but analyze enough and you will find a couple that are. Just the normal variation of humans is also an issue. For almost any characteristic, the bell curve of typical male features overlaps with the bell curve of typical female features. There are some anatomical features that are very distinct like the shape of the pelvis, but if you don't have a complete skeleton you might mistake a tall strong woman for a man or the other way around. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Use_regarding_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Use_regarding_hu... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#History
- fanf2 3y ago
  The shape of the pelvis depends more on whether it has been through childbirth than on the sex of its owner.
- cherry_tree 3y ago
  Any source for 0.02-0.05% ? I’ve heard various numbers
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    Wikipedia, which quotes it from a paper from 2017 [1], which in turn takes the number from a paper from 2007. Though taking a quick peek at some papers on specific forms of intersex, it seems like there are both large uncertainties in the actual numbers (about a factor of 2) and large regional differences (a specific form of intersex being an order of magnitude more common in one country than in another seems to be common). Though maybe that's just down to the available data. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/
SenAnder 3y ago
To re-state: "in the vast majority of cases, binary enough" Yes, there are always exceptions. Some people have six fingers or two heads. That is not license to pretend that, given a human skeleton, we cannot make any inferences about their... role in the human reproductive cycle and society, to avoid the contentious terms of "sex" and "gender". That's like saying we can't tell if a coin will land heads 50% of the time, because sometimes we get 10 heads in a row.

wongarsu 3y ago

Human hermaphrodites/intersex people have definitely existed throughout history [1][2]. They are very rare, modern estimates put them at somewhere around 0.02%–0.05% of all births. So for any random skeleton it's probably safe to assume it isn't intersex, but analyze enough and you will find a couple that are. Just the normal variation of humans is also an issue. For almost any characteristic, the bell curve of typical male features overlaps with the bell curve of typical female features. There are some anatomical features that are very distinct like the shape of the pelvis, but if you don't have a complete skeleton you might mistake a tall strong woman for a man or the other way around. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Use_regarding_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Use_regarding_hu... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#History

fanf2 3y ago
The shape of the pelvis depends more on whether it has been through childbirth than on the sex of its owner.
cherry_tree 3y ago
Any source for 0.02-0.05% ? I’ve heard various numbers
- wongarsu 3y ago
  Wikipedia, which quotes it from a paper from 2017 [1], which in turn takes the number from a paper from 2007. Though taking a quick peek at some papers on specific forms of intersex, it seems like there are both large uncertainties in the actual numbers (about a factor of 2) and large regional differences (a specific form of intersex being an order of magnitude more common in one country than in another seems to be common). Though maybe that's just down to the available data. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866176/

SenAnder 3y ago

To re-state: "in the vast majority of cases, binary enough" Yes, there are always exceptions. Some people have six fingers or two heads. That is not license to pretend that, given a human skeleton, we cannot make any inferences about their... role in the human reproductive cycle and society, to avoid the contentious terms of "sex" and "gender". That's like saying we can't tell if a coin will land heads 50% of the time, because sometimes we get 10 heads in a row.