Thought the irony of transphobes saying when they discover trans people’s skeletons, they’ll only see us as our AGAB. Apparently figuring out a skeleton’s sex is not so cut and dry. Fascinating story regardless.

  • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    As much as I love any option to wind up transphobes.

    This in no way indicates the skeleton lived a trans life. Just that the roles of men and women were not as defined as modern historians have claimed.

    This is more a critisism of common era historians for assu.ing any body found with tools they think relate to male roles. And assuming pre history also only expected men to carry swords etc.

    While it is entirely possible that this lady. And probable that some others. Lived as a man. Their is no evidence to support this over the idea that living ad a woman was not as restrictive as cultures expect today. Pre 5k years ago. We really have no way to know. Other then to use modern science to I’d many past bone examined. And assumed by biased historians.

    • Corvus Nyx@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I believe you misunderstood me. I didn’t suggest the owner of said skeleton was trans; rather, the pervasive transphobic comment suggesting archaeologists digging up our skeletons will see us ‘as we really are’, i.e. our AGAB, is a load of proverbial horseshit when we literally have a case here where scientists had difficulty determining the skeleton’s sex in the first place, by what they thought was a male pelvic bone. I simply like how reality isn’t quite as cut and dry as transphobes like to think, and thought it funny a news article flipping the table on their argument (as absurd as it is anyhow, because who gives a shit what other people think of their skeleton thousands of years from now).