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.

  • “In the past, it was not uncommon for an archaeologist to find (remains) and say, ‘OK, this individual has a sword and a shield. Therefore, he’s a man.’ Of course, deeply mistaken, because it assumes that in the past gender roles were the way we conceive them today,” García Sanjuán said.

    Just to put it out there, but no serious archeologist has believed this for a while.

    Consider the two clearly gay women burried together in an Old Norse tomb, with their cannabis seeds and Swastika-engraved Buddha statue. The idea that male dominance and disarming of women is universal is not something anyone can believe after making a serious study of history.

    Just consider the Albanian women who took up male identities to become warriors. Note that I’m still referring to them here as women since arguably these historical practices are less about trans identity and more about social positions.

    • True! It’s one of the reasons most social sciences avoid wherever possible applying their own cultural lens to history, other cultures, etc. Otherwise you get interpretations that only serve to reinforce modern hegemonies.

      As for the trans comment, I thought it amusing having seen someone recently make a comment on our skeletons in thousands of years, and here are scientists accidentally misgendering a skeleton. It’s one of those things that shows gendered ways of thinking, both of the individual and the socially constructed variety should be considered in the process of investigations like this. And it’s a good opportunity to reevaluate those same conceptions of gender and recognize how different they can be.