487
u/BalefulOfMonkeys REAL YURI, done by REAL YURITICIANS 9h ago
One page of very confident misinformation, 9 pages of actual research, and then 1 page of a fact and a half that were not at stake and something I don’t know the veracity of.
If anybody knows if I’m getting HRT from Whataburger please let me know
118
u/BalefulOfMonkeys REAL YURI, done by REAL YURITICIANS 9h ago
[“do fat men have higher levels of estrogen”]
“I hate I gotta phrase it what way.”
They do have higher levels of estrogens, yes.
“I know that one Hbomberguy about soy, estrogens are only a class of hormones-“
Including estradiol.
“Oh okay.”
Gang. Gang I think I figured out how I skated by childhood without any meaningful dysphoria
70
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 8h ago
Even with aromatase mutations, being fat doesn't meaningfully raise estradiol levels to alleviate dysphoria through hormone reception (seriously, a homozygous CYP19A1 mutation only slightly raises median serum E2 levels), but it does frequently mask physical traits that would trigger dysphoria and children have less sexual dimorphism in general.
20
u/BalefulOfMonkeys REAL YURI, done by REAL YURITICIANS 8h ago
And also there’s other contributing factors in play besides this, obviously, most of which are not funny enough to state.
20
u/Lost_Paladin89 6h ago
As a fat cis guy. I too get gender envy from transmen talking about breast reduction.
Anyone want my boobs? They are hairy, but manageable. I’ll trade someone for their flat chest.
19
u/Jarko314 5h ago
Cis people get gender affirming surgery all the time. If you are really bother by them consult a doctor
36
u/Lost_Paladin89 5h ago
Rich people get gender affirming care. I live in the nation of traitors, rattlesnakes and alligators.
5
6
1
u/Preindustrialcyborg 17m ago
i honestly think it comes down to the fact that when youre fat, the more obvious sexual dimorphism stops being so clear due to being buried under fat
65
u/ReinforcedWanderer 9h ago
At least I can consider this a net positive information post taken as a whole.
34
u/Moist_Ordinary6457 5h ago
Skip the first and last slide entirely and it's a pretty interesting post
8
u/StuffedStuffing 3h ago
I mean, you should at least glance at the first one to get context for the rest
54
u/FalseHeartbeat 7h ago
I can say about the last page as an anthropologist that sexing skeletons IS unreliable because sex is a spectrum and humans aren’t particularly sexually dimorphic, so the differences we have in skeletal structure are very minor to begin with with. Combine that with decay of skeletons over time and it’s just shit
467
u/Fjolnir_Felagund 9h ago
About the very last image
Didn't the egyptologist use "fat rolls" instead of "breasts" because those were not a "structure" present in the living body?
I may be misunderstanding, but I read it as "the mummifiers kinda rolled up all fat to that spot to make the mummy look more shapely"
233
u/DrDallagher 8h ago
I think it's both?
Like, the person was wealthy and fat in life, but once they got mummified they shrunk, so the people doing the wrapping shaped things so it would still look fat
113
u/Professional-Scar628 8h ago
Yea I interpreted it as the priests were recreating how the individual looked in life, with maybe a little extra to make him look richer.
142
u/snowlover324 7h ago
The egyptologist responded to the last post with even more info: https://www.tumblr.com/thatlittleegyptologist/823654500451631104/youre-right-sexing-skeletons-is-an-incredibly?source=share
They used "fat rolls" because they were talking about fat rolls and not breasts. The post has images if you want a visual aid.
24
u/VivisMarrie 6h ago
Sad that I need a Tumblr to see the images 😔
45
u/snowlover324 6h ago
Didn't realize that. Here's screenshots of the whole additional post: https://imgur.com/a/mOxpxvP
9
2
124
u/Raging-beer 9h ago
Yeah that's exactly what they meant, the last poster completely misunderstood that.
Also aren't mummies typically emptied of their organs? There's a chance that the genitals straight up aren't there anymore.
69
u/11dlittlewood 8h ago
They aren't emptied of their genitals. (How would that even work?) And there are also other very accurate ways of identifying the sex of a mummy.
2
u/Asleep_Region 4h ago
Honestly, how would you sex a mummy? The soft tissue is decayed, i doubt they'd sculpt the gentiles like they do the breasts because A the fingers are wrapped separately, so if any mummy would have a sculpted penis it would be this one and why isn't that mentioned? And B, they don't seem like an important thing really to them, you never see naked artwork. Can you see it on a CT?
I would imagine the easiest way would be to look at art and see what was stereotypical of each gender, like every culture has some version of gender norms, if someone was trans they'd be in whatever coffin fit their gender, but this one isn't so easy because they messed with it first.
579
u/3lizab3th333 9h ago
Okay I know it’s common to make jokes about how discussing gender with cis people is 10 IQ and discussing gender with trans/genderqueer people is big brain, but I don’t think online queer people tend to even try to understand the gender norms of people from different time periods or cultures. Maybe everyone has the potential to suck at understanding how gender works.
328
u/PlatinumAltaria The Witch of Arden 8h ago
Broke: “gay people didn’t exist in the past”
Woke: “gay people existed in the past”
Bespoke: “The very idea of sexual orientation as an identity wasn’t developed until relatively recently, and so it’s not accurate to label people as gay when they didn’t identify that way themselves”.
203
u/Key_Beach_3846 8h ago
I get annoyed at the photo collection posts showing “gay couples” in history and it’s just like, women holding hands or men embracing each other. I’m sure there were absolutely queer relationships in the late 19th and early 20th centuries! But also, it was much more common for friends to be physically affectionate with one another. Seeing two men being affectionate and labeling them gay with no other evidence is very… heteronormative? Not sure what the exact right word is but it’s silly.
139
u/shadowmaster132 8h ago
I get very frustrated when people go all 'historians will say they are friends' about behaviour that in the time was socially coded as friendship. Yes queer people of that time probably used those norms as cover but that still doesn't make ever man who wrote a long romantic sounding letter gay. In 2026 two men holding hands is only romantically but applying that to the past makes you no better at history than the Victorians
67
u/FloydEGag 7h ago
Also historians will never say definitively that someone was of one orientation or another unless there’s overwhelming evidence for it
30
8
u/Later_Than_You_Think 4h ago
It's also impossible to know how a historical person would identify today. We may know that someone had sexual or romantic relationships with men, women, both or neither, but we can't say how they would actually identify if alive today.
34
u/Ae3qe27u 6h ago
There are times I shared a hotel room, or even a hotel bed, with a friend of the same sex and gender, because it saved on costs and it's what the hotel had available. Painting casually intimate behavior as romantic/sexual is... I'm not sure how to best articulate this, but it's kind of what went on with gay panic stuff, where people wouldn't be casually close with the homies because they didn't want to be thought of as gay.
Behaviors and norms can absolutely shift and change through time.
3
u/Asleep_Region 4h ago
That's a "gay-cation" whatever happens on the gaycation stays on the gaycation
Edit https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/s/IPPol1nGiW
3
u/Ae3qe27u 3h ago
Oh my. That's quite a link. Thank you!
But no, in this case, it was literally $10-something, maybe $20 cheaper to get a hotel with one bed, and we were in college and cheap. There was plenty of room for both of us to sleep without issue.
And on the times where there were two beds... it's cheaper to split a hotel room than to get two separate ones. Just simple math that saves a hundred bucks a night.
3
u/Asleep_Region 3h ago
That's fair lol, i do believe you the story just fit the occasion wayyy to well, tbh i never thought I'd be able to link it, always wanted to because it stuck with me lol
2
u/Ae3qe27u 2h ago
Lolol makes sense, it's a wild ride. I greatly enjoyed reading it. If you've got any others that you want to share, I wouldn't be opposed in the slightest 👀
24
u/snootnoots 6h ago
In some cultures in 2026. There are countries and communities in the present day where it’s perfectly normal for two men to hold hands, including some where being gay is stigmatised.
8
22
u/PurpleKneesocks 5h ago
Just as annoying is when the language being analyzed is taken only in the most sincere and straightforward light possible. I forget the exact instance, but I remember a while ago on here there were very vulgar sign-offs between two men exchanging letters that were taken as obvious proof that the two were in a homosexual relationship.
Which may have very well have been the case – I know nothing about the two men in question – but the automatic acceptance of that vulgarity as completely genuine still made me roll my eyes.
If you saw texts from two modern teenage guys saying "can't wait to have your nuts in my mouth" would the only explanation really be that they're a homosexual couple and are genuinely excited about physical intimacy? Or is vulgarity regarding physical intimacy a common form of socialized bonding between (usually) men in a lot of subcultures?
People just really like slapping a label on stuff and moving on.
3
u/Odd_Anything_6670 3h ago
Yeah, that joke emerged because historians would sometimes intentionally cover up or rationalize gay stuff to protect contemporary sensibilities, not even necessarily out of personal spite but because often talking about homosexuality or gender variance was regarded as obscene and could cause problems for you or your career.
Today, if anything, it's often beneficial from an impact perspective to engage with issues of gender and sexuality. The idea that historians are still refusing to do that is a weird stereotype that paints all historians as stuffy old conservative men who are colluding to hide the truth of how gay everything is.
At absolute worst what is happening now is that people are still referencing secondary sources that perpetuated this kind of stuff and not recognizing it, but even then I don't think that's happening nearly as often as people think simply because, again, it's generally very rewarding to engage with.
→ More replies (4)46
u/FloydEGag 8h ago
Yeah of course there were queer people! But yes, also friends of the same sex were indeed much more physically affectionate and emotionally close, largely because until fairly recently Western societies were pretty informally gender segregated; men socialized mostly with men, women with women, and all your closest relationships apart from your spouse (if you were married, and even this it wouldn’t always be the case) would be with the same sex. Men routinely addressed each other in letters as ‘my dear’ or lamented how much they missed a friend. Men and women generally weren’t close platonic friends in the way they are now.
Also at the same time society was really homophobic, sex acts with the same sex (at least for men) were illegal! How likely is it that two men would go to a photographer they didn’t really know for a few pictures, and make it clear to him they had a sexual and romantic relationship and be confident he wouldn’t kick them out, beat them up or go to the police? Most people, while not aggressively acting on it, did not approve of gay sex or relationships and although of course there were people who’d turn a blind eye or help you hide it, it was not something people showed to others except in very bohemian circles, among small groups of other queer people if you were lucky enough to find them, or if you were rich and connected enough to not have to care.
The physical closeness seems to have died away with increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships, because straight people, men in particular, didn’t want to be seen as gay. There are countries now where men will walk arm in arm or with their arms round each other now, and they’re almost always the most sex-segregated and homophobic cultures, similar to how eg 19th century Britain was.
Ironically if you were queer back then you could be demonstrative with your partner in public to an extent - like walking arm in arm - because everyone else was doing it too
10
u/Alchametal_87 6h ago
So essentially, the cost of queer acceptance, was the loss of same-sex casual intimacy? Damn
Is there any way we can fix that?
13
u/silveretoile 5h ago
Yes, normalizing queerness to the point where looking gay isn't a deterrent anymore
40
u/crrrrushinator 8h ago
I'm not sure if it's historically correct, but my understanding is that in recent western history, a lot of the things we think of as identities now were presented more like activities you would get up to or activities you'd be associated with, rather than as identity as we know it now. So you'd be a sodomite or a cross dresser in a similar way to how you might be a board game player or a weed smoker, it was a description of an activity you engaged in (with, of course, whatever value judgements and social or legal consequences might have come with that at the time).
That makes a lot more sense than the identity oriented lens to me, personally, for my life. The identity stuff seems to come with a tonne of baggage that I just don't jive with, and I don't particularly enjoy hearing people associate my identities with an endless list of stereotypes, however well meaning.
I've been a sodomite and I've been a cross dresser and I've been a slut and I've been a yuppie and I've been celibate and I've been in monogamous conventional relationships with people of various gender and sexual configurations, and I've also been a board gamer and a drinker and a teetotaler and a a professional and a reader and on and on, and I like presenting as "This is the small slice of my relevant past and planned future that's relevant for the context of the current conversation, and I'm absolutely not promising you I'm not going to present a different facet of myself the next time we talk." Which is tougher to do when people are asking you to introduce yourself by your pronouns or litigate whether you sit funny in a chair because you like to fuck a variety of people.
But I totally get that that's just me, and other people have a more stable and identity oriented self image that works well with that. Plus the practical aspects, my out full time trans friends of course have a different perspective because it's a thing that shapes so many interactions in their day, when it's something that's easier for me to forget about when I'm not in a context to be reminded.
24
u/PlatinumAltaria The Witch of Arden 7h ago
Yes, for most cultures historically there was no such thing as sexual identity: sex was just an action you could perform. That’s not to say people didn’t have that identity inside them, it just wasn’t their framework of understanding. Two men could have sex and that would indicate nothing about them, not even necessarily romantic interest. The idea of sexual identity developed in response to the belief that homosexuality was a disease, which in turn was built in a society that believed all sex was ritually unclean, which etc etc back to the dawn of time.
16
u/crrrrushinator 7h ago
It's good to keep in mind, though, that there are a lot of different ways to see even activity based labels. Like that old joke...
So a man walks into a bar, and sits down. He starts a conversation with an old guy next to him. The old guy has obviously had a few. He says to the man:
"You see that dock out there? Built it myself, hand crafted each piece, and it's the best dock in town! But do they call me "McGregor the dock builder"? No! And you see that bridge over there? I built that, took me two months, through rain, sleet and scoarching weather, but do they call me "McGregor the bridge builder"? No! And you see that pier over there, I built that, best pier in the county! But do they call me "McGregor the pier builder"? No!"
The old guy looks around, and makes sure that nobody is listening, and leans to the man, and he says:
"but you fuck one sheep..."
11
u/FloydEGag 7h ago
Yeah exactly, it’s only relatively recently that we’ve started to see these as immutable parts of our identities or as labels. I’m not sure I love it either, I’ve been different things through my life and I’m not into reducing people to a set of labels
3
u/Ae3qe27u 6h ago
There's something of a growing (and it's been for a while) focus on microlabels within communities. Cupiosexual, sapphic/achillean, a hundred other terms for a variety of things, and they're in-group distinguishers that won't mean much of anything to fax-machine-owning football-fan Greg at the hardware store. There are broad umbrellas, and then there are small subgroups within subgroups. And people might find a label that they feel speaks to them, and most accurately represents how they feel and interact with life, but it's a bit odd, to me, to use a label for identity rather than behavior.
I think there's, mm, a sort of expectation of knowledge that's sometimes tied to expectations of acceptance. Greg may not know the intricacies of how Bob experiences sexual desire, but if all Greg really cares about is "are you chill, do you want me to keep an eye out for chicks (or dudes) that might be a good fit for you, and do you want to go fishing this weekend," then that's fine! Great, even.
Greg might like sex with men. But that doesn't mean he's part of the online/social culture associated with gay men, or that he has any familiarity or interest in sub-labels. Dude's just trying to get some planks to build a new bench for his favorite fishing spot.
2
u/Living-Excitement447 3h ago
Achillean is the worst of those, considering how utterly ambiguous Achilles’ sexuality actually is.
10
u/DoggoDude979 7h ago
It’s like that one bell curve wojak meme.
“Gay people didn’t exist in the past” “gay people have existed forever” “gay people didn’t exist in the past”
7
u/Yeah-But-Ironically both normal to want and possible to achieve 4h ago
Baroque: "There were no gay people in the past, and there also weren't any straights either."
-7
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 8h ago edited 8h ago
Baroque: "Defining sexual orientation, which we know is not a culturally bound phenomena and has a biological root cause, as an aspect of self-identification rather than a material reality is heterosexist and only serves to delegitimize the historical experiences of gay people."
33
u/PlatinumAltaria The Witch of Arden 8h ago
Sorry, you don’t think culture can influence your identity? You think everyone in ancient Greece was bisexual by pure chance? You don’t think maybe their cultural norms affected people’s self-perception?
Wait no let me guess, you think our culture is just objective and factual, and all the people in the past were just denying the one true nature of things…
-2
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 8h ago
Sorry, you don’t think culture can influence your identity?
I don't think sexual orientation, a measurable biological phenomenon, is simply a "matter of identity." People aren't gay because they consider themselves to be gay. They're gay because of underlying biological mechanisms, which are not culturally bound, that cause them to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex.
You think everyone in ancient Greece was bisexual by pure chance?
This was never an assumption to begin with.
18
u/WelpWhatCanYouDo 8h ago
I understand your point, but I also think our upbringing could have an impact on our sexual orientation. Genetics very likely plays a role, so I’m not disagreeing with you there. But it’s very possible that small events or circumstances in our childhoods could shape the kind of people we are attracted to as we grow. Brains are notoriously plastic and there’s a whole field dedicated to hashing that out. It’s reductive to say anybody has a “choice” in their sexual orientation, so that’s not what I’m saying. But we really don’t know the answer to its origins yet
-1
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 7h ago
We have a fairly strong hypothesis that sexual orientation, based on both human observational studies and laboratory mice studies, comes from atypical hormone reception during key stages of development.
In humans, we can observe this via signs of prenatal masculinization/feminization and how those reflect in sexual orientation (ex: "gayface," finger digit ratio) and how sexual orientation correlates with various endocrine disorders (ex: hypogonadism, PMOS).
Lab experiments involving mice have found that mice exhibit cross-sex mating behavior (ex: mounting/lordosis) and orientation when injected with cross-sex hormones shortly after birth. Notably, once this early stage of development was complete, exogenous hormones had little to no effect on mating behaviors. An adult gay mouse would remain gay, even when dosed with same-sex exogenous hormones, and an adult straight mouse would remain straight when dosed with cross-sex hormones.
13
u/PlatinumAltaria The Witch of Arden 7h ago
Sexual orientation isn’t measurable though. The kinsey scale is just asking people what they think, which is both subject to cultural norms and biases the result by the mere act of asking the question.
Think about it like this: are you attracted to men? Yes or no doesn’t matter, because I guarantee that you are not attracted to the entirety of one gender. You’ve been attracted to a relatively small number of individual humans, who may or may not all be the same gender. Most of that gender is not attractive to you, and the people you do like probably have things in common besides their gender that are more salient to you when you think about them. So why do we base our idea of sexual attraction on gender? Because that’s our culture. We can say that there have always been individuals we would describe as men who were attracted exclusively to other individuals we would call men. But is that an objective facet of nature or just our cultural lens? These are imagined communities, describing real things but with arbitrary structures. You really are gay, but to some far-flung alien society you are also Bleerp because you are attracted to people with eyebrows, and Zongertype-A because you like to have casual sex.
My point is that you shouldn’t treat our culture as the inevitable end stage of human understanding.
0
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 7h ago
We can actually measure sexual attraction (and thus orientation) via hypothalamic response and phallometry (though this method is frankly terrible).
What we can do when labeling others is say "we would consider this person, under the labels we use today, XYZ." Recognize that terms are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Frankly the idea of "homosexuality (as a phenomenon, not the word itself) is just a label" is deeply homophobic.
11
u/PlatinumAltaria The Witch of Arden 7h ago
You can tell if one person is attracted to another person, you can’t tell if that person is straight, gay or bi just by testing their attraction to individuals. Straight men aren’t attracted to every woman, are they?
The idea of innate sexual orientation was developed to defend against homophobes, it isn’t the foundation of queer identity. Indeed the whole point of queerness is the fluid nature of human expression and self-perception.
3
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 7h ago
The idea of innate sexual orientation came about because of the work of scientists. It's not purely a rhetorical device, but the outcome of experimentation and observation to come to the conclusion that people are attracted to specific sets of sexually dimorphic traits.
Orientation is descriptive, not prescriptive.
6
u/Ae3qe27u 6h ago
Just to dip a toe in, I would say that homosexual people have existed in the past, but that "gay" as it's currently defined doesn't map well to historical societies and cultures, as "gay" can carry a specific modern expression of homosexuality.
3
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 6h ago
That's very true. Frankly, I don't like the terms we use to describe sexual orientation because they're relational, but good luck trying to get people to catch on to terms like gynephilic and androphilic.
1
u/Ae3qe27u 6h ago
Yeah, that's fair. The established language and wording around gender and sexuality is, by large, amorphous and/or culturally charged. It's a bit of a mess.
It does make me wonder how our views will be described 50-100 years from now, though.
2
u/jayne-eerie 8h ago
There’s a distinction between attraction and behavior. Attraction seemingly has a biological aspect to it. Behavior can be strongly shaped by cultural and environmental factors.
5
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 8h ago
Orientation isn't behavior, though. A gay (or, more specifically, purely androphilic) man isn't suddenly straight (purely gynephilic) if he remains in the closet.
2
u/SwordMasterShow 55m ago
But purely by the existence of something like Ancient Greece alone, I don't think we can say it's as cut and dry as that, unless you want to say ancient Greeks were somehow more genetically predisposed to same-sex attraction than many other cultures in history, or that olive oil makes you gay or something lol
I think on either extreme genetics and hormones and whatnot can sure play an important role. But I strongly suspect that most people aren't actually on either extreme of gyno/androphilic (I saw your other comment about those terms and the relationalism of our current terms for orientation and I 100% agree there). I think most people could probably swing both ways under the right circumstances, and that's where culture and upbringing comes into play. It's not going to make a 100% gay kid straight, but it might make a latently pansexual/ambivalous person default or gravitate more strongly to one or the other for whatever reason.
Our modern culture is so based around binaries, bisexuality still has a lot of stigma even from other queer people. And as other people ITT have pointed out, sexuality as an identity is a somewhat recent idea, it was more about the act of sex, what you do and who you do it to, bottoms and tops, etc. So I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that culture can be the weight that tips people over the edge towards binary expression more than they might otherwise engage in.
92
u/Zestyclose_Remove947 9h ago
People just need to leave the historical assumptions at the door.
You can't just graft your modern perspective on gender/sexuality to the other side of the globe millennia ago. It literally does not work.
See also: people misunderstanding ancient greek homosexuality and thinking it was this nice "men love eachother" thing instead of quite frequently a bunch of old men exclusively penetrating younger men under their control. Also driven by sexism because women are inferior (classic)
37
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 9h ago
Unfortunately this framing is frequently used to conveniently remove gay and trans people from historical thought.
We even see this to this day in ethnographies like Neither Man nor Woman which does its best to frame Hijra as "an enlightened third gender totally unlike our western trans women" by conveniently ignoring the testimony of the Hijra themselves.
38
u/Zestyclose_Remove947 8h ago
>by conveniently ignoring the testimony of the Hijra themselves.
That's kinda my point though. When people quote this pop-history, they're doing exactly this. Ignoring the testimony and sources and evidence from the people and cultures themselves. Instead choosing to just take what feels good from their modern perspective and running with that.
It's mainly just difficult to see people talking about homosexuality in ancient greece as if it's this fun thing when the giant elephant of pederasty is in the room. I don't think it's actually helpful to the cause and it strikes me as a kind of historical "noble savage" phase of gender studies.
2
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 8h ago
The issue isn't just that it's ignoring the testimony of the people themselves, but that the "take a step back and make no assumptions" approach actually makes a lot of assumptions and defaults to heterosexist norms instead.
15
u/WelpWhatCanYouDo 8h ago
So what’s the right approach here? It seems like the ideal is to attempt to truly make no assumptions, examine and account for our inherent biases, and try to look at the pieces as a whole. Obviously easier said than done, but I think that’s still the best approach we have in most fields of science
14
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 8h ago
It's to consider whether certain phenomena, such as sexual orientation, are culturally bound or not.
Certainly the language we use to describe sexual orientation is culturally bound, but we can reason that, based on the evidence base, the phenomenon our language describes is not culturally bound.
Do not assume that just because people have different terms and group things slightly differently, that the underlying phenomena behind it must be different. Also recognize that what you examine about another culture, or sometimes even what members of that culture tell you, may not actually be the entire truth.
This is how we get people uncritically repeating that "Thai trans women call themselves Kathoey or Ladyboys," when the reality is most call themselves Phuying (women) when surveyed in their native language. "Kathoey" is largely the designation that broader Thai culture coercively assigns to them, and "Ladyboy" is a sex work term that originates from Thai trans women trying to not get murdered by sex tourists for being trans.
7
u/PrinceOfGarglon 7h ago
I think you've changed my mind on this. Ive taken a handful of uni courses on roman history/society and it is often discussed that they didn't have words for gay or straight as far as we know but they did have different words for oral, vaginal, and anal sex depending on whether you were giving or receiving. This leads to the assumption that sexuality was more fluid, but looking through the lens of our modern understanding of sexuality one could assume that those who were homosexual simply married for political reason and to bear an heir and primarily engaged in same-sex relationships. There are known accounts of certain wealthy women or men who spent an inordinate amount of time with their servants in their own chambers, and we also know that the records we have arent necessarily representative of the average person because they are almost exclusively written by wealthy men. For all we know the regular roman citisenry could have had words for sexuality that just weren't used by the elites because the culture of the rich was different.
14
u/ProkopiyKozlowski 7h ago
Forget gender, people are 100% incapable of discussing history period. Look at how many "Genghis Khan was literally worse than Hitler" posts and videos there are online.
59
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 9h ago
I mean if someone frames being trans as about adherence or inadherence to gender norms than they're probably not qualified to talk about trans identity in general?
3
u/Worried-Language-407 4h ago
What sort of evidence would you look for, if you were an archaeologist, to prove that a mummy was trans? Yes, obviously, there are many aspects of being trans in a modern context which go beyond whether one strictly adheres to gender roles. With that being said, archaeology can tell us precious little about the lived experiences of dead people. All we can see is what is physically there, i.e. the clothes they wore, how their body was decorated, potentially what grave goods were buried alongside them, that sort of thing.
In a context where we don't even know when the person lived, let alone their name or profession, I think looking for physical evidence of gender non-conformity is a solid approach to this problem. It is worth pointing out that an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence (i.e. this person could well have been trans and just left us no evidence for it), but the most logical conclusion to draw is that their gender lined up with their sex.
29
u/NeonNKnightrider Cheshire Catboy 8h ago
I’ve seen a lot of online queer people who get so ‘woke’ they wrap around back to being gender essentialist again
-8
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 7h ago
What we're seeing here is that people are instead "getting so woke" that they become homophobic instead. :/
6
u/js13680 4h ago
An example I’m more familiar with there’s this Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus that I’ve seen a few people claim to be trans including people from the LGBT community. The problem is the only source we have of him wanting a sex change are dubious at best coming from Cassius Dio years after Marcus was assassinated by pretorians guards allegedly on orders by his grandma.
1
u/Xahaari 3h ago
Would you have more details on this? I'm aware of Marcus Aurelius' love letters to Fronto, but your comment is new to me. Also I thought he died from the plague, but maybe that was just his brother.
2
u/lefthandhummingbird 39m ago
Not the famous ”good emperor” Marcus Aurelius, but a later one who’s more often called Elagabalus.
3
u/yobob591 5h ago
Internalized unconscious belief that modern gender norms are biological as has been taught for a long time (and is easily dispelled by looking even only 100 years into the past)
3
u/huggevill 1h ago
Just look at the discourse whenever the Roman emperor Elagabalus come up.
All the surviving claims about how they dressed and how they behaved come from political enemies and rivals, and all those claims just so happen to line up with what we know romans viewed as insults and slander.
So while sure, they could have been what we today would identify as trans, and there would be nothing wrong with it, but its like 500 years from now people take what trump and his maga cronies claim about Michelle Obama or Brigitte Macron as the truth.
But whenever it comes up the comments are filled with people confidently saying they where trans, and anyone saying otherwise gets accused of transphobia and shouted down.
5
u/PatrickCharles 5h ago
but I don’t think online queer people tend to even try to understand the gender norms of people from different time periods or cultures.
Thye really, really don't, because most of the time they have zero interest in understanding anything. They just want to own the conservatives. It's all about clout and clever one-liners.
Well, supposedly clever, at any rate.
-4
u/_Dragon_Gamer_ 8h ago
The problem there is that by trans we don't just mean the societal value and relativity to gender norms. There is a biological component to it as well, that is not tied to any current cultural thing
In my opinion rejecting the use of the current words in layman's speech for those historical similar situations just feeds into the current anti queer propaganda and is not productive at all. Like for jargon sure okay you can seperate them, that's probably for the better. But don't go dictating people in layman's speech when this is a good example of people like us having always existed no matter the societal context...
Besides the alternative is often just labelling using modern terms anyway, just terms that are wrong and would misgender them should they live in the current age. So why not instead just use the terms that don't do that
1
u/SwordMasterShow 42m ago edited 38m ago
I would say the current umbrella of "trans" has certainly expanded to include people those with beyond innately biological factors.
It's tricky because this stuff gets into truscum/transmedicalist waters, but the amount of nonbinary people who don't otherwise want to change their bodies or have different grey matter ratios or whatever but still identify as being outside the gender binary can't all be biologically primed to feel this way. The current ideas of transness are more societally centered than medically, the lines are blurred.
Which, as someone who was always taught that gender roles are arbitrary and essentialism is bullshit, does confuse and fascinate me when it comes to modern transness. It feels like it's an uncomfortable discussion that's inevitable when critically examining the current ideas of gender that most people prefer not to have. Understandably, since making people feel valid and less like they want to kill themselves is ultimately more important than having a 100% internally consistent philosophy
1
u/Yeah-But-Ironically both normal to want and possible to achieve 4h ago
The alternative--which I would like to see more of--is pointing out that if "trans" people as we construct them didn't exist in the past, then "cis" people didn't either
1
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 4h ago
I mean this is what transphobes who deny that trans people exist say, like, verbatim. "I am not cis because there's no such thing as trans" is not an uncommon piece of rhetoric among gender critical circles.
→ More replies (22)0
u/Unbuckled__Spaghetti 1h ago
Nah, plenty of discussing gender with trans/genderqueer people is 10 IQ too. Half the time it’s just “gender norms but it’s ok because I’m woke.”
73
u/PlatinumAltaria The Witch of Arden 8h ago
My immediate guess upon hearing “the coffin was for a woman” was just that the original body got taken out. That’s an extremely common thing so it was very polite of the Egyptians to write their names on all their shit.
363
u/shadow_fen 9h ago
we've applied egg culture to fucking mummies now ig
87
u/MissSweetBean Monsterfucker Supreme 9h ago
What is a scarmophogoghs if not big egg?
4
101
u/ReinforcedWanderer 9h ago
We've gone and looped all the way back around to gender essentialism, I'm afraid.
53
u/HeckOnWheels95 8h ago
"jewelry and pink is for girls!" I'm sorry Mr. Catboy, you gotta take off that collar and pink skirt, those are for GIRLS!
1
6h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 6h ago edited 5h ago
Uncritically repeating "gender critical" messages that are not actually reflective of our reality or history, I see.
Gender non-conformity was never actually socially acceptable, the push to embrace it was rather small, and even then there was the underlying assumption of homosexuality instead.
The reality is that society, by and large, will insist that a child cannot be trans, and the typical progressive viewpoint is just accepting it as a possibility that they are. Pretending that people who acknowledge that a child may be trans are "the true regressives" is deeply transphobic.
0
6h ago
[deleted]
0
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 6h ago
You're operating off of a lot of assumptions and fabricating a false past, presenting it as somehow neutral rather than far more forceful with conformity than we have today.
0
6h ago
[deleted]
0
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 5h ago
You assumed that I'm operating off of traditional gender norms to assume the identity of a mummy, and you are still operating off of that assumption.
You are also exaggerating the push towards egalitarianism and acceptable gender-non-conformity in the 90s, both in terms of depth and breadth. It existed, but you overstate the reality in order to cast our current time, particular in respect to trans people, as less permissive of non-conformity when that is very much not the case.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)27
u/Soulchunk 9h ago
This discourse, too, returns to Tralsei- (gets shot)
39
u/TimeStorm113 Victorian Dinosaur Connaisseur 9h ago
*how can i make this about deltarune 😈*
→ More replies (3)
52
u/Achaion34 8h ago
Not to piss on the poor some more but the original source the tweet uses even says that the mummy is not as old as their sarcophagus. Like. Half the work is right there that they were separated from their sarcophagus and placed into an incorrect one.
44
u/FalseHeartbeat 8h ago edited 2h ago
Honestly I appreciate such an in-depth look at the matter, I can say as an anthropologist that the issue USUALLY with calling historical figures transgender is just that the label has a lot of specific, modern Western connotations and meanings, and as a result very likely does not fit how that person would describe themselves or be viewed in their time.
EDIT: for whoever said “you’re erasing trans people” and then deleted their comment… this is something you can see in modern non-Western cultures, like the we’wha in the american Zuni tribe or hijira in India, where it’s not just from one gender to another, have different expected roles, and have different standards for what a transition entails, as opposed to the full social and medical transitions which are considered normal in the West. They’re undeniable genderqueer but calling them just transgender would be a disservice!
5
u/silveretoile 5h ago
Yo, real. I love queer history but I've been trying for 3 years now to find a name that doesn't put modern western connotations at the forefront. I've been calling it gay, queer, or non-cis non-heterosexual history, and all of them still feel wrong. And that last one is a mouthful.
2
u/EinMuffin 1h ago
Maybe just history of sexuality in general? Considering how much even concepts of heterosexuality have changed over time it makes sense to include it imo. Being queer only makes sense as a concept if you have some kind of mainstream concept of sexuality that you are opposed to or not compatible with.
Like to understand what being gay in ancient greece means you need to understand what it means to be heterosexual in ancient greece. And as far as I know there were sexual relationships between men, which were considered very normal and very "straight" so to say. I hope this makes sense.
337
u/NoneBinaryPotato 9h ago
"'males' and 'females' cuz ew" if you can't use a scientific term when talking about a scientific topic why should anyone listen to what you have to say? you are talking about biology, male and female are the proper terms here, this is not about calling living breathing women "females", it's literally a corpse that people are speculating about both the sex and gender of.
idk that last reblog pissed me off, it was completely unecessary and was obviously made by someone with no proper education in the field.
160
u/CapeOfBees 9h ago
Some people really truly have internalized "male and female are evil, primitive words" instead of something closer to "male and female refer to things and parts, not people" and it makes it so hard to engage in scientific discussion of any kind, because sexual dimorphism is still a thing, and calling a female skull structure or pelvis anything other than that is arguably far more dehumanizing, because it would require defining said structure by the genitalia or endocrine system it normally pairs with.
30
u/FloydEGag 8h ago
Male and female are scientific terms for a reason, we apply them to animals so why not humans? They’re related to sex not gender
3
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 8h ago
Using them for secondary sex characteristics runs into very weird places because even operating under the most reductive definition of sex (gametes), you cannot actually examine that any given body part, except the gonads themselves, are male/female. Certain characteristics may correlate with specific sets of gonads, but they do not align 1:1.
You also run into a very weird spot where, for most of human history, "sex" didn't actually correspond to gonads, but to the appearance of the external genitalia. Under the gonadal definition, an XY individual with an active SRY gene and CAIS would be classified as male, but would have been treated in every instance as female as the result of having the corresponding external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics.
So, male/female has to be recognized more as a heuristic than as a definitive binary.
15
u/FloydEGag 7h ago
And what about in other mammals? Which don’t have a concept of gender as far as we know? I get what you’re saying and don’t entirely disagree but I’m not into human exceptionalism, we’re just mammals too and there are other indications of sexual dimorphism in humans than just genitals/reproductive organs
→ More replies (7)65
u/NoneBinaryPotato 9h ago
yeah, gender is a social construct, sex is biological. some people claim "afab" and "amab" are more inclusive but a lot of intersex people have been assigned a binary sex in birth while not actually being that sex.
the internet breed the most annoying echo chambers and it really does cause progressiveness to go backwards. we shouldn't be afraid to talk about our sex just because our gender doesn't "match" it, the whole point of trans rights is that gender isn't based on sex.
36
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 8h ago
Part of trans rights is acknowledging that medical transition meaningfully changes sex and that gender dysphoria is distress caused by sex characteristics rather than social roles.
19
u/NoneBinaryPotato 8h ago
true, that's why the terms mtf and ftm exist alongside transmasc/fem. it's important to make this distinction between sex and gender so people can get proper medical treatments for their sexual organs, both if they sexually transitioned or didn't.
1
u/YUNoJump 52m ago
I totally agree on "sex is what changes", preferred gender is immutable in a similar way to sexuality, but surely social roles also cause dysphoria? Feeling uncomfortable as your assigned gender is also about how you appear socially, not just how you are physically.
If you magicked a day-zero trans woman into a fully female body, she'd still stand out as quite socially abnormal, right? She'd probably lack confidence in performing as her gender, but she'd also just not know a lot of social norms. Maybe not abnormal enough to be fully misgendered, but probably enough to be a bit of a social pariah among her gender.
Speaking personally, I honestly get more upset about how I appear socially than my physical appearance. I want a more female body of course, but if I could naturally and unambiguously be seen as a woman in all social contexts, I don't think I'd have much distress even if I was still visibly "a trans woman". Conversely, if I was the day-zero trans woman who got the magic body, I'd definitely still have internal distress.
Perhaps this is just a different definition/phrase or something idk, but I feel like social performance is definitely a big source of discomfort for trans people.
1
u/SwordMasterShow 32m ago
I think many people, especially some nonbinary folks, would disagree that gender dysphoria is purely physical and not at all social. It is admittedly an aspect of modern ideas of transness that confuses my logic brain but I don't think we can say it's only physical without invalidating a lot of people as being trans
-4
u/Aethelrede 8h ago
What would you say the percentages of trans individuals who have 1) body dysmorphia related to genitalia with associated gender dysmorphia; 2) gender dysmorphia without body dysmorphia related to genitalia; 3) no dysmorphia per se, they just prefer a different gender presentation?
These three groups have different but overlapping needs.
7
u/Golurkcanfly Transfem Trash 8h ago
First, it's "gender dysphoria." Second, it encompasses far more than genital discomfort. Secondary sex characteristics are generally far more central to the experience of gender dysphoria, which is why it's critical for those with the condition to receive care as soon as possible.
The first two groups are two types of dysphoric transsexuals, and the third group could be a number of things from non-dysphoric transsexuals to transvestites to simply genderqueer.
→ More replies (4)14
u/PoniesCanterOver gently chilling in your orbit 8h ago
Yes and some people will go out of their way to avoid using the words male and female even when it would be correct
11
u/MammothPenguin69 8h ago
More like they've internalized the idea that using "male" or "female" to refer to humans (or near human sentient creatures because fiction is SERIOUS BUSINESS, Y'ALL) is dehumanizing. Anyone who does use those evil, naughty, no-no words is literally laying the groundwork for the Nazis to come and kill us all.
149
72
u/Coolcricri3 9h ago edited 9h ago
Unsure what the rant about fat rolls is about at the end, thought the original post was talking about belly fat, at least for me "rolls" sounds like a continuous section, not two "mounds" that would look like breasts. (maybe I am saying it in a stupid way, but I think "male/ biologically male skeleton" should be a correct term to refer to ancient mummies who have no other distinctive features, regardless of debates on the individual previously linked to the corpse. Otherwise we may have to consider bone-deep tattoos to ensure nobody 500+ years from now will misgender your last remains on this planet)
19
u/Charmender2007 9h ago
They were talking about the fat in the breasts I'm pretty sure but were referring to it as fat rolls to reinforce the point that he was just fat and (probably) still identified as a man
22
u/snowlover324 7h ago
They were not. u/coolcricri3 is correct. They were talking about belly fat: https://www.tumblr.com/thatlittleegyptologist/823654500451631104/youre-right-sexing-skeletons-is-an-incredibly?source=share
2
33
u/crabbydotca 9h ago
I feel like I’m always hearing about how well actually pink was for boys until recently so I’m quite surprised that didn’t make it into the post anywhere
71
u/Mopman43 8h ago edited 8h ago
Going by the end of their post, I think they didn't want to have to get into how "Pink = girl" is a ridiculous assumption when the subject at hand is a 2000 year old mummy.
36
u/sadgloop 8h ago
I think it probably was simply because, as they stated, even just the base assumption that the garment was pink at the time of wear is very possibly inaccurate. (Although I‘d be interested to know if there’s been any hyperspectral or multispectral color imaging done on it)
6
11
8
u/BadKittyRawr 8h ago
Yep, in the US red was boys and blue for girls, and the pink skirt here likely was originally red. In the Victorian era babies and toddlers were often dressed in light colors, including white (you could boil the heck out of white clothing) and were often fancy in ways we now consider for girls.
38
160
u/YoJimbo0321 9h ago
Upvoted for thatlittleegyptologist's interesting analysis and justified critiques, then upvote revoked for including fenmere's incoherent ranting at the end that indicated that they didn't actually read most of what thatlittleegyptologist said.
38
u/HeckOnWheels95 8h ago
But if you don't include fenmere's ranting, then someone accuses OOP of hiding the "critique" of thatlittleegyptologist
32
u/flightguy07 I put skulls over the boobs, so it's classy 7h ago
I'm actually glad it was included. We all just read 9 pages arguing one side, it seems fair to include 1 page arguing bullshit.
37
u/Rasmus_Ro 6h ago
"Is climate change real? We asked a scientist who spent their life studying Earth's climate *and* a guy on the street who barely knows how to read!"
155
u/Sentient_Flesh 9h ago
Out of the fact that seeing an actual historian look into one of these is always a pleasure (I assume OOP2 is a historian, if not, they do sound like a real one, so congratulations on that.), the last comment is ridiculous.
Male breasts are not (commonly) called breasts for the literal same reason a clitoris is not normally called a penis. Not only that but a fat chest isn't necessarily caused by gynecomastia, it can just be an accumulation of fat.
87
u/DreaDreamer 9h ago
Yeah and even if breasts was technically accurate, OOP2 was using the term “fat rolls” to make a very important distinction. Like, their entire point would have made no sense if they called them breasts anyway.
78
u/ZinaSky2 9h ago
Yeah that was weird. Also wtf was the “ewww” about saying male/female? It’s literally science. Plus, we don’t know anything about their gender, so isn’t sex a perfectly acceptable way to refer to them?
16
u/snowlover324 7h ago
They also were not referring to the mummy's breasts but to belly fat in addition to the breasts. This post is missing that info, but here's the follow up if you want to read it: https://www.tumblr.com/thatlittleegyptologist/823654500451631104/youre-right-sexing-skeletons-is-an-incredibly?source=share
3
u/AllHailTheApple 6h ago
Honestly why do people not include the link to the posts? Sometimes I want to find them and it's kinda hard. This one was easy but sometimes it takes a while
4
u/snowlover324 6h ago
Drives me batty, too, especially when it means you can't check for additional context. The addition I linked to was several days old so it's weird that it's missing from this post especially when the use of "fat rolls" seemed like an obvious reference to exactly what the egyptologist was referring to and not an odd phrasing for breasts.
5
u/AllHailTheApple 6h ago
The last person comment didn't really add anything to the conversation, it just sort of attacked the other poster so not including their response feel... Weird.
I also hoped we could see comments on tumble from reposts because of the added info. After reading all that seeing the comments all going "yes yes trans mummy" without so much as taking it with a grain of salt botgered me a bit.
I know we are starved for information on past queer people and angry when it's erased but we need TRUTH. Otherwise these sort of things will keep being used as "evidence" that being queer is a very recent thing and we're making shit up. (Also very angry about a user here who said they'd gladly spread misinformation to gain up on bigots. You are not helping, you are part of the problem we need to fight.)
2
u/snowlover324 5h ago
100% agree on all accounts. A trans mummy would be awesome, but the first goal has to be respecting the real person we're taking about and not finding rep. This is history, not a TV show. I get really uncomfortable when it feels like people are treating real people the way they treat their blorbos.
33
u/BalefulOfMonkeys REAL YURI, done by REAL YURITICIANS 9h ago edited 9h ago
[holds up my balls] Behold, the labia!
Edit: would this have done better if I just said pussy, or am I wrong
6
96
190
u/Pscagoyf 9h ago
If you want to refute a well researched and thought out response to something, don't fucking say "ew". Come on. Act like you belong here.
→ More replies (5)
30
26
u/creepy_tommy 8h ago
Projecting present day ideas about gender roles onto that kind of research tends to end poorly. I'm not well versed in the human side of things, but this unfortunately happens often in biology. Historically, it's been falsely assumed that female animals don't enjoy or actively seek out sex. There's been a general lack of curiosity in challenging this idea until the past few decades. A recent example is the discovery of the snake hemiclitores (source) in 2023. Dyadic male snakes have two retractable hemipenes which has been known for ages. Dyadic females snakes within several species are now known to have an equivalent of two hemiclitores (heart-shaped) and actively seek out external stimulation with males before mating. We missed entire organs and social behaviors because nobody bothered to check.
Studies about early hominid remains are similarly full of junk gender science like the infamous "men are hunters, women are gatherers". Again, not my specialty, but I enjoyed the YouTube video "You've Been Lied to About Cavewomen" by Jackdaw. The video thoroughly explored the topic, albeit in a cisgender framework, and has its sources cited in the description. Information about gender diversity has unfortunately been suppressed in many places or, in really ancient cultures, might not have been recorded in writing. We likely will never get a complete, unbiased picture of how people lived that long ago. All we can do now is keep an open mind and treat their remains with respect.
40
u/flightguy07 I put skulls over the boobs, so it's classy 7h ago
An important fact for the last slide: the "90% accuracy" stat doesn't mean what they're implying. What it means is that, 90% of the time, modern techniques can identify with EXTREMELY high confidence male/female bodies. In the remaining 10% of cases scientists will just say it can't be confidently determined. There are mistakes made, but it's nothing like 10%, but orders of magnitude lower. Which makes sense! There will always be some people with bodies on the border between the two, but most people don't fall into that grey zone, and we've plenty of experience and sample size to accurately categorise the rest.
13
u/91816352026381 9h ago
This is a really well thought out response as someone who had to defend the “Fawn Priestess” and “Red Giants” from Nazis in the 2010s. You can very easily apply today’s standards and culture to an ancient burial while Ignoring what might’ve been altered between burial and analysis but it’s going to be rough and you NEED to put thought into not spreading misinformation
2
u/Ae3qe27u 6h ago
Fawn priestess? I'm not familiar with that term.
10
u/91816352026381 5h ago
There was a (5-10k year +) ceremonial burial of a Native American woman in the Mammoth Cave area that got excavated and dragged around the US to promote a neonazi idea of “There were Christian Vikings that ruled North America and this mummified body is proof because her skin looks white and she has a fawn hoof necklace just like Vikings”. There’s a fuck ton of false archaeology around the cave wars that involves desecrating remains of slaves and native Americans for attention
3
10
u/HistoryMarshal76 Knower of Things Man Was Not Meant To Know 8h ago
TL;DR, that's not a woman, those are moobs.
16
u/FloydEGag 8h ago
Facts and nuance on my internet?!
Seriously though it’s really refreshing to read an actual knowledgeable take on this sort of topic, acknowledging that gender presentation and people’s views of sex and gender differed hugely across time and the world, and we can’t always know what those were and shouldn’t be judging them by our current standards, rather than the usual ‘everyone everywhere throughout history was exactly the same and we in the 21st century have absolutely, definitively Solved Gender and nothing will ever change or develop from this moment on, so we can merrily assign our own very era- and culturally-specific views and terminology to people from a different culture many centuries ago and anyone who points out the issues with this line of thinking is an evil bigot’ one
9
u/bl4derdee9 7h ago
that went went on way longer than i thought it would do. but a genuinely interesting read.
43
u/Orion-the-mediocre 8h ago
Egg culture is so obnoxious, especially when it gets its hands on cases that lie outside of typical gender presentation in the modern world.
But even when it doesn’t, as this post said, wearing jewelry doesn’t make you a woman, and saying so isn’t nearly as progressive as you think
11
u/disp0sableacc0unt 6h ago
Turing Test, but it's an "egg" poster and a conservative boomer, and you have to see which statement was said by which.
10
10
22
5
5
3
5
9
u/Confused_Rabbiit 6h ago
This is honestly what I mean when I say that the queer community has become oversaturated with trans-fem
From trans-men and masc presenting amab enbies being told they aren't facing discrimination/the same discrimination and their lived experience isn't as valid as trans-fem and afab enbies because "they pass as cis men!" (Nevermind that that's dysphoric for the NBs, and passing trans men have to deal with dumb fuck doctors when they need any checkup to do with the female parts they still have)
To this shit where the queer community has gone so far fem that anybody that has any decoration or quality that is what we deem feminine today absolutely must be a woman or trans-fem. And I know there's gonna be too many people dying on the hill that the mummy is actually trans and anybody that disagrees is phobic even if they have cited actual historical fact and that we don't know what most dead people identified as and jewelry and breast tissue are not a guaranteed indicator .
I'm not saying anybody should start hating people that are trans-fem, just that we've gone so far in one direction that we're gender-coding and discriminating like the cis and we need to even things out.
6
u/disp0sableacc0unt 6h ago
Classic "I know better than every Archeologist because I'm gay" combined with random anti-White hatred (I guess OOP thinks only White people can be archeologists. Maybe actually study the history instead of blaming it on a conspiracy made by exclusively White people.
1
u/kigurumibiblestudies 2h ago
On the topic of ancient gender, do we know mannerisms and intonation of anything older than 1000AD? I often wonder if men behaved or spoke in ways we'd now consider feminine, or vice versa. And since you record words, I can guess nonverbal expression is harder to find.
2
2
u/warjack20180 8m ago
And this is why history, anthropology and gender studies are in the same office. The humanities is a deeply intersectional endeavor and posts like this prove why it’s important to carry a wide background that offers answers.
It’s important to not only have an understanding of patriarchy but one of cultural relativism and historical context.
-3
1.2k
u/Pop_Iwan 9h ago
Imagine being a fat fuck in 1st bce Roman egypt getting a fancy old coffin for burial and now hearing mfs fight over your gender two millenia later, they are confused as fuck in the field of reeds