NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC on the discovery of a female prehistoric big game hunter, "Importantly, the team cannot know the individual’s gender identity, but rather only biological sex (which like gender doesn’t always exist on a binary)"

submitted by BEB from nationalgeographic.com

all 11 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]dreamgerms 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This article was really interesting except for that giant turd in the middle of it. Why even bring that up? I’m no scientific expert, but I’m pretty sure people from 9,000 years ago didn’t sit around pontificating about their “gender identity”. Projecting this “woke thought” nonsense and rigid gender roles onto people in the past is not just intellectually dishonest, it’s absolutely absurd. This whole article was about male researchers making assumptions about the evidence they find based on their own biases regarding gender, and how new scientific testing has proved a lot of those assumptions wrong; and then you throw that stupid “gender identity” sentence in there to muddle the point? Biological sex is not a spectrum when it comes to humans. All of this is so exasperating. Not even science is safe from gender delusions.

[–]purrvana 15 insightful - 7 fun15 insightful - 6 fun16 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Jesus fucking Christ.

This is like saying "We don't know how she liked styling her hair and we may never know."

[–]our_team_is_winning 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Archived: https://archive.is/WsUyy

ETA: Teeth are transphobic!

To confirm, they analyzed a protein that forms tooth enamel and is linked to sex.

[–]filbs111 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The picture shows that the great hunter wore pink, so therefore must be a she/her.

[–]EveSerpent 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

“Importantly” Thanks for the laugh, Maya. And for destroying my trust in Nat Geo.

[–]JulienMayfair 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I was wondering how long it would take for this nonsense to bleed into archaeology.

[–]Cass 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am not knowledgeable about what is going on in the field of archeology. Are they starting to adopt wokeism? Why is that happening?

[–]JulienMayfair 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh, I'm not an expert, but I've watched shows like Time Team. I've seen them find skeletons and try to figure out if it's the skeleton of a man or a woman. It just seemed inevitable to me that the gender mob would start screaming at them that they couldn't know what gender this dead person considered him/herself.

[–]Cass 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, that makes sense. thanks for the reply!

[–]Femaleisnthateful 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm surprised NatGeo didn't get attacked as transphobic for stating that biological sex differences were real.

[–]Cass 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

YIKES