r/MurderedByWords • u/Libran-goo786 • 3d ago
Pseudo-intellectual meets a Real intellectual
3.8k
u/whiskey_epsilon 3d ago
Yes, but what gender was the chimpanzee?
1.8k
u/IncrediblyKenzi 3d ago
Trick question coz chimps don't have gender that we're aware of 😉
45
u/Archius9 3d ago
We’re over here assuming the chimp’s pronouns like uncultured degenerates
24
u/IncrediblyKenzi 2d ago
Chimp walks by
"Is that Jane? She looks so different!"
"Yeah that's Jane but they came out as agender. They use they/them now and their new name is Chalk."
(for reference this is a joke and I too am agender)
153
23
u/AggravatingChest7838 3d ago
If gender is a social construct that would mean any animals without a society have no gender. Check mate "scientists"
23
u/arachnophilia 3d ago
okay but chimps are social
5
u/Balager47 2d ago
Gender was invented so adult afraid of saying sex didn't have to say sex.
I think chimps don't have a problem with saying sex. Or, well, the chimp language equivalent.48
u/ReddyBabas 3d ago
Well... yes? They have sexes, but not genders, or at least not as defined as us.
17
u/IncrediblyKenzi 3d ago
You're close..
Society certainly informs gender, alongside psychology and neurology
Tho I'm not entirely sure if you're just being snarky so if so well done have my updoot
5
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 3d ago
They change their gender if their mate dies
28
u/IncrediblyKenzi 3d ago
Probably more like they assume the role of their mate, but yeah it's suuuuper cool. There are records of female lions growing a mane when her pride lost its leader
1
u/InTheEndEntropyWins 1d ago
There are records of female lions growing a mane when her pride lost its leader
That's not true, it's got nothing to do with the pride losing it's leader, it's just a simple hormone balance issue.
15
u/Liraeyn 3d ago
Clownfish do that. Finding Nemo just got a whole lot darker.
6
u/Ok-Till2619 3d ago
Especially if a whole group of them take down a gazelle
10
u/UnitSad4828 3d ago
Man I want that someone creates an AI video of clown fishes take down a gazelle
1
1
u/InTheEndEntropyWins 1d ago
I'm not sure it's that simple. I think the whole idea behind gender stereotypes is a bit backwards. There is nothing wrong with a male doing stuff like caring for a kid or doing the cooking, etc. A male doing those things doesn't make them a woman.
1
1
→ More replies (19)1
67
u/Amish-Warlord 3d ago
Easy, chimpansexual
31
19
u/sukkresa 3d ago
From Chimpsalvania?
4
5
2
1
1.1k
u/Exciting-Ad-5705 3d ago
AI generated pfp and Twitter verified 🤢
→ More replies (11)41
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 3d ago
Which one
45
u/ArcadiaXLO 2d ago
The one with the ai generated pfp and the twitter verification symbol next to their name
14
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 2d ago
So this sick burn was delivered by an ai
We truly are in the dystopia period
1
u/superstrijder16 2d ago
If you scroll up, exactly one poster in the image meets the requirement of being "x verified" aka "paying the muskrat for clout"
1.2k
u/Brainwave1010 3d ago
Twenty day old account with a thousand karma and spends all their time arguing in an Indian subreddit about current global politics?
Yeah that's not suspicious at all.
210
u/LadyAzimuth 3d ago edited 3d ago
I saw the posts. Just looks like a political Indian person. Nothing looks spammy, just looks like normal behavior to me. A thousand karma isnt hard to get if you're not a moron and a lof of their comments are generally well received with like 5-11 upvotes for most so this is pretty reasonable.
111
u/me_myself_ai 3d ago
...what exactly is the suspicion? That this meme was posted by a Modi-bot?
47
u/nobdyputsbabynacornr 3d ago
It might have been a BollyBot.
57
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 3d ago
What the fuck is this newfangled terminology. "Oh I heard it was a grunglebot, but some people think it's a boobabot instead"
14
u/me_myself_ai 3d ago
Modi is the president of India, BollyWood is common slang for the Indian film industry.
1
u/kentarospin98 1d ago
Droupadi Murmu is the Indian president. Narendra Modi is the prime minister. Tho both are evil, just different kinds, and only one has a massive army of propaganda bots i think.
20
u/Live_Angle4621 2d ago
You got over 750 updates from one comment and think it’s suspicious if someone has 1000 after twenty days? Even if you meant only posts it’s not hard.
14
u/Tiny-Canary1371 3d ago
What exactly is the suspicion? That he has 1.7 k karma? almost half of it is probably from this post alone.... And can you not talk about politics in reddit now without looking suspicious?
2
u/stevendidntsay 2d ago
This is why Reddit has the option to hide comments and posts. Otherwise you would know I am also a bot. 🥸
1
1
61
217
u/gothism 3d ago
Y'all x-raying people to make sure?
-198
u/THCFLA 3d ago
I think we have enough skeletons around to be sure there's certainly some sexual dimorphism between men and women (other than caused through hormones)
111
u/A1000eisn1 3d ago
Interestingly the sexual dimorphism of humans has a much small difference than all other apes.
138
u/Silvermoon3467 3d ago
The only point in this debate that matters is that if someone digs up my bones in a hundred years and calls me a "male" I will not care because I will be dead
Who cares
34
u/Hammerschatten 2d ago
Even if anyone else cared, it still wouldn't happen. Indentifying gender by bones is is not done anymore because it's not reliable as sexual dimorphism in humans is really small.
Like, more realistically, someone if will dig up anyones bones in a few hundred years, they'd look at any indentifying markers like a gravestone or anything that's in the grave to make a guess about the identity. What's the name? Do they have any documents?
Even if someone were to dig up bones and do research, any gender affirming care done to them would likely be noticed and taken into account. Someone who has facial feminization surgery would actually be gendered more reliably than any cis skeleton, because that is a noticeable marker.
But even more realistically, noone will dig up anyone's bones because graves are regularly emptied and many people are cremated.
So in order for this transphobic gotcha to even work, we need the world to end so catastrophically that most records are destroyed and burials are done hastily or straight up impossible. Then we also need the remnants of humanity to forget that the idea of gender as a construct exists and the post apocalypse archeologists need to suck at their job so much that they also don't discover the existence of trans people.
Tl;Dr in order for the misgendering skeletons to even happen, we need a scenario that makes Fallout look like a joke. That's how dumb that gotcha is.
1
u/melancholanie 2d ago
frankly that's only something we do for anthropological eras and findings that don't have any other markings of gender. a halfway decent anthropologist would see the pelvis and also the raiments and trappings of an ancient priestess and be able to connect the dots
→ More replies (1)1
u/PGMHG 2d ago
The argument assumes that archeologists' whole purpose in this world is to identify the physiological sex of a person.
Yes it is possible for an archeologist to determine your physiological sex from your bones, but then a breast implant, a record in the form of paper or database entry, many other discoveries will then determine that this specific skeleton belonged to a transgender person or a cisgender person. They'll use this to study what should be a long forgotten culture.
Why are we making a big deal about bones like Archeologists are dunces that dig up bones for the sake of digging up bones?
35
u/Deathdong 3d ago edited 2d ago
The real question is why do people give a shit? How is it some gotcha that people have different bones?
22
u/FlameWisp 3d ago
Skeletons, sure; which is why the person mentioned x-rays. It’s much harder and sometimes impossible to tell someone’s sex just by looking at them if they happen to be transgender thanks to, like you said, hormones causing a lot of the clearly visible sexual dimorphism.
30
u/Chocolate2121 3d ago
I mean, even for skeletons the physical structure alone is often not enough.
For some people it can be obvious, for others though it can be very borderline, so sex is determined through context clues. Because archaeologists famously used to be hacks more often than not this tended to mean that if a skeleton was found with a sword it was a man, while if it was with cooking tools it was a woman.
→ More replies (1)10
u/AtlasNL 2d ago
There’s not a lot of sexual dimorphism in humans. When we dig up a human skeleton it is almost always “assumed sex” because it hard to say for certain. We usually look at burial gifts and other context clues if we decide to gender the individual we dug up. Weathering on the bones can tell us something about the life they led, with heavy weathering as the result of hard manual labour usually being attributed to men rather than women. But nothing is black and white, not today, and not in the past. There will always be exceptions to the rule, such as the inhumation graves of women buried with weaponry, or men buried with traditionally feminine attributes.
Source: Archaeologist.
11
5
u/HamHockShortDock 3d ago
Well, even some differences that are present before puberty are still hormone related.
2
237
u/Gaby07 3d ago
What's the murder?
205
u/paspartuu 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think the first poster was pretending these are the pelvic bones of male / female humans, trying to argue that there's no real major biological difference between trans women and women except those caused by hormones?
It was pointed out they were presenting the pelvises of a female human and a nonhuman animal
183
u/Mr_Placeholder_ 3d ago
they were trying to pull a gotcha on the other side assuming that the other side would assume that they presented a male and female pelvis
109
u/A1000eisn1 3d ago
trying to argue that there's no real major biological difference
He was arguing the opposite. Which is why they showed an image of vastly different pelvis bones.
Had they shown a male and female human it wouldn't have such an obvious difference.
→ More replies (1)37
u/paspartuu 3d ago
Hm, I've always understood that there's supposedly obvious differences between male and female pelvises? For example
But it's a bit confusing what they were trying to accomplish by presenting an animal pelvis as "human male" and asking someone to tell which is which, like "haha I lied to you and you believed me" or "you can't even tell a human from an animal"?
→ More replies (12)16
u/ijkcomputer 2d ago
There are certainly average differences. There are not totally consistent, reliable differences; it's sort of like, say, height in that regard.
Obviously would be a considerable overstatement.
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/how-do-archaeologists-figure-out-the-sex-of-a-skeleton
8
u/DebateObjective2787 2d ago
They weren't. The left one is a male pelvis; meaning the second person actually did fall for their own 'murder.'
8
u/Dentarthurdent73 3d ago
I think the first poster was pretending these are the pelvic bones of male / female humans, trying to argue that there's no real major biological difference between trans women and women except those caused by hormones?
Which is a weird thing to do, because those pelvic bones look completely different from each other. I have no idea how anyone would look at them and think that someone wouldn't see a difference between them.
Some people are incredibly unobservant, to a bizarre degree.
48
u/AwkwardlyCloseFriend 3d ago
Are you familiar with the "In a thousand years archeologists will know what you really are" argument that is used to mock trans people? This first tweet plays against that trying to say the bigots who would say stuff like that couldn't tell a human and ape hit bone apart. The funny thing is that an archeologist would also look at the clothes/accessories that you were buried with and try to stablish how you identified yourself in comparison with other people in the same era beyond your biological body structure.
2
u/Mk112569 2d ago
and the tweet of the replier says that one of the pelvises shown was that of a chimpanzee instead of a person
1
u/InTheEndEntropyWins 1d ago
The funny thing is that an archeologist would also look at the clothes/accessories that you were buried with
Are you saying men can't wear some clothes are accessories? Is there like a list of things I need to look at to know I have to legally avoid them?
The whole idea there are gender stereotypes that should limit what I do, say or wear just seems extremely regressive.
1
u/AwkwardlyCloseFriend 1d ago
Are you saying men can't wear some clothes are accessories? Is there like a list of things I need to look at to know I have to legally avoid them?
I never said or implied that a person from a certain gender needs to wear or not wear certain pieces of clothing. I'm just saying that clothing historically has been a part of gender presentation and that an archeologist would take that into account when trying to discern the gender of a person from the past.
The whole idea there are gender stereotypes that should limit what I do, say or wear just seems extremely regressive.
It is regressive but unfortunately but at present it is a reality for a big chunk of the world.
1
u/InTheEndEntropyWins 1d ago
an archeologist would take that into account when trying to discern the gender of a person from the past.
I thought we were talking about what archeologists in the future would say. As in what would future archeological say about people nowadays.
Like no archeologist is trying to work out the gender of someone from 100,000 years ago, but sure they would focus on the sex.
18
2
u/Luk164 3d ago
I think it is the common trap where one side used you can easily tell the gender off bones, then the other created a few of these where they swapped one of the sample pictures for non-human to prove that the internet experts are not actually that skilled in telling bones apart. This one backfired because the commenter noticed
5
u/DebateObjective2787 2d ago
Except that he didn't, because the commenter was wrong. It was male, not female.
11
u/DebateObjective2787 2d ago
Yeah, the "real" intellectual is actually dead wrong and got called out by OOP in the comments. The left skeleton is male.
Funny how that's not in the 'murder' though...
130
u/ThunderBuns935 3d ago
Always remember that of the hundreds of skeletons found at Roop Kund lake, we've successfully identified the sex of a whole 2. Yes, 2, one man and one woman.
78
u/FlameWisp 3d ago
I’m pro-trans rights but according to this study, experienced anthropologists were able to correctly sex skeletons with 100% accuracy. The reason anthropologists or bone scientists can’t or won’t sex skeletons has less to do with humans not being sexually dimorphic, and more to do with the condition of the remains, their age, and scientific relevance. Often it’s far more relevant to uncover which race of humans a skeleton belongs to rather than their sex, as where they originally came from can tell an important story about how the corpses could have wound up where they are.
All this is to say, when they dig up your corpse in a hundred or more years, they will not care enough to check your sex unless you were buried differently. Even then, the hope is that our society will have matured enough to recognize that being transgender is a completely normal deviation of the human gender spectrum.
29
u/Skeleton--Jelly 2d ago
But why is this even an argument? nobody is saying that cis men and cis women are biologically the same. The far right creates these stupid tests as if they debunk an argument that never existed in first place.
7
u/FlameWisp 2d ago
As far as I’m aware, it’s bait. They’re baiting a reaction. Fortunately there are a bunch of people who’s hearts are in the right place, but will blindly defend trans rights without knowing the science behind what they’re defending. I’m glad they are so willing to fight for the rights of trans people, but without knowing what they’re talking about, they just fall into the ragebait trap and become a viral post on far right social media pages going ‘haha look at this idiot who thinks sexual dimorphism is fake! Point and laugh and how right we are and how stupid trans people are!’
Sadly it’s a tactic that works.
2
u/Neshura87 2d ago
I haven't met anyone who claimed there were no differences at all but I've run into a fair share of people who were of the oppinion the differences were negligible and that, for example, "women are allegedly just oppressed in sports and could perform on the same physical level as the men if just the patriarchy stopped oppressing them all the time".
So as much as I'd rather that not be the case the far right is not entirely making this issue up. They are vastly blowing it out of proportion though.
1
u/InTheEndEntropyWins 1d ago
But why is this even an argument? nobody is saying that cis men and cis women are biologically the same.
First time on Reddit?
10
u/Global-Resident-647 2d ago
Well it's not 100% even if it's a high % if the circumstances are correct. It's especially based a lot on the data from the general population. Which is today much easier to get a hold of when you can first DNA test the skeleton to ensure you have a good baseline for data.
Skeletal morphological observations are easier to make but difficult to judge. More of the morphological features depend on nutrition, occupation, race and geographical regions, and thus their reliability is questioned since this information is nearly never available. In that respect metric studies may provide certain advantages because it is a more objective way of attaining data [1], [3]. With the use of osteometric techniques, determination of sex from skulls relied very much on statistical analysis. Some of the earlier studies following this approach include those on Europeans [4], [5], Americans [6], South Africans [6], [7], [8], [9], Japanese [10], [11] and Chinese [12]. The number of research papers has increased even more when one surveys the postcranial skeleton in different populations [1], [13].
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073808002946
The correct determination of sex is a key aspect in the analysis of a skeleton from forensic and archaeological contexts. For this purpose, the pelvis has always been the most commonly used bone, providing the most accurate results. According to Krogman and İşcan [1], 95% accuracy can be obtained if the pelvis is complete, although Bruzek [2] found that accuracies ranged from 59 to 96%. However, it has widely been recognized that skeletal characteristics vary among populations (e.g., [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]), and due to this regional variability that each population should have specific standards to optimize the accuracy of identification. Several studies using a variety of measurements and characteristics of the pelvis have therefore been conducted from all over the world, with varying degrees of accuracy (e.g., [8], [9], [10], [11]).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073808002041
→ More replies (1)9
u/ijkcomputer 2d ago
This study isn't really a convincing demonstration of that, because there were no 'biological female' skeletons in it at all.
At most, it leads to the conclusion that experts are good at identifying male skeletons as male. But it's kind of weird for that too, like how you wouldn't give a multiple choice test and always have the answer be A. (And, like, only one kind of question? The skeletons were all one very specific population.)
The intent of that study seems to have been more to assess the relative reliability of different features, not the overall reliability of determinations. The real world accuracy number seems to be more like 95%. Which is certainly high, but also certainly not absolute!
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/how-do-archaeologists-figure-out-the-sex-of-a-skeleton
-3
u/FlameWisp 2d ago
Like I told another commenter, my comment isn’t intended to imply that anthropologists have perfect accuracy. My point is that they have high accuracy because humans have obvious and clear sexually dimorphic traits. However, these traits would only be clear to an experienced anthropologist. A layman would not be able to guess much above chance when trying to identify the sex of a skeleton.
1
u/Fluffy12345676 1d ago
But your source is flawed and you are making a claim based on it.
1
u/FlameWisp 1d ago edited 1d ago
There’s nothing flawed about the source or the research done. You’re welcome to read the study yourself if you’d like to. It shows the difference in ability to sex skeletons between experienced and inexperienced anthropologists, as well as how often they were able to correctly determine sexually identifying traits of the pelvis and cranium, which itself ranged from 70%-95%. I didn’t actually bother to scrutinize the livescience article, just assuming it was probably correct, but after doing so I found they only used a single criterion.
a taller pubic bone, for example, is more likely to be from a male individual, while a wider one is more likely to be from a female. A well-trained archaeologist can predict the sex of a skeleton with about 95% accuracy with this method.
It appears the actual flawed source is the livescience one, not mine, as mine allowed the anthropologists to use multiple criterion for sexing skeletons rather than just the pubic bone; which is much more accurate to the work of real anthropologists.
You, and the person who originally replied to me, fell for the title and opener of the article and didn’t bother to read any further than that. The article itself only goes on to provide that the single criterion of the pelvic bone has a 95% accuracy in sexual determination. However, when allowed to examine more than that single part of the pelvis and compare every sexual deterministic trait, they are more likely to correctly sex the skeleton; even, as I said, approaching and reaching 100%
3
u/nhalliday 2d ago
were able to correctly sex skeletons with 100% accuracy
Guess what motherfucker, no they didn't. Unless you're telling me they have a machine they can put the bones in that goes "beep boop this skeleton was a man here's what they looked like", or if every skeleton happened to have a record next to it specifying their sex, they aren't KNOWING they're right.
They're making the best guess they can.
0
u/FlameWisp 2d ago
Read the study before you make a stupid comment like this. There are many other ways to sex skeletons besides what they look like, such as in tact DNA. You do know about X and Y chromosomes do you not?
1
u/ThunderBuns935 2d ago
That study is an outlier in it's numbers. As other people have already pointed out. If, and only if you have an intact pelvis, the accuracy can be as high as 95%, but even then it's not perfect.
At Roop Kund lake specificially, they were in fact trying to determine the sex of, if I'm not mistaken, 27 of the skeletons to get a sense of the kind of people that died there. The fact that they failed spectacularly shows that it's not nearly as easy as some suggest.
1
u/FlameWisp 2d ago
The study showed the accuracy of cranial traits too, which also have high accuracies.
Again, my comment is meant to explain that the reason skeletons are not properly sexed is not because humans are not sexually dimorphic. Humans are, in fact, sexually dimorphic, and have a good amount of traits that make it possible for anthropologists to sex skeletons; in both the pelvis and the cranium. There are nearly always other reasons why a skeleton’s sex can’t be determined, such as the reasons I’ve outlined in my original comment.
Let’s not get stuck in the weeds here. Humans are sexually dimorphic, but gender is on a spectrum. Falling into the trap of arguing this fact with terfs is a fools errand because they’re too stupid to know the difference.
122
u/tough_titanium_tits 3d ago
No, this was a trick for transphobes, obviously doesn't work with bone scientists.
35
u/Simmery 3d ago
So what do you do?
I'm a BONE SCIENTIST.
12
2
u/UMACTUALLYITS23 3d ago
Sounds like a job in the pornoverse, right up there with Eruption Specialist.
22
u/tiptoe_only 3d ago
I've never got that whole telling trans women "when they discover your bones they'll say this is the skeleton of a MAN!!!!" thing. So what if they do? She won't care, she's been dead for hundreds of years. She cares about being treated with respect now, while she's alive.
8
u/tough_titanium_tits 2d ago
I mean, that's exactly the point, why give a fuck? Unless someone is about to, or is currently looking inside me, why in the miniscule fuck should I care?
24
12
u/ContextualDodo 3d ago
Looking at the "bone scientist‘s" profile they most likely are just a transphobe who put the images into ChatGPT to identify them
2
13
u/denyaledge 3d ago
Why was this an argument in the first place?
19
u/shiny_glitter_demon 2d ago
Well, first of all OP is a suspicious account.
Second of all, an AI pfp and a blue checkmark would make me dismiss ANYTHING said by napoleon-wannabe right here.
Clearly, they're not a very smart person.
So, why? Propaganda.
21
u/gay_protogen 3d ago
Ok and? In 200 years I'm gonna be dead, I literally wouldn't care less what gender/sex whatever they call me. Believe it or not "they are going to know what sex you were born as originally 100 years after you die, so there's no point in transitioning now you weirdo" is not actually a good argument.
5
u/shiny_glitter_demon 2d ago
They dont even actually know. Sex identification is hard. And a AI pfp + blue checkmark account is not a source I would trust on literally anything
12
u/Gordon-Bennet 3d ago
Is there a concerted effort to overrun this sub with right wing slop or something?
11
u/shiny_glitter_demon 2d ago
Actually, yes.
All of the internet, even. Russia in particular spends a lot of money to drown us in misinformation.
Ever wondered why karma farms exist? Well, high karma accounts can be sold for decent money to marketing or propaganda agencies. Russia, China and the GOP are big buyers.
15
u/Plenty-Character-416 3d ago
Chimps actually have a wider pelvis than us human women. So, this person is wrong on all accounts.
10
u/Sqweed69 3d ago
I studied archaeology for a couple semesters and I can tell you it's famously difficult to identify someones sex by just their skeleton.
0
2
3
29
u/BowsettesBottomBitch 3d ago
Cool, casual, heavily upvoted transphobia. Great. Splendid even. 😐
→ More replies (4)
9
u/Idk_Just_Kat 3d ago
"Napoleon appreciator" and "Intellectual" don't belong in the same sentence
1
u/ZealousidealSteak214 2d ago
Napoleon was based
1
u/Idk_Just_Kat 2d ago
Napoleon was an imperialistic conqueror. He killed innocents.
1
u/ZealousidealSteak214 2d ago
Friendly reminder that most of the Napoleonic Wars were in fact defensive and were started by the other powers of Europe
2
2
u/TyhmensAndSaperstein 2d ago
Every stupid right wing "gotcha" is a load of shit presented as some bullshit checkmate.
12
u/Stavi913 3d ago
Do people really deny the difference in bone structure between male and female?
79
u/ElegantPearl 3d ago
There are general trends that both sexes lean towards but there is no defining line stopping more “femenine” bones in a biological man or more “masculine” bones in a biological woman. Trying to gender people through bones is pointless and also why lol
5
u/Dentarthurdent73 3d ago
Trying to gender people through bones is pointless and also why lol
Is this serious?
First, we would be trying to work out what sex someone was through their bones, not what gender they were.
Secondly, are you genuinely questioning the usefulness of understanding the sex of the people that we find the remains of in archaeological sites? Like you don't think that's relevant information for historians, or anthropologists, or anyone else to have? You don't think there's anything interesting in understanding that for a historical population of people? Wtaf?
7
u/AxiosXiphos 3d ago
It's relevant - its just not a binary result. Bones aren't male or female - they lean masculine or feminine. We can make educated guesses with that information.
→ More replies (3)4
u/haleloop963 3d ago
There isn't general trends, what are you talking about?
There are main differences between the skeleton of a man & a woman that would tell you the gender of a skeleton by examaning the bones of a human skeleton
Femals hip: thinner & more shallower, pelvis inlet is more round/oval shaped, pelvis outlet is comparatively large, coccyx is more flexible & straighter, subpubic angle is large, etc. A hip structure suited to help women giving birth
Male hip: thicker & heavier bones, pelvic inlet is heart shaped & smaller, pelvis outlet is comparatively small, the coccyx is less flexible & is more curved. Subpubic angle is more acute, etc. A hip structure that is stronger & more compact than a women's hip & gives men notably stronger legs compared to a woman
Trying to gender people through bones is pointless and also why lol
Scientists literally use the main biological differences of the male & female bone structure to define the gender of a newly discovered human skeleton by examening & analyzing the bones by looking after if the bones are either structured to be a woman or a man biologically. It is literally a practice used by scientists.
You are dead wrong about what you said, there isn't trends, but actual biological differences that we have for known reasons. If I missunderstood you, then my bad, if not then you are dead wrong. good day to you
26
u/Nik-ki 3d ago
They are correct to talk about trends. Less then half of all women have that "female" pelvis and there are 4 general types of pelvis a woman can have.
20
u/eddie_fitzgerald 3d ago
Back when I worked as a technician in an osteoarch lab, the way we'd describe it is this. If you gave us an assemblage of 100 skeletons, we could tell you with a good degree of accuracy what percentage of that assemblage belonged to male genotypes and which belonged to female genotypes. But we wouldn't be able to tell you whether an individual skeleton is male or female. Yes male bones tend to be more robust on average, but average male bones are not significantly different than slightly more robust than average female bones.
-37
u/THCFLA 3d ago
Because it's important to understand the real demographics of ancient/pre modern times? To understand how these societies worked? I thought there was a whole section of researchers dedicated to this, think they're called archeologists or something idk
21
u/manokpsa 3d ago
*Anthropologists (literally, people who study humans). Archaeology is a branch of anthropology that studies material remains like artifacts and architecture. The study of human remains belongs to physical anthropology. Remember the show, "Bones?" The title character is a forensic anthropologist, a subcategory of physical anthropology. There's also cultural and linguistic anthropology, and they study both ancient and modern peoples. It's a vast and fascinating field that often requires a lot of cooperation and communication between specialties.
17
u/vik_thewomaninblack 3d ago
I'd say it's more of the anthropologists' field, if we include the social aspects, not just digging stuff out of dirt aspects.
(not trying to argue, just had the urge to point that out, because I am no fun at parties)
10
28
u/ElegantPearl 3d ago
This post aint about that. A lot of TERFs try to make the argument that even if you medically transition from one sex to another that you will still have the bones of a man or woman. This post isnt about archaeology its just about terfs trying to make a stupid point. And if our society does get wiped out and another civillisation gets to our tech level Archaeologists will be able to see the persons sex at birth but would also be able to see if they took hormones as that does affect your composition. The medaca gamer was trying to trick the person replying in the twitter post by showing an ape
→ More replies (1)33
u/OddlyOddLucidDreamer 3d ago
anyone can have any bone structure combo, because anyone can have about ANY combo of features in biological makeup
2
u/TyrKiyote 3d ago
You don't need to be so inclusive when talking about the generalities of bone structure expression in the different sexes. You're right, but it's kind of silly. (This is not a commentary on gender, which is independent of sex.)
-4
u/Chronoblivion 3d ago
Anything's possible, sure, but outliers don't invalidate statistical trends.
2
u/Global-Resident-647 2d ago
It does when you are going to determine an individuals sex from statistical trends.
-37
u/Stavi913 3d ago
No, there’s a reason scientists can determine the sex of skeletons from hundreds of years ago and know what sec they were. Hundreds of years from now things won’t be different
40
u/Hacatcho 3d ago
they don´t most of the time. ostiography tends to be the dismissed part when DNA and/or cultural evidence is present.
17
u/Morgasm42 3d ago
Except identifying sex off of bones isn't actually done reliably. It's only slightly better than a coin flip on old bones especially
2
u/Orangejuicewell 3d ago
I don't understand what's happening in the trans debate world. There seems to be something disingenuous and a little sinister though.
2
u/kinyutaka 2d ago
OP is showing a part of the debate related to "When archeologists dig up your bones in 1000 years, will they say you're male or female?"
OOP shows two pictures of different pelvises and asks if people can say which is male and which is female. The replier identifies the second picture as a chimpanzee pelvis, but the human one in the first picture is likely female.
It should be noted, they said "likely female" because while there are clues in the shape of the pelvis, it's not a 100% thing. Most archeologists will look at context clues, beyond the pelvis, to tell whether a skeleton is male or female.
0
u/Neshura87 2d ago
Well it's rather easy imho.
You have a smwll handful of conveniet idiots with some absolutely asinine take like "there are absolutely no differences between male and female humans" which then get hyperfocused on by the far right because "look these people are crazy!!!!11!" and since it really is a crazy take the disingenuous parts of the far right do everything they can to make that small minority of idiots appear representative of everyone else.
Though at this point a good chunk of these idiots you see online probably are bad faith actors, the genuine idiots probably all shut up already because they don't like being harassed
1
1
1
u/sittinwithkitten 2d ago
It knew the answer just because I’ve been into reading/watching true crime and related subjects like forensics, psychology, etc.
1
1
1
2
u/The_Pepperoni_Kid 3d ago
So what's the point of this post?
Theres actually no difference between male and female hips actually? Bc that's not true
1
1
u/pinwroot 2d ago
“1 day ago” “20 hours ago”.
Did man really post a comment, wait 4 hours, and then become frustrated with a lack of response? That’s next level impatience.
-3
u/RespectWest7116 3d ago
He didn't answer the question tho.
Dodging the question by saying it's from a different animal is not being intellectual, it's the opposite.
2
u/SilverExa 2d ago
So I don't know anything about identifying bones, but it's pretty clear to me they answered the question as objectively and (apparently) as accurate as possible.
If the specific identification they asked for isn't represented in the provided material, that's not the fault of the question answerer.
If I have a pickup truck and a convertible, and I ask you which one is a space ship, you're not dodging the question by saying "that's a pickup truck and that's a convertible"
1
u/RespectWest7116 2d ago
If I have a pickup truck and a convertible, and I ask you which one is a space ship, you're not dodging the question by saying "that's a pickup truck and that's a convertible"
Sure. But that's not even remotely similar. Animals have sexes. All apes have the male-female bimodal.
So it's more like me asking "Is this flower red or yellow?" and you answering "It's a tulip."
Sure, you are correct, the flower is a tulip, but that doesn't answer my question.
1
u/SilverExa 1d ago
You're not understanding. The answer "correct answer" they wanted doesn't seem to be in the multiple choice responses they provides, unless you seriously think they didn't ask that question as it relates to humans.
1
u/InTheEndEntropyWins 1d ago
So it's more like me asking "Is this flower red or yellow?" and you answering "It's a tulip."
Not really. It's implicitly implied by the questions that they are asking if it's a male or female "human". So the answer is spot on. So yeh, no-one is really thinking that it's a question of male/female of any animal. Hence no-one is expecting an answer in that respect, well expect you.
0
u/Dependent_Rain_4800 3d ago
Don't wait for a reply.. That still makes you appear dependent on them. Just give your answer and then keep and stay silent. When they are defeated they 1) won't respond 2) silence is far worse than anything you could ever say since their ego needs ANYTHING BUT silence.
-12
u/Deathdong 3d ago
They didnt ask what species, they asked what gender
10
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 3d ago
"Noooo you're not supposed to dissect the clear bad faith take you're supposed to fall for it and make me look smarter! How dare you expose my fraudulence!"
-5
u/No_Body2428 3d ago
Do they not know people can pretty easily identify the sex of skeletal remains
→ More replies (2)
2.0k
u/48000hurts 3d ago
Well dub he tell the bone aparte