The CNN article began: “Buried with an elephant’s tusk, an ivory comb, a crystal
dagger, an ostrich eggshell and a flint dagger inlaid with amber, the skeleton
discovered in a tomb near Seville, Spain, in 2008 was clearly once someone
that someone? The article went on to state: “Researchers used a new molecular
method in 2021 to confirm the skeleton’s sex as part of a broader study on the
discovery, and they got quite a shock.” Why? Because “It turned out that
the ‘Ivory Man’ was in fact the ‘Ivory Woman.’”
experts had assumed that the remains, buried as they were with such symbols of
prestige and esteem, were that of a man.
The post continued, noting that the “newer
method to determine the sex of old bones — first used in 2017 — involves
analyzing tooth enamel, which contains a type of protein with a sex-specific
peptide called amelogenin that can be identified in a lab,” and added, “Analysis
of a molar and an incisor from the skeleton detected the presence of the AMELX
gene — which produces amelogenin and is located on the X chromosome —
indicating that the remains were female rather than male.”
Because sex is knowable, detectable,
immutable, and irrevocable. Those with two ‘X’ chromosomes are, and always have
been, female. Period. (No pun intended.) Those with one ‘X’ and one ‘Y’
chromosome are male and are typically equipped with a penis and a scrotum (though
quite a few male Republicans, inexplicably, don’t have balls).
There are other ways archaeologists can discern the sex of a
skeleton. For example, women’s pelvises typically have wider openings than
men’s do, to aid in giving birth. (Yes, progressives, women give birth, men do
not. Period.) In many cases, DNA can also reveal the sex of human remains,
though it is fragile and can deteriorate over long periods of time, especially
if exposed to high heat. By contrast, Amelogenin preserves well, allowing it to
be widely used to figure out the sex of even highly incomplete skeletons.
But the aforementioned was all just
a prelude to the researchers’ analysis of the recent findings. The
message they were most eager to impart-- their key takeaway-- was that, while the skeleton’s biological sex is not in dispute, nothing is
known about the Ivory Lady’s gender identity…and ergo scholars
shouldn’t impose modern gender norms onto past populations.
For example, “bioarchaeologist”
Rebecca Gowland, a professor at the University of Durham who was part of a team
that first developed the sex-identifying method involving tooth enamel, stated:
“It could be that they had some special status that was
more significant than their gender identity or … there was not a binary gender
system.” Pamela Geller, an associate professor and fellow “bioarchaeologist” at
the University of Miami (who took part in the study), agreed, saying: “I think
this study of the Ivory Lady confirms what feminist-inclined bioarchaeologists
have been saying for almost two decades now…that past socio-sexual lives were
diverse and complex.”
Disclaimer: I do not purport to be an
elite mind when it comes to Feminist-Inclined Bioarchaeologists, or FIBs.
However, I simply do not believe primitive humans’ “socio-sexual” lives were as
“diverse,” “complex,” ephemeral, and reality-challenged as they are today.
Moreover, the fact that sex can inarguably
be determined absolutely—even retroactively-- refutes every recent argument
that gender is unknowable, fungible, indeterminate…optional.
folly to speculate that the “Ivory Lady” of thousands of years ago might have
been non-binary. But then, “science” suddenly seems absurdly intent on making a
mockery of itself.
But is it
possible the researchers are missing a bigger point: perhaps the Ivory Lady and
her cohorts were white supremacists. I mean, if he/she/they were buried with an
elephant’s tusk (white), an ivory comb (white), and an ostrich egg (kinda
white)…is that not upsetting? Even calling her the “Ivory Lady” fairly
reeks of white supremacy, misogyny, and the patriarchy!
the researchers/indoctrinators are correct. Maybe socio-sexual chaos reigned in
our distant past. (Although, we likely wouldn’t be here if too many of them
were gay or gender confused.)
picture a prehistoric “trans woman,” spear in hand, chasing after a Mastodon while
wearing an early version of high heels-- and a killer necklace and matching bracelet--
deftly trying to navigate around tar pits and through rocky areas. Surely there
is ancient cave art somewhere depicting an early human with a prominent penis
and bright red painted lips……”chest-feeding” a baby.
more, I’m guessing homo erectus recognized literally hundreds of genders…despite
the fact language wasn’t invented yet.
language was invented, our more recent predecessors simply must have had some
version of drag queen story hour, right? Drag queens in caves with coffee? And
frilly little underthings? Reading to little ones whilst flouncing around and
spreading their legs?
really so hard to picture Zog being upset that Ork misgendered or deadnamed
back to the beginning—what the person in question was buried with. Females tend
to have combs. Females produce eggs. Tusks and daggers are phallus symbols.
“Ivory Lady” was a lady. And proud of it.
Or is that
concept too “complex” for the researchers to grasp?