"Sisters Uncut protests trans exclusionary feminist group"

that's very sad
how selfish

Attached to what seems to have been a brightly covered top covering on one side is some sort of clothing pin. It has the words ‘They, Them’ crudely scratched onto it, as is by a preschool child, and look, here’s another with ‘She, Her’ scrawled in what I believe they called ‘a sharpie’.

What is this strange cult, and what deity was being evoked by this magic talisman? Did this clearly primitive being believe that they were more than human - superhuman of you will?

Their pelvis bone clearly indicates that the body is that if a male but was this primitive creature trying to evoke the Goddess Dumbass in some magic ritual?

"It seems the deceased was a person, who like most people may have had a range of interests. But we can tell from the shape of the pelvis that he was a man."

There, sorted. I am so out of patience with the desperate attempts to force "gender" into absolutely everything. Find a new hobby, kids.

Cloaks (worn by men and women) were traditionally fastened with pins or brooches. It is possible for clothing or decorative items to be gender-neutral.

Weren’t togas pinned with metal pins? So very desperate... plenty of traditional ‘male’ trades would have needles (fishermen and sailmakers come to mind).

Come on love, just look at the pelvis bone.

Another individual had a blade and a metal drinking cup, and also, a garment pin and needle. It seems the deceased performed masculine ritual activities but also wore feminine dress, says Cifarelli.

I am Scottish. This could be any Scottish man buried in traditional dress, now or in centuries past.

My brain aches to read stuff like that article, it is the very definition of confirmation bias.

Forty people? Where they wearing invisibility cloaks?

Are facts unfashionable just now?

That archaeology piece is astounding. Real Brain of Britain stuff going on in today's universities!

We decided to mess with future archaeologists with dads coffin. It’s really what he would have wanted.

interesting article but many assumptions made

no, she has a point
morphology of the skeleton can suggest sex (well the pelvis can determine)
but grave goods etc cannot, we assume that spears/swords/shields=male
but we might be wrong! they might be amazons!

When it comes down to it - it’s sex, not of you wanted to wear a frock and lippy and call yourself Delores.

When human remains are found in an archaeological dig, researchers assign them to one sex or the other, if possible, based on the morphology of the skeleton or objects found in the burial, says Megan Cifarelli, an art historian from Manhattanville College, a liberal arts college near New York City. “Embedded in that use of predetermined categories is the assumption that being male or female meant the same thing a long time ago as it does now,” she says.

Evolution can happen quite fast but I'm willing to bet that 3000 years ago being a woman still meant having periods, getting pregnant, giving birth, breastfeeding, going through the menopause if you got that far, and a good deal of that will leave tangible signs in the skeleton and teeth. So yes, being of the female sex would have meant much the same then as now.

Yes, they did. www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-ancient-civilization-in-iran-recognized-transgender-people-study-suggests-1.6790205

Didn’t they recently ‘dead trans’ a whole burial plot because of the grave goods found with them? So desperate.

I wonder what the archaeology department makes of the idea that it is hateful to define woman as adult human female. What are they going to do when out on a dig, just stand there looking at the bones and saying, well, we can tell a lot about this person from the skeleton but of course we'll never know the gender identity, as we can't tell now whether they had long hair, wore high heels, used make-up, preferred pink.

It’s like a wee boys club. Until they get bored and join the local Darby and Joan club for a laugh.

I suspect it was the cuckoo move. Infiltrate group gradually, then create drama so that everyone who might object to the takeover leaves either voluntarily or otherwise. Then make sure it's full of your supporters.

“We’re just trying to educate people. Because I think people often hear feminism, when they hear about meetings such as with For Women Scot, and they think that must be great, so they come along.”

They’re lying to themselves. I very much doubt anyone accidentally came to this meeting. If they would stop and engage, they might begin to understand why women feel so strongly about this that they are willing to face walking through potentially threatening protesters to access a meeting about women’s rights,

The "uncut" was originally about public spending cuts, not FGM. It was a women's anti-austerity campaign. No idea what happened to it for it to make trans issues its focus.

There isn't a debate because there is nothing to debate about. Men are not women however much they scream and shout that they are. That's not anyone's fault, not even the Romans'.