@ClumpingBambooIsALie
Could be interesting if we can try to get past our preconceptions and current ways thinking about things… to work out what we can actually deduce from the evidence about how this person who may have had an obvious difference of sexual development was integrated within that specific society. It didn't seem to have a lot of detail about exactly what the person was buried with and how they know what the connotations of those items were in that society. I think it's a problem to use retroactive labels like androgynous and non-binary that have culture-specific meanings for us; it would be better to be more specific and name biological conditions plus the details of the body and the burial and then clearly state what's extrapolation or surmise.
This. I'm not an archaeologist but have read enough to know that there is some interesting work going on in the area, in particular questions about whether gender identity mattered in the past, and whether other identities, such as 'elder' might have been more important.
Although in the end, almost all archaeology (DNA and isotope related stuff excepted) is surmise, and is so often infused with the preoccupations of the present that it tends to tell us more about ourselves than the past. We make it into a shape that feels comfortable, not that is true.