Prehistoric female hunters - trans? Wtf!!

[TiredAndBonkers]

Just read this article:
www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/11/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions/

In short, there's evidence that females hunted, and this evidence has been overlooked due to sexist assumptions. So far, so good.

And then it goes on:
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). In other words, they can’t say whether the individual lived their life 9,000 years ago in a way that would identify them within their society as a woman.

How the hell can they look at this and say, ah, we mistakenly made assumptions about gender roles through the lens of more recent societies... And then go on to make assumptions based on current ideas? Why has this idea of gender taken such a hold that glaring evidence it's societal not innate is ignored in this way? Just wtf?!

Not a very eloquent response, I admit, it's been a long day... But thought I'd share the article here.

only biological sex (which like gender doesn’t always exist on a binary)

Facepalm.

This debate has been going on for ages. I read a book on Stone Age civilisations back in the 90s that pointed out that the man-hunter/warrior, woman-gatherer/not warrior concept started by (sexist)/Victorian scientists was not only not proven but not supported by excavations.

I think the “gender identity” blurb is hilarious.

Oh ffs. You'd expect better from the National Geographic wouldn't you

There's another thread on this but yeah, that bit definitely isn't important to what the research is about.

Why has this idea of gender taken such a hold that glaring evidence it's societal not innate is ignored in this way?

Misogyny.

I think the menstrual bleeding and propensity to become pregnant would have given them a clue about who the women were.

So literally that's it, is it? You don't fit into fucking victorian male stereotypes about womanhood, so you must have secretly been male all along?

What is wrong with these people?

National Geographic is a complete embarrassment now. It’s been woke for quite some time.

But do they also know the gender norms for the society in question? I mean maybe the norm was female hunting and it's the male bodies whose gender identity is in question ?

Geller adds: “There’s so much mental gymnastics that go on trying to explain these things away.”

Agreed, but not in the way this scientist means.

@midgebabe

But do they also know the gender norms for the society in question? I mean maybe the norm was female hunting and it's the male bodies whose gender identity is in question ?

Exactly. Even in some modern day traditional phillipine societies like the Aeta people it’s the women who go hunting AND gathering while the men do diy around the house, tend vegetable gardens and do child care/protection.

This is a better article on the same research, without the 'woke' bit
theconversation.com/did-prehistoric-women-hunt-new-research-suggests-so-149477?fbclid=IwAR0H3_60hSCUD-jys9Y3TgBsOM010itYPwXu0TVZ9VZRpj5-BpUXFpzZNCI

I think the things people forget is that during prehistory malnutrition, periods of famine, illness and so on made women much less fertile than they have been during historical times. They were not constantly pregnant from menarche to menopause. So the idea that women would be either pregnant or nursing babies most of their adult lives was not the reality in prehistory.
There was a book called Invisible Sex oh, at least a decade ago, that showed that women did hunt as well as men. It was sneered at by all people germaine Greer who made arguments like you can’t stalk a deer and nurse a crying baby at the same time. Completely ignoring that in prehistory that at any one time many adult women in a tribe would not have infants and so would be free to hunt.

The fucking gall of these people calling themselves scientists.

9000 years ago, just like today, humans identified who the women were by the possession of gold handbags, manicured nails and pronoun badges.
There’s literally no other way to work it out.

I also think (based on no scientific evidence other than my own opinion which seems to be the standard these days) that in a small tribe personality, health and skills were much more important to survival of individuals and the tribe than gender identity.

I’d also add, that tribes were not homogeneous across the globe. There would have been vast differences between tribes in different geographical areas and they would have changed and evolved. There was no one way tribes would have operated.

tribes were not homogeneous across the globe. There would have been vast differences between tribes in different geographical areas and they would have changed and evolved. There was no one way tribes would have operated.

Exactly! There is no universal division of labour by sex in prehistory or history.

@Mycatismadeofstringcheese

9000 years ago, just like today, humans identified who the women were by the possession of gold handbags, manicured nails and pronoun badges. There’s literally no other way to work it out.

Nailed it!

I also think (based on no scientific evidence other than my own opinion which seems to be the standard these days)..

😂

@Oxyiz

So literally that's it, is it? You don't fit into fucking victorian male stereotypes about womanhood, so you must have secretly been male all along?

What is wrong with these people?

Yup.

The whole ideology is just an excuse for rampant misogyny

I'm sick of this new religion now. It's gone beyond a joke.

Can't people see how this is undermining feminism? The idea that any woman who steps outside traditional feminine roles must be male? Ffs.

My jaw dropped reading that. Talk about shoe-Horning propaganda into a 'scholarly' article. In fact it sounds as if it was written by an A level student. How can anyone publish this ?

A piece in National Geographic isn't remotely a 'scholarly article'. The actual paper seems to be this, advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/45/eabd0310

.... I've not read it yet, hopefully it will spare the guff...

.... the paper itself doesn't seem in the least to be implying 'trans', rather it's presenting clear evidence challenging the gendered prejudices of earlier researchers.

So, that ridiculous 'importantly ... ' paragraph is just something inserted by a journalist, not representing the views of any of the scientists involve.