https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-skulls-not-crime-scene-human-sacrifice-ad-900/
1. How do they know they were women?
2. How can anyone suggest that the North American continent was filled with peaceful, benign, wonderful tribes until the Europeans came over and screwed everything up?
14 comments:
1. Any forensic scientist can assess and tell from bones, etc what gender someone was at birth (ie, if they had a penis or a vagina). What forensic scientists can't tell (yet) is what gender someone was.
But surely by now, you understand this bit of science and you're just seeking to a be a culturally-assigned dick.
1a. Native people in what is now North America recognized gender fluidity, unlike some arrogant bigots and religious zealots today who think they can decide for others what gender they are.
https://www.hrc.org/news/two-spirit-and-lgbtq-idenitites-today-and-centuries-ago
2. Having studied North American history prior to European settlement, I've never been part of a class that did not acknowledge that some native people were not peaceful, benign or wonderful in every way. I suspect this is another attempted swipe at experts who note that many tribes contributed a great deal in ways of living peacefully and communally and responsibly. That IS a reality, but not for all tribes and no informed people are saying otherwise.
2a. This "poor oppressed European white people always getting criticized and blamed for everything" schtick is just another form of white privilege and oppression and, to be blunt, stupidity. Just stop it.
1. Really, a penis and vagina are bones?
1a. The fact that you can confidently make the claim that pre European tribes had the same theories about "gender" as 21st century APLs is hilarious. The fact the this "third" gender was primarily men who didn't meet the standards of masculinity of those cultures, (or were conquered/enslaved warriors forced to cross dress) doesn't really place this in the realm of undisputed fact. Of course, a biased, single source isn't particularly convincing.
2. Ahhhhhhhhh, the "I've studied this topic and am therefore some sort of expert." canard. The "Only a tiny fraction of natives weren't peaceful, benign, and wonderful in every way." shtick.
2a. Really. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.
Are you really suggesting that human sacrifice (primarily of women and slaves) wasn't commonly practiced in the various societies in North America (and Central/South America for that matter) before Europeans arrived?
Are you really suggesting that some of the women brutally killed in this instance were not really women?
Are you really suggesting that the science of forensics is somehow wrong?
Based on what I've seen, these people weren't regarded as a third gender so much as they blended gender roles, as your piece also suggests. The problem is that you seem to be conflating gender roles with gender. Again, your problem is that you are projecting a 21st century liberal, view on this which probably wasn't shared by pre European natives.
"1. Any forensic scientist can assess and tell from bones, etc what gender someone was at birth (ie, if they had a penis or a vagina). What forensic scientists can't tell (yet) is what gender someone was."
Even for Dan, this is incredibly vapid nonsense. When assessing the bones of the dead, they will either be male or female based on the structure of the bones themselves. Any DNA evidence would further determine the sex of the deceased. Dan stupidly stumbles on one truth, which is that they cannot determine of the person being analyzed was mentally disordered to believe the person was of the opposite sex. Real people of science would never consider the possibility that such a thing could be true anyway, given there's no evidence of it being possible.
"Are you really suggesting that human sacrifice (primarily of women and slaves) wasn't commonly practiced in the various societies in North America (and Central/South America for that matter) before Europeans arrived?"
I don't know how common it was. I know there was a lot that happened with the aztecs, comma maybe even 1% of the population. But for other tribes in other areas, I do not know how common it was. Do you?
I have not said that human sacrifice did not happen in the Americas. It happened around the world. Including in the Americas.
"Are you really suggesting that some of the women brutally killed in this instance were not really women?"
No. I'm stating as a fact that I do not know, nor do you, how they perceived their gender.
"Are you really suggesting that the science of forensics is somehow wrong?"
No. I'm stating quite clearly that forensics can tell us whether someone was born a female or a male. But forensics cannot authoritatively tell us tell us what someone's gender is, because gender is more complex than simple assessment of whether they had a vagina or penis when they were born. Do you recognize that reality? Do you recognize that this is what science is telling us now? But forensics cannot authoritatively tell us tell us what someone's gender is, because gender is more complex than simple assessment of whether they had a vagina or penis when they were born.
Do you recognize that reality? Do you recognize that this is what science is telling us now?
Do you only accept science that confirms your personal philosophies and bigotries apart from data?
Only the LEFTIST fools have redefined the word "gender" to mean something other than biological sex. (actually, 'gender" had to do with language construction, whether word referred to male or female). There is no such thing as gender vs sex in humans. One is either male or female and cannot change from one to the other. Only a brainwashed fool would think otherwise.
So someone can't define a woman if they aren't a biologist? Balderdash.
https://www.catholicleague.org/anatomy-texts-prove-women-exist/
"maybe even 1% of the population. But for other tribes in other areas, I do not know how common it was. Do you?"
When you make these idiotic comments do you ever think about how little research it would take for you to not look like an idiot? What could possibly justify your 1% guess?
Given that the phrase "Most of the ancient civilizations" is what starts the Wikipedia entry, it seems safe to conclude that your 1% number is simply made up bullshit designed to hide your ignorance and lack of research.
"Most of the ancient civilizations of Mesoamerica such as the Olmec, Maya, Mixtec, Zapotec and Aztec cultures practiced some kind of taking of human trophies during warfare. Captives taken during war would often be taken to their captors' city-states where they would be ritually tortured and sacrificed. These practices are documented by a rich material of iconographic and archaeological evidence from across Mesoamerica."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-world-history-of-violence/human-sacrifice-and-ritualised-violence-in-the-americas-before-the-european-conquest/3B27826BAF08997EF2546FFEF0DC7974
https://allthatsinteresting.com/human-sacrifice/2
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-world-history-of-violence/human-sacrifice-ritualised-violence-and-the-colonial-encounter-in-the-americas/39CFDEAC3A4FCDB60C88682C01E122C1
https://www.jstor.org/stable/985013
file:///Users/user/Downloads/67402-Article%20Text-81287-1-10-20171119.pdf
"No. I'm stating quite clearly that forensics can tell us whether someone was born a female or a male."
Well, at least you agree with science on one point.
"But forensics cannot authoritatively tell us tell us what someone's gender is,"
Can you tell us "authoritatively" what someone's "gender" is? Is it possible to tell us "authoritatively" what someone's "gender" is? Do we simply accept someone's claims without any scientific verification at all? What if someone really believes that they are Napoleon? Or what if a White guy really believes they're Black? What if they believe they are an animal or a tree? Why is "gender" the only non physical instance where we simply, uncritically accept people's perceptions?
"because gender is more complex than simple assessment of whether they had a vagina or penis when they were born. Do you recognize that reality?"
Why yes I do. I've been pointing out how your simplistic "penis/vagina" bullshit barely scratches the surface of the biological differences between men and women. The fact that you choose the simplistic penis/vagina method rather than to acknowledge reality isn't my problem. In 99% of all human, and probably all mammals, ones physical make up and one's "gender" match. Yet you're trying to tell us that the 1% is what should drive the definition. In what other endeavor is a 99% probability of something considered wrong?
"Do you recognize that this is what science is telling us now? But forensics cannot authoritatively tell us tell us what someone's gender is, because gender is more complex than simple assessment of whether they had a vagina or penis when they were born."
By all means show me the "science" (you know testable, repeatable, etc) that conclusively tells us that when someone disagrees with their physical body that they are right and their physical body is wrong? How do scientists test for this to demonstrate that this is objectively True?
"Do you recognize that reality? Do you recognize that this is what science is telling us now?"
Do I recognize that some science is trying to tell us things without actually proving them, yes I do. Do you recognize that science is telling us that the differences between male/female go massively beyond "penis.vagina"? I recognize that these claims are being made, I haven't seen anything resembling indisputable, conclusive proof.
"Do you only accept science that confirms your personal philosophies and bigotries apart from data?"
No, I accept science where the scientists can actually provide physical, objective, evidence to back up their claims.
Art,
Dan is committed to the notion that a small number of scientists who specialize in "gender science" are authoritatively right, and that the vast majority of scientists throughout history are wrong.
Given that being "trans" is clearly not a physical, biological, genetic, trait, the only option is that it only exists in the mind". In other words it is literally something that cannot be objectively tested, measured, quantified, or studied. But we're supposed to ignore the biology, physiology, genetics, pulmonology, and the rest who are all agreed that there are an incredible number of differences between men and women on multiple levels.
Because clearly, those who claim "gender confusion", and who study it have no vested interest in supporting that which they strongly believe.
FYI, I posted a link to a "trans affirming" surgeon, who them self is "trans", who doesn't back up Dan's assertions. But we should definitely believe Dan's unproven assertions because he self validates them as "reality".
That's science dammit!
Glenn,
As near as I can tell from a little research the "science" comes down to this.
The chromosomal distinctions between men and women align with the physiological differences between man and women overwhelmingly frequently. Like in 99+% of all humans their genetic and physiological make up will agree. But the fact that in an incredibly small number of cases those two factor don't agree, means that those cases are not "mistakes" (for lack of a better scientific word), but that each different variation is actually it's own unique "gender". Therefore by making the rule based on a very small number of exceptions to the rule, we can justify completely divorcing "gender" from any connection to the physical/biological realm, and making it entirely within the realm of feelings. The fact that a man can't know what it feels like to be a woman is immaterial. That because a woman feels like they "don't fit", they automatically become a man in a woman's body (disregarding the fact that it's still a binary choice and that it's based on stereotypes of gender roles which may or not be exclusive).
I'm always mystified why this one instance is when we choose to announce that the measurable, physical, aspect of a human is wrong, while the immeasurable, non physical, intangible, realm is 100% correct. Also that the intangible, non physical is immutable, unchangeable, and fixed, while the physical is malleable and can be twisted into any form desired.
Craig...
"Can you tell us "authoritatively" what someone's "gender" is?
Is it possible to tell us "authoritatively" what someone's "gender" is?
Do we simply accept someone's claims without any scientific verification at all?"
People who demonized and oppressed Left-Handed people:
"Can you tell us "authoritatively" what someone's "handed-ness" is?
Is it possible to tell us "authoritatively" what someone's "handed-ness" is?
Do we simply accept someone's claims without any scientific verification at all?"
You cannot prove "handed-ness." You just take someone's word for it. Today. But 200 years ago? The Pharisees oppressed and literally demonized them based solely on their bigotry, just like you are doing today for transgender folk.
"Let's kick the Left Handers out of our bathrooms and churches and decent society! They can't PROVE their handed-ness biologically, so CLEARLY it is the devil's doing! Burn them!!"
Bigots have always acted the same.
And unfortunately, way too often, religious bigots have been the worse.
"I'm always mystified why this one instance is when we choose to announce that the measurable, physical, aspect of a human is wrong, while the immeasurable, non physical, intangible, realm is 100% correct."
Left-Handedness can NOT be proven except by the testimony of the perverted Left Handers! They are of the devil! Burn them!
(Translation: I can't personally understand it, so I don't believe it's true.
Idiots have always thought thusly.)
Left handed people don't fake it. They cannot alter the fact that for whatever reason as yet undetermined by science, their left side is dominant as opposed to the vast majority whose right side is dominant.
But the fakes who pretend to be of the opposite sex do not have this automatic reality. Unlike left handed people, they have to think about it. They don't wake up and just start acting like women, whereas left handed people just wake up and grab things with their left hand as opposed to the majority who grab with their right. There's no question of imagining what it's like to be left handed, while the fakes can't operate without considering how to be feminine in their actions, while at the same time having no real understanding of what it means to be female. While some men throw or punch like girls, they're still likely to move physically like a man unless they purposely choose to move like a woman.
Post a Comment