Researchers now say ‘Ivory Man’ was actually ‘Ivory Woman’
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 important.
Who was 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.”
Earlier 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.
It is 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!
But maybe 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.)
I can 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.
What’s more, I’m guessing homo erectus recognized literally hundreds of genders…despite the fact language wasn’t invented yet.
And, once 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?
Is it really so hard to picture Zog being upset that Ork misgendered or deadnamed
Let’s go 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.
Maybe the “Iron Lady” was a lady. And proud of it.
Or is that concept too “complex” for the researchers to grasp?