Science No Place For Transphobia in Anthropology: Session pulled from Annual Meeting program - Fucking retards

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The AAA and CASCA boards reached a decision to remove the session “Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology” from the AAA/CASCA 2023 conference program. This decision was based on extensive consultation and was reached in the spirit of respect for our values, in order to ensure the safety and dignity of all of our members, as well as the scientific integrity of the program.

The first ethical principle in AAA’s Principles of Professional Responsibility is to “Do no harm.” The session was rejected because it relied on assumptions that run contrary to the settled science in our discipline, framed in ways that do harm to vulnerable members of our community. It commits one of the cardinal sins of scholarship—it assumes the truth of the proposition that it sets out to prove, namely, that sex and gender are simplistically binary, and that this is a fact with meaningful implications for the discipline.

Such efforts contradict scientific evidence, including the wealth of anthropological scholarship on gender and sex. Forensic anthropologists talk about using bones for “sex estimation,” not “sex identification,” a process that is probabilistic rather than clearly determinative, and that is easily influenced by cognitive bias on the part of the researcher. Around the world and throughout human history, there have always been people whose gender roles do not align neatly with their reproductive anatomy. There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification. On the contrary, anthropologists and others have long shown sex and gender to be historically and geographically contextual, deeply entangled, and dynamically mutable categories.
The function of the “gender critical” scholarship advocated in this session, like the function of the “race science” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is to advance a “scientific” reason to question the humanity of already marginalized groups of people, in this case, those who exist outside a strict and narrow sex / gender binary.

Transgender and gender diverse identities have long existed, and we are committed to upholding the value and dignity of transgender people. We believe that a more just future is possible—one where gender diversity is welcomed and supported rather than marginalized and policed.

https://americananthro.org/news/no-...y-session-pulled-from-annual-meeting-program/ (Archive)
 
Click to expand...
Okay, so if trannies always existed, you'd think they'd have a lot more mainstream acceptance.

Like, if you had a culture that accepted trannies (which, I could probably make the argument that you can't even frame it as something that modern gender ideology could identify because history wasn't 21st century America), don't you think that culture would have brought that element of their identity with it?

Further: if those identities were in any way stable, how did they manage to live and thrive without "gender affirming care"? Almost as if...even if those things DID exist, they were kind of sitting on the fringes of culture, and didn't do a great job reproducing.
 
A reminder that anthropology as a profession, at least in the US/west, is no longer a scientific or unbiased based thing. No, literally! The major orgs representing them chose years back to openly affirm their commitment to social justice activism over objective science, history or fact. They stated their main and most important goal to be activism, not anthropology.
 
Last edited:
Oh, FFS.

Remind me again, isn't it the right wingers who are supposed science deniers?

The lefties have commandeered the humanities completely, smashed women's sports to pieces with a sledgehammer, and now they go after science. And they're winning, every step of the way. Nobody wants to hurt the feelings of troons and tell them that they are a buncha smelly incel dudes whose lives suck because they suck.

People think the Bud Light boycott settled the issue. That's nonsense; that wasn't really a stand against troons, it was more of a stand against that retarded VP of marketing who insulted the customer base.

The war has not even begun. In the face of this assault on common sense, decency, and freedom, it is the duty of every freedom lovin' son and daughter of Western Liberalism to insult a troon every single day until they return to cowering in their basements where they belong.

Show me a fossilized troon. Then show me that he wasn't an aberration; a harbinger of the downfall of an ancient civilization. And then we can start talking about transitioning anthropology.
 
So glad future anthropologists will no longer be able to indicate whether a grave belonged to a man or a woman, and will instead focus on what the pile of bones pronouns were. There is nothing that hasn't been subverted in academia.
 
chiobu said:
Forensic anthropologists talk about using bones for “sex estimation,” not “sex identification,” a process that is probabilistic rather than clearly determinative, and that is easily influenced by cognitive bias on the part of the researcher. Around the world and throughout human history, there have always been people whose gender roles do not align neatly with their reproductive anatomy. There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification.
Click to expand...

That 400,000 year old hominid was totally nonbinary. Xe/xir pronouns.

If we have enough bones to determine sex then the biological sex is what should be recorded. Because that's science. Assuming that we might misgender some ancient bones is retarded.
 
OK class, let's start today's lesson in hand-waving and distraction.

chiobu said:
It commits one of the cardinal sins of scholarship—it assumes the truth of the proposition that it sets out to prove,
Click to expand...
Remember this claim. It will come up frequently.

chiobu said:
Forensic anthropologists talk about using bones for “sex estimation,” not “sex identification,” a process that is probabilistic rather than clearly determinative,
Click to expand...
Sure. Such is the nature of guessing at the past. But it's funny they must acknowledge this process is focused around sex, not gender, because gender separated from sex does not exist in the archeological record.

chiobu said:
and that is easily influenced by cognitive bias on the part of the researcher.
Click to expand...
Remember the bit about assuming the truth of the proposition? This is exactly what the "cognitive bias" branch of intersectionality does. To date, not a single discipline has proved that cognitive bias exists as an objective, observable phenomenon. They simply claim it exists then make up metrics to measure it.


chiobu said:
Around the world and throughout human history, there have always been people whose gender roles do not align neatly with their reproductive anatomy.
Click to expand...
And here we start the hand-waving. Note what this does not say: that it is impossible or improbable to determine sex from remains.

Gender-not-sex is a story, not a fact, and they want to read the archeological record as storytellers instead of hunters for facts.

chiobu said:
There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification.
Click to expand...
I would claim there is, but even if we accept "there are many standards" as true, that does not mean "therefore there is no useful standard". This is the cardinal crime of post-modernism: providing multiple interpretations, not as a way to view something with new perspectives, but to claim that the plurality destroys any claim to objective truth.

It should be the job of serious scholars to examine such standards or interpretations, and pick 1-2 that make the most sense. Instead, the organizations here default to the one that makes least sense, that there is no standard. These are not serious scholarly organizations.

chiobu said:
On the contrary, anthropologists and others have long shown sex and gender to be historically and geographically contextual, deeply entangled, and dynamically mutable categories.
Click to expand...

DEFLECTION ALERT! SMOKE SCREEN DETECTED!

The best they can claim is that gender roles or gender norms are contextual. I have never seen a plausible claim that sex was contextual to a culture or geography. Almost by definition, it can't be, because humans are a dimorphic species; any culture that denied this would fail to propagate and disappear without a trace.

And this is part of the same deception in that second paragraph.

The session was rejected because it relied on assumptions that run contrary to the settled science in our discipline, framed in ways that do harm to vulnerable members of our community
Click to expand...

No, the settled science runs contrary to the nu-Science borrowed from Tumblr and asserted as fact. You might want to believe the nu-Science, but considering it's changed every year since Trump got elected, you can not call it settled.

And this claim about harm assumes the truth of the proposition without any proof that any harm is caused, beyond the mere complaints of other scholars. I bet if you look at all those nu-Science anti-sex papers, they'll make the same basic error. Which makes this particular accusation against the sex-based panel a massive case of projection.

I could go on, but you get the idea. They have to hand-wave sex away when it's inconvenient, and insert it along with gender when they can make plausible claims about uncertainty. This is not how scholars act, it's how advocates act when they have nothing but emotion on their side.
 
chiobu said:
Such efforts contradict scientific evidence, including the wealth of anthropological scholarship on gender and sex. Forensic anthropologists talk about using bones for “sex estimation,” not “sex identification,” a process that is probabilistic rather than clearly determinative, and that is easily influenced by cognitive bias on the part of the researcher. Around the world and throughout human history, there have always been people whose gender roles do not align neatly with their reproductive anatomy. There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification. On the contrary, anthropologists and others have long shown sex and gender to be historically and geographically contextual, deeply entangled, and dynamically mutable categories.
Click to expand...
I know this is the most 2010's Forum Weapon response to anything but:
chiobu said:
There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification.
Click to expand...
This line makes me shiver, it's so fucking stupid.

The collective intelligence of our society and cultural institutions has been on a steep decline for the last decade, why the fuck are scientific institutions playing into the delusions of lunatic trannies? Hell, back in 2013 there were still enough troons who accepted that they weren't 100% the same as a biological woman, crossdressing/transitioning just made their brains hate them less.

The AAA is a 121 year old institution, stick to your fucking scientific foundations and stop trying to pander to less than 0.6% of the Earth's population who can't identify their crotch from a hole in the ground.
 
Isn't it funny how humans are the only mammalian species given special exception to the male/female gender binary? Isn't it funny how no other mammalian species has to have a strict delineation between sex and gender like humans suddenly started to have within the last decade? No zoologist has to quibble about what an animal skeleton sexually identified as in life, but when it comes to anthropology or anything involving thinking about humans, we need to think about the teeny tiny minority of gender dysphorics first before making any qualitative assumptions.
 
pikachudidnothingwrong said:
A reminder that anthropology as a profession, at least in the US/west, is no longer a scientific or unbiased based thing. No literally! The major orgs representing them chose years back to openly affirm their commitment to social justice activism over objective science, history or fact. They stated their main and most important goal to be activism, not anthropology.
Click to expand...
It was very likely the first social science to be subverted by active communists, at least as early as the 1940s. While the early communists did produce some actual, valuable research, it's pretty clear it produced a left-wing bent that eventually did transfer into the sort of activist communism, particularly once Frankfurt School and postmodernism became dominant in sociology (which unsurprisingly was the second branch of the humanities to be subverted and to a far greater degree thanks to the Frankfurt School and their students).

I think they subverted these two branches of the humanities first because if you understand anthropology or sociology, then you can easily recognize patterns between cultures and within society and use this to your advantage. They don't want "the bad guys" (us) holding this knowledge. Jokes on them since I enjoy reading anthropology texts and I know these people go against what the actual science in their discipline says.
 
In highly political societies this always happens. In the USSR one example was Lysenkoism.

The entire wikipedia page paints a glorious picture of what politicized science looks like, but I especially love this bit:
Lysenko claimed that the concept of gene is a "bourgeois invention", he denied presence of any "immortal substance of heredity" or "clearly defined species", which he claimed belong to metaphysics rather than strictly materialist Marxist science.
Click to expand...
Some of the greatest hits are:
  • Genes are not real, they are a capitalist construct.
  • When plants have offspring, they directly inherit the experiences of their ancestor. EG, if you take the leaves off cotton plants, its offspring will never grow leaves, just more cotton.
  • Fertilizers and Pesticides are a capitalist construct.
  • The natural state of life is not competition, but cooperation. All organisms, are inherently symbiotic, if you plants crops closely to eachother, they will all grow better than if you space them out.
  • You can make one organism into another organism by feeding it the other organism's diet.
He was put in a high position over soviet agriculture because of his claims of 400% crop yield increases and marketable as a proletarian hero.
 
Meanwhile, China is happily teaching Romance of the Three Kingdoms and how that period of chaos was started by a bunch of Eunuchs in power.

Eunuchs and Kyphosis 1.png

They are proving why in history troons are despised and distrusted in general.
 
This idea that there’s no one reliable metric to sort bones with 100% accuracy is such weaselly business.
They take something that’s technically true, but not very useful in the real world and they use that fact to destroy an entire concept of sex. Then they use the fact it’s destroyed as the One Truth.
Some skeletons are fragmented. Some are just tiny pieces. Some, a very very small number may have ambiguous proportions (but not many.) that doesn’t mean that the VAST majority of times you have enough material you can sex the skeleton. If you dig up a skull, even parts of it or various other bones you can tell the sex.
‘In two of the burials we only had a bit of finger bone with no DNA recoverable. This means no skeletal remains ever are able to be sexed.’ That’s basically the argument.
And it distorts the very interesting burials and what they might mean. A woman buried with hunting gear or weapons? Well she’s no longer a cue to think about how their society works, or what might have driven this - she’s a tranny. Had this woman’s husband died, leaving her to assume a male role? Were women in this group buried with a weapon as routine? Had their been a battle and she’d been buried with a weapon as a mark of respect for singing a few invaders? No just a tranny. Man buried with a female object? Tranny. Was it perhaps his beloved wife’s and he’d kept it after her death and wanted to be buried with it? Nope, tranny. It’s ludicrous
Anthropology is dead. Even the very empirical genetics side is getting infiltrated. Cheddar man’s skin being shown as black is a good example.
 
chiobu said:
There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification.
Click to expand...
male: the phenotype associated with production of the small gamete, aka. the spermatozoa
female: the phenotype associated with production of the large gamete, aka. the ovum

This wasn't controversial even 5 years ago. In fact the big troon comeback to "there are only two genders" was "actually there are only two sexes, but gender is different because it is a social construct." Are we all supposed to just forget that?
 
The panelists were arguing that they can determine the sex of infant remains, which helps them know if it was mostly male or female infants who were being sacrificed. I'm sure the Moloch worshippers made sure to ask them about their gender identity first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom