El respeto a la diversidad sexual... hace 5.000 años.
- Iniciador del tema Dragut
- Fecha de inicio
See leer, y tengo la famosa comprensión lectora que tanto has repetido tu y eoz en las últimas semanas, y precisamente porque la tengo pude entender que implicitamente la nota dice, y no no el juego de mis neuronas, que esta arqueologa al encontrar un esqueleto masculino en una posicion en la que se encuentran los esqueletos femeninos brinca a la conclusion que dicho esqueleto se trata de un transgenero u homosexual.
Notese el uso de " o " , es decir o uno o el otro (pa' que quede bien claro), entonces lo analizamos por el lado de la homosexualidad. Un esqueleto masculino, enterrado como mujer, ergo el esqueleto pertenecio a un homosexual. Implicitamente, los homosexuales hombres tienden a ser femeninos y en culturas antiguas se les consideraba como mujer, eso paso en el juego de neuronas de la arqueologa.
Ahora veamos el mismo hallazgo desde otro punto de vista. En esta poblacion en especifico, se ha observado que a los hombres se les entierra sobre el costado derecho, y a las mujeres se les entierra sobre el costado izquierdo y con objetos con los que usualmente, el sujeto en cuestion, interactuaba en vida. Repasando un poco las clases de estadistica, podemos encontrar una correlacion entre la posicion del cuerpo y el genero del esqueleto; y de estadistica 101, una correlacion no establece causa y efecto, aun cuando el indice de correlacion sea +- 1.0. Ahora encontramos un esqueleto masculino enterrado como un esqueleto femenino, no suena bastante apresurado decir que el esqueleto pertenecia a un transgenero/homosexual ?
Se que la arqueloga no se gano su titulo de a gratis, pero como mencione anteriormente De donde salio esta senora? El articulo no menciona el nombre del equipo de investigacion, o una universidad en la cual se pueda encontrar informacion sobre la experiencia de la arqueologa en la materia.
Ahora haciendo un poco de investigacion, encontre que no soy el unico en el juego de mis neuronas que piensan que la declaracion de esta senora fue demasiado apresurada y muy simplista.
Aqui esta la declaracion de una antropologa acerca del caso, de la universidad de North Carolina:
"If this burial represents a transgendered individual (as well it could), that doesn't necessarily mean the person had a 'different sexual orientation' and certainly doesn't mean that he would have considered himself (or that his culture would have considered him) 'homosexual,'" Killgrove wrote.
http://www.livescience.com/13620-gay-caveman-story-overblown.html
Ahi mismo se menciona que no hay ni siquiera pruebas de ADN... caray, pero bueno.. segun Joker y Dragut, no se leer.
A ver Dragut, me quedo esperando la fuente de donde dices que el esqueleto encontrado tiene huesos anormalmente grandes y pelvis reducida, o en tu experiencia como antropologo/arqueologo te permitió inferir esa información a partir de una foto tomada de lejos y mala resolución?
Porque segun Monty Dobson de la univerisdad Drury en Missouri es dificil determinar el sexo de un esqueleto con exactitud, y que ha habido ocasiones en las que se ha asignado el sexo a un esqueleto y cuando se hacen las pruebas necesaria resulta ser que el esqueleto era del sexo opuesto, anade que normalmente los arquelogos se basan en el tamano de la pelvis, pero que esas medidas no son exactas... ouch... in your face Dragut.
Mira aqui te dejo su biografía, a ver si puedes refutar lo que dice alguien que tiene un PhD en Arqueologia y especialidad en arqueologia medieval.
http://www.montysworldonline.com/p/about.html
En cambio, otra antropologa especializada en genero de los esqueletos dice que en el caso de que en realidad se trate de un entierro del " tercer genero" tendria su propio entierro especifico y no simplemente invertir la posicion del esqueleto... OUCH lo dice otro PhD, aca la fuente:
http://ancientbodies.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/gay-caveman-wrecking-a-perfectly-good-story/
Escrito por Rosemary Joyce de la universidad de california en Berkeley, que ademas menciona que las afirmaciones de esta disque arqueologa estan estereotipadas... me encanta tener el mismo juego neuronal que una doctora de la Universidad de California en Berkeley.
Espero sus respuestas... (o los reporto por trolleo
)
Notese el uso de " o " , es decir o uno o el otro (pa' que quede bien claro), entonces lo analizamos por el lado de la homosexualidad. Un esqueleto masculino, enterrado como mujer, ergo el esqueleto pertenecio a un homosexual. Implicitamente, los homosexuales hombres tienden a ser femeninos y en culturas antiguas se les consideraba como mujer, eso paso en el juego de neuronas de la arqueologa.
Ahora veamos el mismo hallazgo desde otro punto de vista. En esta poblacion en especifico, se ha observado que a los hombres se les entierra sobre el costado derecho, y a las mujeres se les entierra sobre el costado izquierdo y con objetos con los que usualmente, el sujeto en cuestion, interactuaba en vida. Repasando un poco las clases de estadistica, podemos encontrar una correlacion entre la posicion del cuerpo y el genero del esqueleto; y de estadistica 101, una correlacion no establece causa y efecto, aun cuando el indice de correlacion sea +- 1.0. Ahora encontramos un esqueleto masculino enterrado como un esqueleto femenino, no suena bastante apresurado decir que el esqueleto pertenecia a un transgenero/homosexual ?
Se que la arqueloga no se gano su titulo de a gratis, pero como mencione anteriormente De donde salio esta senora? El articulo no menciona el nombre del equipo de investigacion, o una universidad en la cual se pueda encontrar informacion sobre la experiencia de la arqueologa en la materia.
Ahora haciendo un poco de investigacion, encontre que no soy el unico en el juego de mis neuronas que piensan que la declaracion de esta senora fue demasiado apresurada y muy simplista.
Aqui esta la declaracion de una antropologa acerca del caso, de la universidad de North Carolina:
"If this burial represents a transgendered individual (as well it could), that doesn't necessarily mean the person had a 'different sexual orientation' and certainly doesn't mean that he would have considered himself (or that his culture would have considered him) 'homosexual,'" Killgrove wrote.
http://www.livescience.com/13620-gay-caveman-story-overblown.html
Ahi mismo se menciona que no hay ni siquiera pruebas de ADN... caray, pero bueno.. segun Joker y Dragut, no se leer.
A ver Dragut, me quedo esperando la fuente de donde dices que el esqueleto encontrado tiene huesos anormalmente grandes y pelvis reducida, o en tu experiencia como antropologo/arqueologo te permitió inferir esa información a partir de una foto tomada de lejos y mala resolución?
Porque segun Monty Dobson de la univerisdad Drury en Missouri es dificil determinar el sexo de un esqueleto con exactitud, y que ha habido ocasiones en las que se ha asignado el sexo a un esqueleto y cuando se hacen las pruebas necesaria resulta ser que el esqueleto era del sexo opuesto, anade que normalmente los arquelogos se basan en el tamano de la pelvis, pero que esas medidas no son exactas... ouch... in your face Dragut.
Mira aqui te dejo su biografía, a ver si puedes refutar lo que dice alguien que tiene un PhD en Arqueologia y especialidad en arqueologia medieval.
http://www.montysworldonline.com/p/about.html
En cambio, otra antropologa especializada en genero de los esqueletos dice que en el caso de que en realidad se trate de un entierro del " tercer genero" tendria su propio entierro especifico y no simplemente invertir la posicion del esqueleto... OUCH lo dice otro PhD, aca la fuente:
http://ancientbodies.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/gay-caveman-wrecking-a-perfectly-good-story/
Escrito por Rosemary Joyce de la universidad de california en Berkeley, que ademas menciona que las afirmaciones de esta disque arqueologa estan estereotipadas... me encanta tener el mismo juego neuronal que una doctora de la Universidad de California en Berkeley.
Espero sus respuestas... (o los reporto por trolleo
)El "esqueleto gay" una historia pretenciosa.
Aqui les dejo un par de articulos en respuesta al tema de respetando la diversidad sexual hace 5000 años. A ver si este tambien va para tu facebook Joker Estan en inglés y la traducción de google es horrenda, pero es el tipo de articulo que no leeran en pinknews.com
'Gay Caveman' Story Overblown, Archaeologists Say
Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Archaeologists in Prague say they've uncovered a Stone-Age man buried in a position usually reserved for women — but media claims of a "gay caveman" may be exaggerated, according to some researchers.
The skeleton, which dates back to about 2,500 to 2,800 B.C., was found in the outskirts of Prague. The culture the man belonged to (known as the Corded Ware culture for their pottery decorated with the impressions of twisted cord) was very finicky about grave rituals, reported Iranian news network Press TV, which visited the excavation site. According to the Czech news website Ceskapozice.cz, Corded Ware males were usually buried on their right sides with their heads facing east. This man, however, was buried on his left with his head facing west — a traditionally female position.
"We found one very specific grave of a man lying in the position of a woman, without gender specific grave goods, neither jewelry or weapons," lead archaeologist Kamila Remisova Vesinova of the Czech Archaeological Society told Press TV.
Not gay, not a caveman
Vesinova and her colleagues told reporters that the man may have belonged to a "third gender." This designation is for people who may be viewed as neither male nor female or some combination of both. In some cases, third-gender individuals are thought to be able to switch between male and female depending on circumstance. Modern examples include the Hijras of India and the Fa'afafine of Polynesia.
The skeleton has been trumpeted in the media as belonging to a "homosexual caveman," but some archaeologists are skeptical. For one thing, the complexity of the third-gender concept makes calling the skeleton "gay" an oversimplification, Kristina Killgrove, an anthropologist in at the University of North Carolina, wrote in her blog, Bone Girl.
"If this burial represents a transgendered individual (as well it could), that doesn't necessarily mean the person had a 'different sexual orientation' and certainly doesn't mean that he would have considered himself (or that his culture would have considered him) 'homosexual,'" Killgrove wrote.
(Transgender is defined as when gender identity doesn't match physical or genetic sex. Third gender is a broader term that covers a wide range of gender identities in a number of cultures, some of whom reject the male-female binary altogether.)
Archaeologist Monty Dobson of Drury University in Missouri agreed.
"The reality of this is going to be far more complicated than, 'This individual was gay,'" Dobson told LiveScience.
Not only is "gay" an oversimplification, "caveman" is flat-out inaccurate, said John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
"Corded-Ware burials are not 'caveman' in age," Hawks told LiveScience. "We're talking about pre-Bronze Age farmers."
Male or female?
Hawks said the third-gender claims are difficult to evaluate without a formal archaeological description.
"I haven't seen any evidence that really convinces me that the skeleton is male," he said. "It could be, but the photo is not convincing on that point, and I have not seen any claim of DNA testing."
It's tough to assign a sex to a skeleton with certainty, Dobson said. Archaeologists and anthropologists usually rely on bone measurements, particularly the size and shape of the pelvis. But these estimates aren't exact, Dobson said.
"There have been cases in the past where a gender was assigned and we have gone back to look and assigned the opposite gender," he said.
After confirming the gender, the second step would be to determine how many examples of gendered Corded Ware burials there are.
"Is this burial unique out of 20 burials or unique out of 20,000 burials?" Killgrove told LiveScience. "That makes a big difference in interpretation."
Both Killgrove and Dobson said that the grave's inhabitant could indeed be a third-gender individual. But there are other possibilities as well, they said. Many cultures buried shamans, or people thought to communicate with the spirit world, in unusual or gender-bending ways, Dobson said. But that burial pattern was related to the shaman's social status, not his or her sexuality.
Even if the skeleton is male, the case for a third gender requires more than a reversal of position and burial goods, Hawk said, pointing to work done by Rosemary Joyce, a University of California, Berkeley anthropologist who specializes in sex and gender in archaeology. In a blog post about the find, Joyce wrote that third-gender burials should follow their own pattern, not just a reversal of typical male-female patterns.
The find is intriguing, Dobson said, but there are many possible interpretations still on the table.
"This might be much ado about nothing, or it might be something that tells us something very interesting," Dobson said. "There simply isn't enough data right now to make that statement definitively."
Fuente: http://www.livescience.com/13620-gay-caveman-story-overblown.html
Aqui les dejo un par de articulos en respuesta al tema de respetando la diversidad sexual hace 5000 años. A ver si este tambien va para tu facebook Joker
Estan en inglés y la traducción de google es horrenda, pero es el tipo de articulo que no leeran en pinknews.com 'Gay Caveman' Story Overblown, Archaeologists Say
Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Archaeologists in Prague say they've uncovered a Stone-Age man buried in a position usually reserved for women — but media claims of a "gay caveman" may be exaggerated, according to some researchers.
The skeleton, which dates back to about 2,500 to 2,800 B.C., was found in the outskirts of Prague. The culture the man belonged to (known as the Corded Ware culture for their pottery decorated with the impressions of twisted cord) was very finicky about grave rituals, reported Iranian news network Press TV, which visited the excavation site. According to the Czech news website Ceskapozice.cz, Corded Ware males were usually buried on their right sides with their heads facing east. This man, however, was buried on his left with his head facing west — a traditionally female position.
"We found one very specific grave of a man lying in the position of a woman, without gender specific grave goods, neither jewelry or weapons," lead archaeologist Kamila Remisova Vesinova of the Czech Archaeological Society told Press TV.
Not gay, not a caveman
Vesinova and her colleagues told reporters that the man may have belonged to a "third gender." This designation is for people who may be viewed as neither male nor female or some combination of both. In some cases, third-gender individuals are thought to be able to switch between male and female depending on circumstance. Modern examples include the Hijras of India and the Fa'afafine of Polynesia.
The skeleton has been trumpeted in the media as belonging to a "homosexual caveman," but some archaeologists are skeptical. For one thing, the complexity of the third-gender concept makes calling the skeleton "gay" an oversimplification, Kristina Killgrove, an anthropologist in at the University of North Carolina, wrote in her blog, Bone Girl.
"If this burial represents a transgendered individual (as well it could), that doesn't necessarily mean the person had a 'different sexual orientation' and certainly doesn't mean that he would have considered himself (or that his culture would have considered him) 'homosexual,'" Killgrove wrote.
(Transgender is defined as when gender identity doesn't match physical or genetic sex. Third gender is a broader term that covers a wide range of gender identities in a number of cultures, some of whom reject the male-female binary altogether.)
Archaeologist Monty Dobson of Drury University in Missouri agreed.
"The reality of this is going to be far more complicated than, 'This individual was gay,'" Dobson told LiveScience.
Not only is "gay" an oversimplification, "caveman" is flat-out inaccurate, said John Hawks, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
"Corded-Ware burials are not 'caveman' in age," Hawks told LiveScience. "We're talking about pre-Bronze Age farmers."
Male or female?
Hawks said the third-gender claims are difficult to evaluate without a formal archaeological description.
"I haven't seen any evidence that really convinces me that the skeleton is male," he said. "It could be, but the photo is not convincing on that point, and I have not seen any claim of DNA testing."
It's tough to assign a sex to a skeleton with certainty, Dobson said. Archaeologists and anthropologists usually rely on bone measurements, particularly the size and shape of the pelvis. But these estimates aren't exact, Dobson said.
"There have been cases in the past where a gender was assigned and we have gone back to look and assigned the opposite gender," he said.
After confirming the gender, the second step would be to determine how many examples of gendered Corded Ware burials there are.
"Is this burial unique out of 20 burials or unique out of 20,000 burials?" Killgrove told LiveScience. "That makes a big difference in interpretation."
Both Killgrove and Dobson said that the grave's inhabitant could indeed be a third-gender individual. But there are other possibilities as well, they said. Many cultures buried shamans, or people thought to communicate with the spirit world, in unusual or gender-bending ways, Dobson said. But that burial pattern was related to the shaman's social status, not his or her sexuality.
Even if the skeleton is male, the case for a third gender requires more than a reversal of position and burial goods, Hawk said, pointing to work done by Rosemary Joyce, a University of California, Berkeley anthropologist who specializes in sex and gender in archaeology. In a blog post about the find, Joyce wrote that third-gender burials should follow their own pattern, not just a reversal of typical male-female patterns.
The find is intriguing, Dobson said, but there are many possible interpretations still on the table.
"This might be much ado about nothing, or it might be something that tells us something very interesting," Dobson said. "There simply isn't enough data right now to make that statement definitively."
Fuente: http://www.livescience.com/13620-gay-caveman-story-overblown.html
Aca otro articulo, escrito por una doctora en arqueologia de la universidad de california en Berkeley, Rosemary Joyce.
“Gay Caveman”: Wrecking a perfectly good story
April 7, 2011 by Rosemary Joyce
So, I get up this morning in Paris and do my news search, and immediately I see articles all over the world headlined “Gay Caveman”.
As I write, the most recent being served up is from The West Australian. Not sure but I suspect that is the Austalian equivalent of a really small town newspaper, so clearly, this is archaeo-news reaching the widest possible audience. (See this version of the story for images).
First, let us dispose of the “caveman”: we are talking about an individual buried ca. 5000 years ago in the Czech Republic. Even though no archaeologist wants to use the term “caveman” for any time or place, surely, the normal broader usage implies Palaeolithic, not Chalcolithic, cultures.
But of course, “caveman” is used here to dramatize a contrast: caveman/gay man. Hulking shambling macho hunter vs. ??
This is sexual stereotyping of the worst kind. But what about the actual archaeology? Are we dealing here with a possible third gender?
Here’s the data, such as it is, courtesy of The West Australian:
I dislike critiques that begin by challenging the physical anthropology, so I hesitate to start with a caution about the sexing of the skeleton. But just back from the SAA, I must.
We need to know the age and possible lifeway of this individual to avoid what Lori Hager called “the sexism of sexing”. She used as her example a burial at Çatalhöyük of an older woman whose pelvic anatomy had been remodeled and diverged from the expectations for female skeletons.
It would also help to know what criteria are being used to assess sex. In 2000, Chris Meiklejohn and colleagues published a discussion of Mesolithic Europe that noted the difficulty using robusticity, for example, to identify males, as some females were more robust than some males in the samples they examined.
Then there is the question of intersexed individuals– those persons whose chromosomal sex may vary from the dichotomous grid of two sexes that is assumed by the reporters writing about this story, and apparently, by the archaeologists involved as well. Contrast this with the work of Rebecca Storey, who identified a royal burial at Copan as likely a genetically intersexed person.
What these bioarchaeological studies have in common that sets them apart from the current story– at least as reported– is a more realistic understanding of biological sex as not a simple binary male/female, but a complex array of chromosomal variation, and of the body as a register of life-long development that is not reducible to a simple yes/no is he or isn’t he? question.
Like so many other sensationalized archaeology stories, this one began with a press conference, on April 5 (Tuesday) in Prague. Czech news coverage credited the archaeologists with calling the buried individual a “third gender”, with the reporter glossing this as “a transsexual or gay man”. The original story clarifies that the burial was encountered in the city limits of Prague, calling it the “Prague 6 archaeological site”. The press conference was apparently intended to publicize an open house at the site.
While the original article still leaves out the critical details of age, it is notable for being much less problematic than what was made of it in the later press coverage. And it allows us to focus on what the archaeologists were really saying: that, in a cultural milieu where burials normally fall into two groups based on position and grave goods, they have uncovered an anomalous burial.
Leaving aside the biological identification, the individual conforms to the burial practices typical of female burials in both position (laying on its left side, head facing west) and included objects (pottery vessels). This is how archaeologists once expected to identify third genders. But the work of Sandy Holliman, who successfully argues for identification of two burials in a Chumash cemetery as third gender, has shown us not to expect such a simple model. As I summarized her work in Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives, Sandy found a
And in that very lack of other differentiation I find the greatest cause to be cautious about what might otherwise be an interesting example, one we could add to other such examples, of burial patterning that challenges the two sex/two gender model.
Fuente:
http://ancientbodies.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/gay-caveman-wrecking-a-perfectly-good-story/
“Gay Caveman”: Wrecking a perfectly good story
April 7, 2011 by Rosemary Joyce
So, I get up this morning in Paris and do my news search, and immediately I see articles all over the world headlined “Gay Caveman”.
As I write, the most recent being served up is from The West Australian. Not sure but I suspect that is the Austalian equivalent of a really small town newspaper, so clearly, this is archaeo-news reaching the widest possible audience. (See this version of the story for images).
First, let us dispose of the “caveman”: we are talking about an individual buried ca. 5000 years ago in the Czech Republic. Even though no archaeologist wants to use the term “caveman” for any time or place, surely, the normal broader usage implies Palaeolithic, not Chalcolithic, cultures.
But of course, “caveman” is used here to dramatize a contrast: caveman/gay man. Hulking shambling macho hunter vs. ??
This is sexual stereotyping of the worst kind. But what about the actual archaeology? Are we dealing here with a possible third gender?
Here’s the data, such as it is, courtesy of The West Australian:
The skeleton of the man, found during an excavation in the Czech Republic, was found on his left side with his head facing west, buried with household jugs and no weapons.
An oval-shaped jug was also found near the feet of the skeleton.
During that period, men were traditionally buried with weapons, hammers and flint knives, and their bodies were placed on their right side with the head facing east.
Women were interred with their bodies on the left, head facing west, and buried with necklaces made from teeth, pets, and copper earrings, as well as domestic jugs and an egg-shaped pot placed near the feet.
What we have here is a mismatch between the biologically determined sex of the person and the archaeologically expected grave goods.An oval-shaped jug was also found near the feet of the skeleton.
During that period, men were traditionally buried with weapons, hammers and flint knives, and their bodies were placed on their right side with the head facing east.
Women were interred with their bodies on the left, head facing west, and buried with necklaces made from teeth, pets, and copper earrings, as well as domestic jugs and an egg-shaped pot placed near the feet.
I dislike critiques that begin by challenging the physical anthropology, so I hesitate to start with a caution about the sexing of the skeleton. But just back from the SAA, I must.
We need to know the age and possible lifeway of this individual to avoid what Lori Hager called “the sexism of sexing”. She used as her example a burial at Çatalhöyük of an older woman whose pelvic anatomy had been remodeled and diverged from the expectations for female skeletons.
It would also help to know what criteria are being used to assess sex. In 2000, Chris Meiklejohn and colleagues published a discussion of Mesolithic Europe that noted the difficulty using robusticity, for example, to identify males, as some females were more robust than some males in the samples they examined.
Then there is the question of intersexed individuals– those persons whose chromosomal sex may vary from the dichotomous grid of two sexes that is assumed by the reporters writing about this story, and apparently, by the archaeologists involved as well. Contrast this with the work of Rebecca Storey, who identified a royal burial at Copan as likely a genetically intersexed person.
What these bioarchaeological studies have in common that sets them apart from the current story– at least as reported– is a more realistic understanding of biological sex as not a simple binary male/female, but a complex array of chromosomal variation, and of the body as a register of life-long development that is not reducible to a simple yes/no is he or isn’t he? question.
Like so many other sensationalized archaeology stories, this one began with a press conference, on April 5 (Tuesday) in Prague. Czech news coverage credited the archaeologists with calling the buried individual a “third gender”, with the reporter glossing this as “a transsexual or gay man”. The original story clarifies that the burial was encountered in the city limits of Prague, calling it the “Prague 6 archaeological site”. The press conference was apparently intended to publicize an open house at the site.
While the original article still leaves out the critical details of age, it is notable for being much less problematic than what was made of it in the later press coverage. And it allows us to focus on what the archaeologists were really saying: that, in a cultural milieu where burials normally fall into two groups based on position and grave goods, they have uncovered an anomalous burial.
Leaving aside the biological identification, the individual conforms to the burial practices typical of female burials in both position (laying on its left side, head facing west) and included objects (pottery vessels). This is how archaeologists once expected to identify third genders. But the work of Sandy Holliman, who successfully argues for identification of two burials in a Chumash cemetery as third gender, has shown us not to expect such a simple model. As I summarized her work in Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives, Sandy found a
promising avenue of potentially identifying third-gender males, who carried out the same work as most women, by looking at patterns of skeletal deterioration that resulted from repetitive movements. She identified two skeletons of males who died at a young age, whose patterns of spinal arthritis were different from the other male skeletons. Spinal arthritis like this was typical of females. Hollimon explained this skeletal alteration as the result of repeatedly using digging sticks, which placed stress on the spine… Both of the young males with this pattern of alteration were actually buried with digging stick weights. …the same two young men were the only males to have baskets as well. Hollimon noted that these two tools were used by Chumash undertakers, an occupational specialization strongly associated with third gender males. The low frequency of potential third-gender individuals she identified, with two among the burials she studied, was comparable to the frequency ethnographers had reported in their observations of historic California Native American societies.
This study should serve as a model, and what it tells us is not simply to look for a reversal, a kind of cross-sex pattern, but for something that really constitutes a third category. The Czech burial, even if we accept the sexing, does not show a third pattern.
And in that very lack of other differentiation I find the greatest cause to be cautious about what might otherwise be an interesting example, one we could add to other such examples, of burial patterning that challenges the two sex/two gender model.
Fuente:
http://ancientbodies.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/gay-caveman-wrecking-a-perfectly-good-story/
Yo ya probé, con tres arqueologos que pertenecen a universidades reconocidas mundialmente de que la arqueloga que presentó al dichoso esqueleto hizo una aceveración simplista y sin fundamentos. Nota sensacionalista carente de valor cientifico.
Lo que me molesta, es que acomoden las cosas a su gusto y conveniencia para apoyar a la comunidad LGBT, que en lugar de apoyar perjudican.
Lo que me molesta, es que acomoden las cosas a su gusto y conveniencia para apoyar a la comunidad LGBT, que en lugar de apoyar perjudican.
Que increíble. Estoy francamente sorprendido. Lo voy a presentar de otra manera, a ver si corro con mayor suerte.
Puedes traer todas las citas de que quieras, pero la nota en ningún momento nadie hace una extrapolación tan disparatada como ésa. Cómo alguien puede decir que todos los homosexuales son afeminados solo porque se vestía de mujer? Eso no es real ni ahora, por qué habría de creer algo así?
Que terco, que barbaridad.
Puedes traer todas las citas de que quieras, pero la nota en ningún momento nadie hace una extrapolación tan disparatada como ésa. Cómo alguien puede decir que todos los homosexuales son afeminados solo porque se vestía de mujer? Eso no es real ni ahora, por qué habría de creer algo así?
Que terco, que barbaridad.
De todo lo que he leido por aqui me quedo con la aseveración de que no puede comprobarse fehacientemente que se deba de llamar transexual todavia ya que por el rito o el modo de enterrarse no quedan aseveradas las tendencias sexuales solo por interpretación.
Tal es el caso de las guerreras medievales que les hacian entierros con su espada y armadura y no con velo, rosario y flores en las manos.
Tal es el caso de las guerreras medievales que les hacian entierros con su espada y armadura y no con velo, rosario y flores en las manos.
Pues determinar el sexo por las características morfológicas del esqueleto es algo cotidiano en medicina forense.
No solamente se toma en cuenta la pelvis (aunque es en esta estructura donde la mayor parte de diferencias se encuentran), sino también hay diferencias significativas en el esternón, cráneo, columna vertebral, costillas y fémur.
¿Puedo ver una foto del dichoso esqueleto?, yo si puedo determinar si es masculino o femenino.
Y si, si se puede determinar con exactitud el sexo (no cromosómico) de la persona en cuestión por estas diferencias morfológicas, siempre y cuando el esqueleto no esté destruído.
No solamente se toma en cuenta la pelvis (aunque es en esta estructura donde la mayor parte de diferencias se encuentran), sino también hay diferencias significativas en el esternón, cráneo, columna vertebral, costillas y fémur.
¿Puedo ver una foto del dichoso esqueleto?, yo si puedo determinar si es masculino o femenino.
Y si, si se puede determinar con exactitud el sexo (no cromosómico) de la persona en cuestión por estas diferencias morfológicas, siempre y cuando el esqueleto no esté destruído.
Felicidades anteroz, que bueno que tu si puedes. Sin embargo como no se absolutamente nada de tu experiencia en medicina forense (no te estoy desacreditando, que quede bien claro) me quedo con la opinion del doctor en arqueología y su experiencia en que han determinado el sexo de un esqueleto y al realizar pruebas de ADN resulta ser del sexo opuesto. Confío mas lo que dicen tres expertos reconocidos mundialmente en el tema, cuando argumentan que las medidas de los huesos no son determinantes para saber el sexo de un esqueleto. La foto esta en la primera página, toda tuya.
Y está bien, no debí haber generalizado sobre lo ya dicho previamente.
Y está bien, no debí haber generalizado sobre lo ya dicho previamente.