• Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    Can anyone with actual knowledge confirm if that’s a pelvis capable of squeezing out babies? Or did they pay boobs on a male skeleton?

    • samus12345@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      20 hours ago

      My completely amateur reading of it is that they’re both male, but I’m no expert.

    • WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Skeletons can’t be infallibly sexed because sexual characteristics aren’t binary, including the shape of the skeleton. They are usually gendered using multiple clues

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Incorrect.

        I’ve sexed so many skeletons over the years and it’s never felt wrong before. 😏

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 day ago

        I just sort of expected all demonstration skeletons to be super typically male, because some male with a tophat as big as his sexism came up with it in the 1800s. Generally, my pessimistic assumptions about this end up true.

        But yeah, I realize in my pessimism I overshot into the wrong direction.

        • python@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Dang you just unlocked a confusing memory.

          My secondary school had a demonstration skeleton, but it was the skeleton of a real person who donated their body to science.
          The teachers had given them a male name, despite the skeleton being female. Apparently kids just expected skeletons to be male for some reason, and explaining the difference every time was annoying to teachers.

          I didn’t have the brain capacity to realize that it might have been kinda messed up towards the real person that skeleton belonged to, but now that I think back on it… yeah, there’s problems with that.

        • WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          in one instance, sure? that can’t be generalized to all populations, nor does it account for intersex individuals

          https://forensicsdigest.com/scope-of-forensic-anthropology-estimation-of-gender-from-human-skeletal-remains/

          Edit: This one is way more relevant https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2015/908535

          Edit: The context here is a stupid gotcha by transphobes, and how it isn’t even correct. Keep in mind in the future when they find our bones that our current society is very mobile and global. I don’t exactly live in the same place as the rest of my family, so they will only have random assorted skeletons from people from lots of different places to compare to and will therefore have reduced accuracy when guessing my natal sex.

          • Reyali@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Wow, thanks for sharing. I was definitely under the impression that skeletons could be identified with at least a reasonable amount of certainty. (Though maybe what I thought I knew was that women who had children could be identified?)

            Either way, I appreciate the links!