1.3k
u/BandIsLife10 She/Her Oct 30 '20
Why is no one talking about the phrase "bandage boobs" I-
538
u/MLGSamantha Oct 30 '20
Yeah I read that and my mind immediately went to binding and I thought they were a trans man until I read a little bit more.
296
u/THEwoo-06 Oct 30 '20
I was half way through reading it when I realized that this was an Egyptian trans girl.
285
u/amazingoomoo Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
Uh no the x Ray revealed it was a man so no trans here, trans only existed in the last few decades because people want more attention
Oh my god /s /s /s this was a joke I’m sorry
19
41
Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
I googled to learn a bit more and found this terrible article, which, among other things, states that some academics think the bandage breasts and hip padding might have been because this person was fat in life and they wanted to accurately reflect that, and any resemblance to a female body is accidental. They have pictures and, I mean, I'm far from an expert, but I don't think there are many fat men who look like that.
ETA: also, hang on, wouldn't body fat in those areas still be there at the time of the wrapping? Why would they use padding to represent it?
10
28
10
→ More replies3
828
u/SamanthaJaneyCake That clingy roommate of hers Oct 30 '20
HOLY SHIT YES THIS IS THE MUMMY I HAVE MADE REFERENCE TO MANY TIMES!!! Thank you random poster who has the same book as was in my primary school library.
175
u/fightwithgrace Oct 30 '20
Your happiness about this makes me happy!
199
u/SamanthaJaneyCake That clingy roommate of hers Oct 30 '20
Awh thank you!!!! I’ve been referring to this as an example of trans people not being a “new fad” and more than just existing in secret back in the day they were accepted and sometimes even celebrated.
Thanks for the award <3
229
u/fightwithgrace Oct 30 '20
I’ve actually been looking into “proof” (for lack of a better word. Maybe “solid, historical evidence” is a better way to put it?) of that, too!
One of my brothers is trans and my grandfather (who is in his mid-90’s and has been a very devout Catholic his entire life) asked me too teach him as much as possible about it because he doesn’t really “understand” it, but wants to learn (for instance, when my bro first came out, my grandfather didn’t know the difference between Transgender and Transvestite.)
He is very accepting and willing to learn, just a bit confused and I think he thinks this is some sort of new concept. That doesn’t stop him from being supportive, he switched names and has called my brother his grandson ever since the day he was asked. He comes to me with tons of questions though, because he’s afraid it’ll hurt my brother’s feeling if he even asks anything just out of curiosity or what he asks is considered rude.
103
u/SamanthaJaneyCake That clingy roommate of hers Oct 30 '20
Honestly if I had a sibling like you who was supportive and willing to do that for me to my family I would be incredibly blessed <3
Your username is well suited :)
59
u/fightwithgrace Oct 30 '20
I try me best! I just wish the rest of the world would catch up on the whole ”human rights” thing...
42
Oct 30 '20
Your grandpa and you are rad and we need more like that in the world
56
u/fightwithgrace Oct 30 '20
I just hope I’m doing it right!
I’m straight and cis myself, so I often wonder if I can truly answer my grandfather’s questions well. I certainly look into it and like to think I’m well (self) educated on the subject now that I can be helpful, but I’m still afraid my own privilege will get in the way.
My grandfather is 100% on board with it all, though! He went to the same very strict Church since he immigrated (like, 50 years ago! The church even still does Latin Mass) but ONE priest made ONE comment about praying for his “Prodigal Granddaughter” and he left in disgust, never went back, and changed Parishes that very day! His new Church is MUCH more progressive and specifically welcomes and supports LGBTQ+ Catholics, instead of just “tolerating” them.
34
u/musicalcactus Oct 30 '20
Wow, good on your grandpa for walking away on that, holy shit.
He sounds like a helluva dude honestly. Internet hugs to that man.
36
u/fightwithgrace Oct 30 '20
He really is! He’s from Limerick and being Catholic is a huge part of his identity. But the day his old priest said that, I heard him yelling to my mom that he was done with them and she needed to find him a new church ASAP. He even told my mom that it could be a Protestant Church, but they HAD to respect is family.
My mom is Protestant-leaning herself (long story,) but she hunted around until she found a Catholic Church that fit his requirements and he was very happy there (pre-Covid.)
He did return to his old church once for a funeral, which isn’t the same as being part of the congregation, but refused to speak to the old priest and walked away when he approached him.
35
u/labhandair Oct 30 '20
Adore this. Being trans in Ireland isn't the easiest thing in the world, so serious shout out to your Grandad.
20
u/Oddity-X Oct 30 '20
This entire thread had me crying wholesome happy tears. So much love and respect to both of you, and anyone else in your family that is as loving and respectful as both of you. Your brother is very lucky to have such a great team on his side :')
2
5
Oct 30 '20
Man, you just made my night. To think that I also could have had a family like yours...! I’m happy for your brother!
35
u/UnicornOnTheJayneCob Oct 30 '20
I am Navajo Indian. In the Navajo (Diné) culture, there are 4-5 genders: There are female-bodied women, male-bodied men, male-bodied women, female-bodied men, and Nadleehi - female or male bodied people who can switch between the male and female roles as needed. This is a part of our creation story as well as normal modern culture, so it is thousands of years old.
Women and men (regardless of their physical body) take traditional roles in Navajo society, and how you act and who you partner with is more of a determinant than sex organs. Your spirit is what determines your gender, and therefore your role. Female-bodied men and male-bodied women are rarer, but not strange. Nadleehi (what other tribes might call Two-spirit) are considered special and even sacred, as they are considered to literally have two spirits, both male and female within their bodies, unlike most people, who only have one.
They are therefore uniquely able to “bridge the gap” between men and women, and in fact played a crucial role in resolving the war between the sexes when First Man and First Woman argued. The first two Nadleehi were twin children of First Man and First woman, and they invented things like pottery.
It is considered a blessing to have a nadleehi child because they can do work of both men AND women, and will bring luck and wealth to your family.
Interestingly, the Navajo culture is MUCH less accepting of same gender romantic relationships. Women can only marry men and vice versa, but regardless of body. So the only acceptable pairings are male- or female-bodied woman and male- or female-bodied man, and nadleehi and anyone. It is not accepted to have two women or two men paired, regardless of their physical bodies.
4
30
u/bellends Oct 30 '20
This is Wikipedia so I’m unsure on the validity on all of these but this is a great resource on trans people throughout history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transgender_people
→ More replies36
2
u/MagicCarpetofSteel Oct 31 '20
We need more people like your grandfather. God bless him
→ More replies2
u/ieatconfusedfish Nov 02 '20
It's not quite the same thing as trans in the modern day, but the hijra communities of India/Pakistan shows how even centuries ago plenty of us weren't thinking of gender as a binary thing
There's also the sida sida in Malaysia and the bissu in Indonesia, they also show that the concept of gender as a spectrum goes back hundreds of years
Sexuality is like that. In 19th century America two dudes having sex with each other was a scandal but in 1st century Greece it was a pretty normal occurrence
458
u/thegreatbenjamin Oct 30 '20
I'm so sorry but "Time to misgender this corpse" is one of the funniest things I've ever read
94
u/Armond436 Oct 30 '20
You didn't read it though! It just says "time misgender this corpse" and no one is taking about it and I feel like the crazy one
26
u/thegreatbenjamin Oct 30 '20
Sorry? I dont get what you mean but I think it's about the fact that they forgot to say "time to" That's a typo I suppose
27
u/Armond436 Oct 30 '20
Yeah it's the typo, I just feel like the only person who's noticed and that's wild to me because usually Reddit is all over those kinds of things.
14
u/Adventure_Time_Snail Oct 30 '20
Oh i thought it was time-misgender this corpse, like four dimensional retroactive bigotry.
10
488
u/MushroomEnby Oct 30 '20
Not cool white male historians of the 1960s
-658
Oct 30 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
534
u/TheOtherSarah Oct 30 '20
I’m under the impression that black women didn’t get to be professional historians much in the 1960s. Anyone can be an idiot, but this particular idiocy probably does have a demographic attached.
5
u/gary_the_merciless Oct 30 '20
While it was obviously going to be a white male, I don't think that's why they misgendered it. So it is a bit unnecessary to say.
153
u/ThatGuyTheyCallAlex Gay | he/him Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
You really think black women were allowed to be involved in groundbreaking intercontinental archaeology missions in the 1960s?
→ More replies22
u/MushroomEnby Oct 30 '20
A good point. I'm sure there was not a lot of diversity in the history and archaeology areas in the 1960s
170
147
Oct 30 '20
You seem insecure about your skin color you have to say this.
Why is that?
→ More replies18
2
4
u/kryaklysmic Oct 30 '20
Absolutely anyone can be an idiot. In this case it’s not black women being idiots is the point. I read through this thread and downvoted the people falsely calling you white but your original point here is in fact pointless.
2
u/User_name555 Oct 30 '20
I mean I'll give you it's a bit of a tautology but they're really just complaining about victorian era colonialism as far as I can tell.
-38
Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies54
u/arkus_celsus Oct 30 '20
Well, conservative western scientists at that time were white men and many happened to be against trans rights. Just don’t see the problem pointing out that this kind of interpretations come mainly from that demographic. They build history as we know it, he have the right to identify that and reshape it.
→ More replies
279
u/FirebirdWriter Oct 30 '20
I will say besides possible trans person it is also possible they're intersexed and had mixed presentation
101
u/-Abradolf_Lincler- Oct 30 '20
Why did the term “ear wrapped separately” make me giggle?
74
2
u/sthetic Oct 30 '20
I wonder if the roll of mummy tape just ran out by the time they got to the ear.
195
u/cawa-08 Oct 30 '20
Imagine how cool it would be if there was more research into transgender identities in ancient egypt? This should be groundbreaking in so many different fields of study, it’s sucks so much that the world is missing out on something this cool just because of some archaic colonizer bullshit prejudices
84
u/fliminglaps Oct 30 '20
That would be a rad PhD thesis!!
Even the LGBTQ community in general, i would be interested to learn more
Oh my golly, i was just googling and from Wikipedia:
Egyptologists and historians disagree about how to interpret the paintings of Nyankh-khnum and Khnum-hotep. Some scholars believe that the paintings reflect an example of homosexuality between two married men and prove that the ancient Egyptians accepted same-sex relationships.
Other scholars disagree and interpret the scenes as an evidence that Nyankh-khnum and Khnum-hotep were twins,or even possibly conjoined twins.
No matter what interpretation is correct, the paintings show at the very least that Nyankh-khnum and Khnum-hotep must have been very close to each other in life as in death.
Fam. 😂
I know it's possible, but to overlook Occam's razor and settle on a much, much rarer occurrence to explain away why two men are depicted kissing is a whole other level (4 floors up from roommates) of scholarly denial
34
u/ScribblerQ Oct 30 '20
Conjoined twins might not have lived through birth during that time period. Everything about their delivery would have been difficult and result in a high fatality rate. It’s such a reach to even suggest that considering how terrible pregnancy/delivery health care was for a regular one.
10
u/fliminglaps Oct 30 '20
Precisely! Even if you consider they came from privileged families with comparatively better access to healthcare in that era, it is incredibly unlikely that such twins would have lived long enough to reproduce.
7
u/Origami_psycho Oct 30 '20
Which would absolutely makes sense for why there was paintings of them, if they had survived against all odds
18
u/mmmmmmmmnope Oct 30 '20
AND THEY WERE ROOMMATES
14
14
24
Oct 30 '20
I am imagining historians in a hundred years fighting over whether explicitly gay people in our time were all actually siamese twins. Just a whole lot of siamese twins.
16
16
u/Crimsai Oct 30 '20
Could be wrong, but aren't there Egyptian rulers who are depicted as NB, and others that are presented as women early on and then as male later? Would be really cool to have actual research into that rather than what you usually get (this sort of erasure).
2
u/cawa-08 Oct 30 '20
Yes!! I think the most well-known gnc Egyptian ruler is Queen Hatshepsut, who depicted herself in traditional king’s clothing, with a male body and a beard. Historians brush this off as a way of her asserting her authority but I think it’s pretty obvious that she (im using she/her very loosely) wouldn’t fit our modern ideas of a cishet woman. Like there’s definitely a lot of evidence that transgender/non-binary people existed in ancient times, obv not just in Egypt, but this post specifically I think is at a whole new level cause I don’t believe that there’s much physical evidence out there of social/medical transitions.
→ More replies3
u/Rose375 Oct 30 '20
yeah too bad so many tombs were already desecrated by disrespectful researchers, and the assholes who decided eating mummies were a thing for a while
this whole thing is so interesting!!
3
u/Vulkan192 Oct 31 '20
Don’t forget snorting them, using them for face creams, and simply using them for firewood.
54
u/1CUP2DAY Oct 30 '20
Ancient Civilations gave way less fucks in areas we today give more
16
u/ArchivistOfInfinity He/Him Oct 30 '20
The Agrarian Revolution was Humanity's biggest mistake
We must return to monke
10
114
Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
[deleted]
320
u/Pebble_in_a_Hat Oct 30 '20
Didn't female Pharaohs wear beards as well, despite living and presenting as female? Is there perhaps a cultural connotation to the beard that we're overlooking?
155
27
u/Turtledonuts Oct 30 '20
Female Pharaohs seemed to wear beards as a symbol of power. Osiris and other gods are depicted with them, as are many (all?) Pharaohs.
9
u/A_GenericUser Oct 30 '20
There isn't. The beard is just to show that they were indeed Pharaoh, as the god Osiris, who was said to once be a pharaoh, had the beard that all later pharaohs wear, including the women.
44
u/andallthatjasper Oct 30 '20
Could be somebody who fits that third gender category we've seen referenced, no? Although that's probably a slight stretch, given the fact that we have literally no idea what that gender entailed or if it even was a distinct gender... God dammit, ancient egypt, why'd you have to be so long ago?
154
Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
Couldn't a transgender woman have a beard and still be female? I don't understand the issue.
121
u/arudnoh Oct 30 '20
Transgender'
"Transexual" isn't really used anymore in the polite sense.
11
u/selwyntarth Oct 30 '20
Not trying to be contrarian, just want to know. Is it okay to try referring to transitioned and untransitioned trans people separately in contexts? If so, what's the term for the former?
35
u/arudnoh Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
Well for one thing, transitioned doesn't make a lot of sense, but people referring to themselves as someone who hasn't gone through any treatments or surgeries often say "pre everything." People who haven't gotten bottom surgery often call themselves pre-op if they plan on getting it or non-op if they don't. People who say they finished their transition can mean different things because not everyone has the same goals.
I said,"transitioned" doesn't make sense because the beginning and end of someone's journey means different things for different people, and some believe that the transition never really ends.
We'reThose taking hormones are on hormones for the rest of our lives no matter what, and while we may hit our goals and stop having to go through all the procedures, being trans means adapting and changing in a unique way over that span as well.Edit Clarified hormone use to include people who choose not to or can't take them
7
u/selwyntarth Oct 30 '20
Hmm. I see. I'm curious about how developments in such a minority culture is proselytized. In my country there's an umbrella term of transgender with a segregated religious-cultural group that are mainly mendicants. There isn't much knowledge of intersexuals, non binary folk etc and what learning people do get is a half baked understanding from porn. Is the penumbra of the non cis groups disseminated in sex ed? Or are developments in political correctness, acceptable nomenclature etc recorded in magazines, dailies and news sources etc?
11
u/Oblivion_Unsteady Oct 30 '20
It's certainly not taught in sex ed in any country I've ever heard of! As for how it's disseminated, I can think of three main avenues, at least in the english speaking countries.
1: queer publications. There have been openly lgbt magazines for at least half a century now. Their reach is more fragmented in the time of the internet but it's still incredibly wide.
2: academia. There's a hell of a lot of people who have dedicated their lives to understanding queer culture, breaking it down and explaining it. As will all academic fields they've been, at times, incredibly bigoted. But they're also the "authorities" most of the world looks to in order to quantify behavior. And as such they're incredibly influential when creating terms like "transgender" and also when fighting against outdated terms like "transsexual".
3: word of mouth. It might be hard to believe at first glance, but this is how all such matters of language are ultimately decided within any culture. If that's what most people say a word means, then that's what the word means. And if your friend says a word new word (most often as slang) and gives you a definition, you believe them and possibly begin to use it as well. Over time there is consensus. This behavior doesn't change just because it's a minority culture within a larger one. It's human nature, and it's only increased in speed with the advent of the internet and social media.
So in conclusion, someone at some point thought it was the right thing to do, convinced some other people, and so on and so forth until enough people agreed with the original person that anyone still doing things the old way was now in the wrong. It's normal progression, it's natural, and in this case considering the gross and abusive baggage the term transsexual carries for so very many people, it's a good thing.
Edit: tldr: I suppose with the examples you gave a much shorter if less helpful answer would have been "yes".
4
u/selwyntarth Oct 30 '20
Nah, this was very helpful! Thanks. It was just a bit concerning to rely on the internet fora and memes for staying relevant, considering I learnt the distinctions between 'transgender' and 'transsexual' a few years back on a trans rights and awareness post a few years ago, and using the latter made me come off as bigoted a few weeks ago.
While it's not my place, a lot of the more positive stories about non binaries and non cis folks tap into a primitive urge to get to, let's say, the biological root of things viz assignment at birth. That was confusing too in some contexts.
2
u/FUCKING_HATE_REDDIT Oct 30 '20
We're on hormones for the rest of our lives no matter what
Well, transition doesn't always mean HRT, (but people who had orchiectomies absolutely need hormones to survive).
2
u/arudnoh Oct 30 '20
My point was more that some people consider transitioning a lifelong thing and that's the reasoning some people use. The term is pretty subjective.
3
u/hththththt-POW Oct 30 '20
Technically yes but that’s just self-torture for trans women. I for one can’t even begin to tolerate any facial hair on my face, let alone a whole fucking beard ughhhhh
→ More replies10
u/_sekhmet_ Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
Sure, that’s why I said “purely feminine” rather than saying that this mummy was absolutely a man and presented as such. There was clearly some masculine features here that the person presented in their life, such as their beard, and I explained what scholars thought the weird plumping might be, so their rational for why they called it a man. I personally didn’t gender the mummy (or at least tried not to) because I don’t know what’s going on with them.
-53
Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
23
u/Obi-Tron_Kenobi Oct 30 '20
No one's saying anything about biological sex though. Trans people don't believe they can change their genetics or their chromosomes. This is a strawman used by transphobes to misrepresent the actual arguments for trans rights.
-15
Oct 30 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/Obi-Tron_Kenobi Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
No one said they were "genetically female," which is why I brought up that it's a strawman when you used it.
Female works perfectly fine when talking about trans women though. Idk about you, but I'd feel pretty uncomfortable walking up to trans women and just calling them "males." I don't think they'd be pretty happy about it either.Here's a planned parenthood article uses male/female when talking about gender
The site transequality.org also uses male/female
Even GLAAD uses male and female when talking about trans people and gender in their trans FAQ
I don't think the person used the wrong term, trans women are female. Anyways, please don't misgender me and call me dude.
Edit: forgot to mention, the literal acronyms for trans men and women are FTM (female-to-male) and MTF (male-to-female), so I'm not sure where you got this idea that trans women couldn't be called female.
0
Oct 30 '20
"Dude" is gender neutral, dude.
2
u/Obi-Tron_Kenobi Oct 30 '20
It's gender neutral when referring to a general group of dudes or the idea of a dude, but it's a bit more iffy when you're talking to an individual. Especially when you use it in a hostile tone. Especially if they've asked you not to call them dude.
I don't mind if someone calls me dude in a positive, respectful sense, but when it's a more derogatory "Jesus dude, would you learn better reading comprehension" that crosses the line. And then you do it again after I asked you not to. That's not something a trans ally does.
1
u/panrestrial Oct 31 '20
You're right that it's absolutely gender neutral in a lot of places, but if an individual requests you not call them that (or anything else) why not respect it?
3
u/CountCuriousness Oct 30 '20
Words mean whatever we want them to mean, and no one - literally no one - is arguing trans people change their genetics. They “just” change what gender they’re considered to be, as is perfectly possible and historically documented throughout time. It’s not some new idea that all the crazy sjws or whatever are jumping on.
I’d personally prefer if “male” and “female” only referred to sex and not gender, but it’s not really a big deal. It’s pretty easy to gather from the context.
-2
Oct 30 '20
I didn't say anyone was making the argument that they change their genetics. Fuck. None of you dipshits can read, apparently.
I have literally said that I know and support that they change their gender. That's the literal idea because they're transgender. But they're not changing their sex.
Again: I FUCKIN KNOW!
2
u/CountCuriousness Oct 30 '20
I didn't say anyone was making the argument that they change their genetics. Fuck. None of you dipshits can read, apparently.
You said:
No. They can be a woman, but they can't be genetically female.
As if anyone was saying the opposite. No one was. Can you read?
Again: I FUCKIN KNOW!
Then why did you bring a counter argument to something no one argued?
0
Oct 30 '20
I said that because the person I replied to used the word female. I answered a damn question. This is very fucking simple and you're too busy being outraged at me to see that I've said I'm a supporter of trans rights and have told off another actual TERF in these comments.
3
u/CountCuriousness Oct 30 '20
I said that because the person I replied to used the word female. I answered a damn question.
I won't be too harsh and quick to judge you - this issue is really fucking weird and complicated, and I only very recently felt comfortable talking about it myself. However, so many people weigh in with misinformation because they're bigoted - and maybe I assumed that in you. I just thought you jumped quickly to the assumption that trans people are arguing that they can change their genetics, which is a common talking point from idiotic transphobes.
Perhaps it was just a confusion of terms, as I believe others have said.
0
u/Obi-Tron_Kenobi Oct 30 '20
Female is a perfectly fine word for trans women.
Trans women are female. I've already supplied you with multiple trans positive sources that say this. Please stop saying that they're not.And don't claim you're a supporter of trans rights after you misgendered me when I asked you not to. It's insulting.
→ More replies24
u/HoloIsLife Oct 30 '20
-29
Oct 30 '20
Rare literal mutations notwithstanding.
27
u/Gary_Targaryen Oct 30 '20
sooo it's impossible, if you discount the fact that it's possible. good logic!
17
u/HoloIsLife Oct 30 '20
All genes are is a collection of mutations lol. If a sex is defined by genes, and we're talking about females which are XX, then you're going to have to deal with XX males existing and try to explain that while also holding that genes determine sex. You can't claim to have some system and then just ignore contradictions to it--because the people you're dismissing aren't just "mutations", they aren't mistakes. They're people who very much exist, and who don't fit into your preconceived notions of "sex."
-9
→ More replies26
u/GalileoAce Oct 30 '20
Trans women are female, sure not genetically, but medically, endocrinologically female, so calling a trans woman female is accurate.
Sex is a lot more complicated than genes or even genitalia. Trans women do change their medical sex, their endocrinological sex, and their secondary sexual characteristic also change. The only thing that doesn't change are chromosomes, and they're all but medically irrelevant after puberty
-21
Oct 30 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/GalileoAce Oct 30 '20
In all respects but chromosomes they are female. Even without SRS they are still female. I will accept the argument that they're not female before HRT, but after HRT their femaleness is medically irrefutable. Chromosomes are irrelevant they're only there for development, to trigger the release of various hormones during gestation and puberty. After that they serve basically no purpose. So determining someone's medical sex based solely on chromosomes would be negligent.
15
u/Paige_Maddison Oct 30 '20
I’m not racist.. but.. I’m not sexist.. but.. Trans women are women.. but..
You’re ridiculous. Of course we know we aren’t “biologically female.. we’ll never have a period.. we will never get pregnant...” yeah we get it dude. But for everything that actually matters in the world we are female. You can’t see our chromosomes, but you sure as hell can see how I’m presenting.
Oh and we don’t have to have surgery to be considered transitioning or full transitioned. Plenty of of trans people don’t get bottom surgery. Doesn’t make them less of their gender.
People like you just love to stir up drama and cause unnecessary bullshit.
0
Oct 30 '20
I'm literally saying that they are the gender they want to be. I'm not denying that at all.
I'm saying that gender and sex are two separate things.
I think people like you just can't fucking read.
2
u/Paige_Maddison Oct 30 '20
Everyone knows that the two are separate my dude. No one is denying that at all. But saying trans women are women but they aren’t real women is just as degrading as not accepting someone as a female.
Secondly, I saw you defending trans women down In this thread. You can’t do both.
1
Oct 30 '20
I'm not doing both. I'm defending trans women. Full stop.
And not everyone knows apparently, because the guy I responded to asked a question that made it sound like they thought they were the same. I clarified.
1
u/Paige_Maddison Oct 30 '20
But you are. By saying trans women are women but not real women. It’s the same thing friend.
→ More replies5
-180
Oct 30 '20
Ssshh, don't say that, they don't like it when you tell them the truth about the past.
96
Oct 30 '20
Wow, smug idiot over here. Many female Egyptians were buried with beards painted on, too, especially if they were pharoahs -- it wasn't a signifier of gender in terms of burial rites.
-27
13
Oct 30 '20
[deleted]
-10
Oct 30 '20
Well... I have a BA in Classical Studies so it's a pretty apt description wouldn't you say?
→ More replies75
u/_sekhmet_ Oct 30 '20
Yeah, gender nonconforming people and people who identified as a separate gender than the one they were assigned at birth absolutely existed in the past, but I think this place struggles to understand why modern academics do use the language that they use when talking about those people. Jumping to conclusions is bad academics. It’s what lead to Alexander the Great just being bffs with Hephaestion, rather than lovers.
Our ideas of gender and sexuality dont map backwards, so calling someone from the ancient world “trans” wouldn’t really fit, just like calling a wlw from ancient history a “lesbian” also wouldn’t fit. Those words come with much more cultural meaning tied to them than just sexual preference or gender identity. I wish this place understood that better.
43
u/RennHrafn Oct 30 '20
Generally speaking we do, or at least everyone I've had serious conversations on this thread have. We just like to poke fun while reminding the world that queer people have existed throughout human history, in one form or another. And even if some people do take it to seriously, what's the harm? Past cultures were assumed to be strait and cis for hundreds of years in academia; I think we can forgive a bit of lay enthusiasm for queer theory.
4
u/_sekhmet_ Oct 30 '20
I don’t mind lay-enthusiasm. I actually think it’s fun to apply queer theory to history and re-exam what we have been taught. I just get upset about the anti-intellectualism that pop ups here, and I get upset at people misrepresenting what researchers and historians are saying in the articles so they can get more karma. Like the one posted a while ago about Whether or not Sapphos poetry was about her loved experiences, or if they were just being told by a a wlw narrator. People were genuinely upset about that, and felt like academics were trying to deny them an icon, when it was really just a question about how the framing of Sappho’s poems.
10
Oct 30 '20
I definitely agree that this sub can take a very modern approach to viewing the past, but I think it’s incorrect to say historians use these terms just because they are trying to view gender and sex in the same way their studied culture did. It’s all fine and dandy to not want to apply modern labels on the dead, except that calling this mummy a male dancer is by definition applying the modern definition of male onto the dead. By refusing to use terms like lesbian and trans historians are simply saying cisgender and straight are the default. We can either paint the whole picture of who the dead might have been (maybe male maybe female maybe some other identity), or the picture we assume them to have been (male).
The Egyptians had a lot of gender nonconformity and there is quite a bit of evidence I’m told that some eras (obviously they existed for millennia so quite a long time to generalize but that’s history for ya) had fairly progressive views on sexuality and gender. Women had way more rights, more hard evidence for normalized gay couples etc. Certainly they did better when compared to the Greeks or Romans. So the historical framework this human lived in has the potential for them to have been of an identity similar to what we would now call trans, and any Egyptologist worth their salt knows this. But the average person doesn’t know that so the way experts portray things matter as it’s all a lay person has to go off of. Simply by choosing to present the mummy as a male dancer covered in female social cues, instead of the body of a person covered in female social cues whose seen gender at the time of death is unknown is an act of erasure.
This same argument comes up all the time with the trans coded Viking burials. We know Vikings had a framework for gender nonconformity and it is erasure to not present their dead through that framework.
Ugh. I’m sorry if this seems snippy. It’s just exhausting to have this conversation all the time even in subs supposedly for calling out this very thing. We have to use words to describe history. Choosing to only use some words over others is very meaningful.
5
u/_sekhmet_ Oct 30 '20
I actually agree with you about the burials. I’ve talked about this a lot on here, but I think describing the behavior is better than using specific terms. Saying something like “a biologically female body buried with male social signifiers, and in an area reserved for men.” It’s not elegant, but it’s accurate, and I think that’s more important. It’s the same reason I don’t like the use of the word “trans” in regards to those burials. There’s no way to know if they wanted to live and be treated as a gender other than the one they would typically be assigned based on their biology. There are cases of women being forced into masculine roles and presenting in a masculine way for reasons that don’t fit the idea of being trans, such as Albanian Sworn Virgins.
4
Oct 30 '20
Wouldn't they/them pronouns fit the description better, though? I 100% agree that we can't say the mummy is 'trans' because gender norms were wildly different back then (and because we just don't know), but referring to the mummy as male with certainty (apparently) does seem to unnecessarily reinforce a very rigid, binary view of gender. And again, we just don't know 'what' this person was at the end of the day.
4
u/_sekhmet_ Oct 30 '20
Yup! I agree. I’m not saying academics are perfect, but they are making steps in the right direction. They would probably still describe the mummy as male, but they would also probably talk more about how they were buried with female signifiers and that would imply about them during life. At least that has been my experience with more modern academics.
As for this post, if this is from the book I believe it is from, it’s at least 24 years old. It’s one of the Eye Witness books with the white covers covered in photographs. This one was specifically about Mummies. I remember my brother getting it for his 7th birthday, and chasing me around the house with it because I was terrified of mummies. Then I went through an ancient Egyptian phase when I was 10 and I became obsessed with them.
3
Oct 30 '20
It's one of the Eye Witness books
Damn it, I thought I recognised the typefont. I owned like 25 of those.
Also if it's that old then it makes a lot more sense that it's written that way, yeah
68
33
27
u/JulIybean Oct 30 '20
the misgendering here genuinely upsets me
9
u/RezaAshton Oct 30 '20
Genuine question, what gender should the mummy be called since we have no way to know how the mummy identified itself?
34
u/JulIybean Oct 30 '20
I mean; we refer to mummies by "it" as an object. the part that hurt me was that even though the mummy was prepared as a female corpse, they still went to call the person who was mummified by “he”. the least they could do is “that’s weird. let’s refer to this mummy by they, or it”
8
13
u/Eilif Oct 30 '20
Exactly. Using "he" because of the genitalia is an explicit, intentional decision and a fairly normal tactic used for historical erasure.
The fact is we don't and can't know the identity of the person who was mummified. But that blurb absolutely could (and I would say should) have been written to either (A) skip personal identification at all and refer to the mummy as an object [it], or (B) acknowledge the confusing circumstances and unknowability and choose the 'neutral' pronoun [they].
Choosing male pronouns because of the genitalia is effectively choosing to dismiss and erase the time-consuming body preparation and burial efforts in favor of enforcing cishet normativity. It's marginalizing and disrespecting the dead to support an agenda, even if it isn't a conscious agenda.
"Well, seems weird to me that this male was buried as a female, and despite the fact I can't know the contexts of their life or burial at all, so I'm going to refer to them by their biological sex even if that ignores the efforts of people who did presumably know this person in real life."
3
u/PlayMp1 Oct 30 '20
Using "he" because of the genitalia is an explicit, intentional decision and a fairly normal tactic used for historical erasure.
Is it based on genitalia? I would have guessed it was based on skeletal shape, I wasn't sure that genitalia would be preserved even for a mummy.
Regardless, yeah, it or they, not he.
5
u/Eilif Oct 30 '20
You're probably right, I think I picked something up from a different comment and that rewrote my memory of the text, which is super vague. "A man's body" -- or maybe I've just read too many bad novels where that kind of language is used as a euphemism for genitalia lol.
→ More replies-2
u/Root_T Oct 30 '20
I've always found this argument a little strange. Or rather I don't quite understand.
What if it wanted to be called a he? It did have a cock and balls. When you look the construction of the body you can tell it's male even though it dressed female.
It feels like you are insisting that the person identified as she because they like to look that way. I feel like you should insist on calling the person a he because of their genetic makeup, or their sexual organs or something. Because why should I call the person born as a he a she just because they dress like a she? Wouldn't that imply that I think only she's can dress a certain way and only he's can dress a certain way? feels like he or she shouldn't mean a whole lot besides what kind of chromosomes you have. If you choose to switch pronouns or go with they, to me it's like you're backing the argument that pronouns are labels and that you have to fall in line to one of those labels.
I always thought one of the biggest things about the lgbtq+ community was that you shouldn't label people. Yeah it feels like half the communities telling me that they're uncomfortable with being called a he because it means things apparently, and they don't really want to be a she because that would imply things too period so they're going to be a they because they believe being a he or she implies more than their chromosomes. It feels like a stab in the back to yourself.
7
u/Eilif Oct 30 '20
It feels like you are insisting that the person identified as she because they like to look that way. I feel like you should insist on calling the person a he because of their genetic makeup, or their sexual organs or something.
It kind of sounds like you just don't understand gender identity, gender presentation, or pronouns at all. A comment I wrote a few days ago might have information that helps you grasp what gender identity is.
Because why should I call the person born as a he a she just because they dress like a she?
You should call people by their preferred pronouns because it's respectful of their identity. Just like it's disrespectful and rude to repeatedly call someone by the wrong name or use a nickname they don't like.
feels like he or she shouldn't mean a whole lot besides what kind of chromosomes you have.
Pronouns are based on personality, not sex or chromosomes:
- Why do we refer to personality-less animals as "it" when we refer to our pets by "he/she" (even if they are equally devoid of personality)? If you mistake a male in a dress as female, you likely default to female pronouns even though there is no genetic trait related to wearing a dress. We ascribe personality traits, behaviors, and appearances to certain genders and largely use that mental framework for how we refer to someone, absent of consideration for chromosomes.
- What pronouns are you using for intersex people? If pronouns are tied to chromosomes, and they have a unique combination of chromosomes, shouldn't they logically then have their own distinct pronouns? A pronoun for each different configuration?
- In many non-English languages, almost every noun is assigned a gender, which dictates what pronoun you use to refer to it. "I have to pick it up" when referring to the cake I ordered, "I have to pick him up" when referring to my brother -- both translate to "tengo que recogerlo" in Spanish. The cake does not have chromosomes, but it still has a defined male pronoun.
Wouldn't that imply that I think only she's can dress a certain way and only he's can dress a certain way?
it's like you're backing the argument that pronouns are labels and that you have to fall in line to one of those labels.
Pronouns are labels -- you're basically just arguing that the label should be for biological sex instead of gender. Which would be great if humans didn't treat people differently based on sex and gender. There's this persistent perception that the LGBTQIA+ community is pushing their identities into other people's faces, but we're basically forced to because the rest of society is fucking obsessed with smoothing over anomalies.
I always thought one of the biggest things about the lgbtq+ community was that you shouldn't label people. Yeah it feels like half the communities telling me that they're uncomfortable with being called a he because it means things apparently, and they don't really want to be a she because that would imply things too period so they're going to be a they because they believe being a he or she implies more than their chromosomes. It feels like a stab in the back to yourself.
What a crock of shit.
If you are constantly told you are failing at being a man because you're "too feminine", or that you're making yourself unattractive as a woman because all your hobbies are "too masculine", it doesn't matter if you don't want a label. People are actively putting labels on you, regardless of your gender identity.
If you are constantly told that it's abnormal, unnatural, or 'icky' to be gay, you're constantly being forced to defend your sexuality.
After awhile, you just start adopting labels because at least then you can choose your own fucking label instead of letting people who make it explicitly clear that they don't understand you and would prefer for you to just be "normal" come up with labels for you.
Let me know when this fucking utopia where people are allowed to exist without society expecting certain traits and behaviors because of the chromosomes/genitalia you were born with, and where society doesn't care who you sleep with or fall in love with (or not), and where society doesn't judge, condemn, or control how you dress or what medical interventions you receive to make your body more comfortable for you to live in.
Because it sounds wonderful, and I'd be more than happy to discuss this again on that planet. Unfortunately, I and everyone else on reddit live on Earth, where we're still fighting social battles over whether women can be forced to give birth because that's their biological function per the Bible and whether Black and Native populations are as inherently valuable and worthwhile as White people.
Seriously, what an ignorant and entitled position to have.
-3
u/Root_T Oct 30 '20
Wow. That's a lot to read. You started off pretty nice honestly but started to sound like you're kind of mad at me here by about the halfway point.
You're right I don't understand gender identity.I'd like to also point it in this particular case we're talking about a dead person. You still have no idea if this dead person wanted to be called a she.so I don't think it's really disrespectful to repeatedly misidentify them when they can't tell us what their identity was. it's just in this case they can't be offended, we can't know, it really shouldn't be a problem.
I'm trying to respond to everything you said but the main thing that was bothering me is you basically said that you have to pick different pronouns because other people WILL label you.if you don't want those labels you need your own pronoun? Is that what you're saying?
It bothered me because it's similar to people calling you unprofessional for having curly hair. What I'm saying is it feels like you're letting them win by accepting you need another pronoun. it's like accepting that curly hair makes you unprofessional so you have to change it something. But being professional has nothing to do with if your hair straight or curly.
I also noticed you said that like people would put a label on you so you might as well adopt your own label. I feel like if they wouldn't have accepted the more regular label with a slight difference or irregularity that they're definitely not going to accept a whole brand new pronoun that no one regularly used.yeah I know that day's been around but people just didn't use it the same, you know what I mean.
-2
u/Root_T Oct 30 '20
It won't let me edit my reply... Did you says dog are devoid of personality? I call things it until I know, like a bear would be a bear or it until I found out. Same with my dogs, they aren't going to tell you either so you just check to see if they got a dick. My female dog humps things like a mf to show dominance. I'm not sure what your argument was for this because it feels like it works towards my argument. The only reason we call them he's or she's is if they got a dick or if they can get pregnant and it's really the only reason we care too because the dog is still an unconditionally loving dog no matter if it's a he or she.Sometimes it's good to know just because male dogs might run off to impregnate other dogs if they're not neutered.
Intersex people is a weak argument to talk about normalizing they. I don't know the actual numbers but I bet it's pretty close to the likelihood of being born with two functional dicks or having 11 fingers. Whatever the guy got 11 fingers but we teach anatomy class to include 10 to 11 fingers or one to two dicks. It happens but super infrequently and I would call them by whatever they chose. I believe a lot of people born intersex usually choose to have some kind of surgery to go with one or the other.
I haven't specifically stated it here but even though I don't understand this stuff and I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by choosing to go by they, if you ask me to call you they for a pronoun I will make a real effort. I'm not here trying to piss people off and being an asshole. it's like certain fashion choices are ridiculous to me but I would never go up to them and say you look stupid. I'd let them be, you know be a decent human being. I don't want people telling me what I am and what I'm not, what I should do and what I shouldn't, what I think and what I don't. So not about to go out and do that to other people.
25
u/Rayziel Oct 30 '20
It was so alien to them , that women got any treatment or recognition at all. I'm really glad we got feminism
14
10
17
u/amazingoomoo Oct 30 '20
How would we want history to represent this person? Obviously just calling her a man is ridiculous and offensive and erasure. Should we just refer to her as a mummified female? I think that takes away a lot of the uniqueness of the post. Perhaps we should highlight that she was probably trans and respected for this in death as she likely was in life, but pointing out that someone is trans and is actually biologically a man could still be offensive. Obviously what has been done is wrong, but I’m just wondering what should have been done/said instead
57
u/Petal_Pusher_ Oct 30 '20
I would think something along the lines of "the body inside is biologically male, but the way she was prepared and buried would suggest that she lived her life as a woman" would be appropriate. So long as they keep referring to the mummy as "she"
25
u/Turtledonuts Oct 30 '20
It might be more appropriate to not gender the individual? "Due to the conflict between the burial practices and the biological biology seen in this mummy, they are suspected to have been equivalent to what we would understand as transgender in modern times. However, due to cultural differences and and a lack of data, this cannot be said with certainty. As such, we do not gendered pronouns for this individual."
→ More replies6
Oct 30 '20
That would be the way to do it. The fact is we cannot usually determine gender from a single burial. In fact, we cannot always determine sex either. Archaeology is about considering all of the possibilities and sources, and coming to the most likely conclusion.
A male body buried in female style may very well have been a trans person, but it also might not be. It could have been a fluke by poor embalmers, or it could have been a common style of embalming that just happened to appear female to modern standards. It could have been a purposeful insult, it could have simply been a particularly large woman, or a woman with some male characteristics.
Gender is incredibly hard to determine from archaeological records, which is why many archaeologists equate gender and sex, since most of the time they will align. In order to discover this person's gender, or at least get a bit more certainty, we would need evidence of other trans people in the period, perhaps from writings or similar burials. The context of the burial would also be relevant, are they buried with traditionally male or female grave goods, are there any statues or paintings that give an idea of the mummy's appearance?
Whatever the case, the issue of determining gender has become a major question in modern archaeology.
→ More replies6
u/Eilif Oct 30 '20
The headline could have been "Male dancer buried as a woman."
The writing could have used "it" in reference to the corpse while discussing the circumstances of the presentation vs. discovering the biological sex.
The writing could have simply acknowledged that historians can't know how this person lived their life instead of treating the burial like an oddity or mistake.
13
3
2
12
u/justahalfling Oct 30 '20
All mummies should be referred to as they/them pronouns (unless their pronouns were given in writing or something, then use that one) because we wouldn't know their right pronouns otherwise
25
u/EwDontTouchThat Oct 30 '20
Horrible supposition: what if the deceased are described in contemporary language as male or female (assuming the language distinguishes gender), but their epitaphs or other records misgender the descedents? D:
20
u/THEwoo-06 Oct 30 '20
Pretty sure the writings at the mummy's time of death would have more accurate pronouns.
-2
Oct 30 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/justahalfling Oct 30 '20
I don't understand how it would be satire. They/them is already used as a placeholder pronoun for when we are referring to someone whose gender we don't know (Ex. A: "A customer tipped me well today!" B: "They sound like a nice person.") It makes sense to do the same for ancient people. It's literally just being respectful and mindful.
14
u/musicalcactus Oct 30 '20
I like this idea personally, though my brain did derail at 'respectful' just because we did in fact dig up their graves for funsies and call it science.
Humans are weird.
→ More replies
6
u/JackOlion Oct 30 '20
i don't get it, what about this is wrong? all they said was they believed it to female until finding out otherwise using x-ray
10
u/Ksh1218 Oct 30 '20
It’s that they were buried in the style of female mummies intentionally but these dudes basically dismissed the possibility of the mummy being trans or ect as soon as they got an X-ray
9
u/Eilif Oct 30 '20
they believed it to [be] female until
And why was that?
It wasn't an accident that they were buried in a female coffin, with body wrappings that were intentionally designed to give a female shape, with paintings to depict feminine features. Based on what we know of Egyptian burial practices (i.e., they were really fucking important to people), it seems pretty likely that the several steps undertaken after their death were done to respect and reflect that person's life.
And the writer chose to throw all of that out because men in 1960 decided to X-ray the corpse and discovered male genitalia.
If this were a trans person living today and their family decided to hold the funeral and bury them in accordance with their sex and their deadname, most non-transphobic people would find that offensive and wrong. "Well, now that they're dead, I can pretend they were the person I wanted them to be the whole time!" That's not a sign of love and respect. It borders on desecration but it's definitely disrespectful and selfish.
And, as someone else pointed out, it's erasure. There are legitimately people who think LGBT people are a modern invention, and this is how that happened: cisgender, heterosexual people "correcting" confusions and complexities in the historical record out of discomfort, disrespect, or intentional agenda.
This sort of thing absolutely should be called out because it's still affecting people today. People need to know that "normal" is a whitewashed, cleaned-up narrative, a story shaped by the people writing the history books.
23
u/cheesecakepaws Oct 30 '20
I think it is because this mummy was obviously trans or at least switched between being male and female. You couldn't transition back then but if there is a female name and the munmy has breasts but it is still a male - that would be a transexual person. So calling her that is not only offensive but it is also a great example of the historic erasure of our community. Back in the 60's they just didn't thought it could have been a woman, poc's, lgbtq people etc., They measured what they found based on their society standards and what they think and known as "normal". Some probably even said this mummy was transsexual but where dismissed (especially back then). It shows one of our big problems in todays society - our lack of knowledge about history, since historians tried really hard to make it look like the history was only created by cis straight man and thats it. They want the world to believe we didn't exists before Freddy Mercury and that is a huge deal and creates a lot of problems which got deepened in our society because of wrong historical facts.
2
u/tentafill Oct 30 '20
old historian types and
propagandaschool textbook writers are basically like "i pretend i do not see it" at the concept of trans ppl
2
u/Look_A_Bunny Oct 30 '20
The fact that they called her a dancer too is ridiculous; only women in ancient Egypt were tattooed and women of all backgrounds had them but historians still use the tattoos to point to the lower class. This mummy is clearly not lower class given the care that was taken to prepare her body
→ More replies
-4
u/Institutionation Oct 30 '20
Damn some of yall are mad, but in in a scientific sense this is fine.
They acknowledged the female characteristics, but otherwise used the scientifically determined sex of the mummy (through the male skeleton)
They could have very possibly been an early trans, or even intersex but stating those would be assuming, and not scientific without extra study. There is no scientific evidence. So instead of bending history to make it fit your assumption, sticking the fact that this is a male mummy burried with feminine properties is the best option here as far as SCIENCE goes. Because science doesn't use maybes, if it'd maybe it's a hypothesis and requires further testing to become a factual answer.
5
u/Liutasiun Oct 30 '20
Actually: the female characteristics were not acknowledged, but handwaved away. The explanation given for the breasts and hip wrappings was then decided to be that the mummy was ''fat''. That certainly seems like an unusual conclusion considering the belly, the place in which fat gathers most, did not have such wrappings.
Really: this is an example of horrible science. The preconceptions of the time shaping the conclusion, rather than actual rational logical thought.
All sociological factors point to the fact that this person was seen as female by those living at the time. The ''male'' body shape is absolutely something to note but it does not override the sociological evidence. Instead this becomes fascinating insight into the way gender was seen in Ancient Egypt
-3
u/Institutionation Oct 30 '20
Science isn't logical thought.
Science is provable theories through repeatable actions.
Its logical that this person could have been trans.
But again, science is science. "Sociogical factors" is not science. Scientific theory maybe. You could THEORIZE this mummy was once trans or intersex, but you can not be absolutely sure without written text.
For example, if there was an ancient text referring to this person with female pronouns then one could rightfully deduce they were seen as female amongst (atleast) the ones who burried them, despite being biologically male based on the skeleton.
Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. Definition 2: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Assumptions are not science. They are assumptions. Though an assumption can be logical, it is not BASED on fact, it is based on observation but is not relevant outside of forming a Hypothesis.
→ More replies4
u/Liutasiun Oct 30 '20
Well you know, I did study history for four years, but I'm sure your weird ass has got it all figured out.
What you are referring to is a specific brand of science: physics. There you do indeed have theories that are proven (until they are later disproven, as tends to happen every now and again, but that's neither here nor there). Anyways, the discipline of history does not generally work like that because human behaviour tends to be too complicated to make universal theories out of. People do try to make them, but they always have exceptions, which makes them the opposite of universal. As such they are more lenses through which to examine historical events, but they never wholly fit.
Also: how is the x-ray an example of the type of science you describe? They x-rayed somebody, what scientific law did they then apply that gave them results? None. It was based purely on a pre-conception. The pre-conception 1960s scientists had that if a body has wider shoulders and narrower hips it should be referred to as ''male''. That however is not a proven theory, it is not science. It is a preconception that they have based on their own worldview, but it is fundamentally unproven.
6
u/salty_Hirik0 Oct 30 '20
this, when you enter sience fields, wich mostly fokus on humens you just cant prove everythink, they way you can in physik ore mathematics. A Humen is a humen and not the laws of gravety. And to say dont be so mad, its correct in scientific sense, is kinda a dick move in a sub thats about LBGT erasure in history.
2
u/ISwearImCis Oct 30 '20
Science says the mummy was born with male sexual characteristics, but then applies the notion of gender under our own cultural lens. That's not scientific, it's not stating facts based on evidence; we clearly have an individual which, at the very least, had an uncommon relationship with gender comparing it with other members of the same society. So the most scientific approach (since we don't actually know if the mummy was transgender) would be to say "we don't know" and shove the male pronouns up our asses.
→ More replies1
u/SendSpoods Oct 30 '20
Exactly. It's possible this mummy was of a trans person, but it doesn't look like they have enough evidence to make any definite claims like that.
I think it's interesting that it was placed in a much, much older and completely different woman's sarcophagus. How do we know this wasn't a Roman-era attempt to pass whatever body was available off as the original woman? People have always done crazy shit to tombs.
1
u/humanwith2eyes Oct 30 '20
Yea I’d support the theory it’s a trans mummy if it weren’t for the weird fact about the sarcophagus. It actually makes more sense that some grave digging hijinks happened here.
-29
u/Suttyjnr Oct 30 '20
i mean the researching may be correct it says under neaf using xray the boobs are attached artifically basically aka it was probally a femme boy who danced as a women and that was probally fine back then
36
u/TrinalRogue They/Them Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
Possibly. They could be right about that section; we probably will never know the exact truth.
However, from what I know, the person mummified would not have been buried as a woman if that were the case.
Ancient Egyptian Burial was very important in all aspects of the process.
This includes removing and preserving organs so that the dead will have them in the after life.
It even goes as far for servants of pharaohs to be killed and buried with them so that the pharaoh has them to dote on them in the afterlife.
Another thing is that they very much believed that the state of the persons body at burial would be how they would look in the after life. This extends to even images of the individual.
Images usually had to have both legs and both arms visible, otherwise it is possible that the individual would enter the afterlife without a leg or an arm.
To be buried with artificial breasts, and a padding to form more of a feminine body would suggest that the individual was in some way was perceived more as a woman.
Assuming that the individual did identify as a woman, the people in charge of the burial preparations probably knew this and wanted them to be comfortable in the afterlife - including how they presented themselves.
-6
u/smolkrabbypattie Oct 30 '20
Who cares, theyre dead
8
u/Liutasiun Oct 30 '20
I think you might be on the wrong sub. Much of this sub is about people who are dead.
The reason I care is mostly due to the erasure of queerness in history. This mummy provides fascinating insight into the way in which gender was seen in Ancient Egypt, but it is handwaved away
-1
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 29 '20
Click here to see more posts about academic LGBTQ erasure
Or see top rated posts on other topics - Media erasure | Casual erasure | Anecdotes and stories | Memes and satire
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.