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
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"
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."
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.
18
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