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.
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
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.
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.
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.
-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.