Six years ago, I asked this question. “Imagine, if you will, a body fished from a river. The deceased is sent to the Medical Examiner, who performs an autopsy. We have a white male, …oh! Problem. What if they aren’t really…” male?”
We can’t possibly know what the gender of the deceased was at the time of death.
We can only know what the biological characteristics of the body are at the time of examination. Any report, or reporting, produced on that basis will run the risk of appearing intolerant, bigoted, and insensitive to the disposition of the deceased and any family or friends.
I was fooling around, exploring another contradiction. Well, the genderqueers have come for the dead.
“You might know the argument that the archaeologists who find your bones one day will assign you the same gender as you had at birth, so regardless of whether you transition, you can’t escape your assigned sex,” tweeted Canadian Master’s degree candidate Emma Palladino last week.
Palladino is one of many “academics” infiltrating that science with the goal of transing it. Removing the inclination of forensic scientists to gender remains based on evidential indicators. And while this creeping Marxism is weeping its way into University curricula, a short trip from the Liberal arts wing – how long before it invades criminal forensics?
The anthropologist suggests that “Labelling remains ‘male’ or ‘female’ is rarely the end goal of any excavation, anyway,” but that’s rarely if ever, the case in criminal forensics. While sexual orientation may become relevant to an investigation, that determination may come later through interviews with persons of interest who become or get dismissed as suspects in a crime.
If it were possible to determine if the archeological remains of a woman were ever pregnant (I think they can, but not positive), why not just assume she was a victim of their equivalent of Harvey Weinstein with no provision for safe legal abortion?
We speculate that she did not want to give birth but had no choice. Therefore, mwa, mwa, mwa.
Palladino is projecting modern cultural norms (or abnormalities) onto past cultures where they did not exist. Her personal preferences. A no-no in the so-called sciences.
And while I’m sure she will make an excellent archeologist – no one is as good at digging up the past as a biological woman – dragging it forward millennia and forcing it to conform to your cultish gender fantasy seems short-cited.
Something a future version of you might reimagine again, or – perhaps – it’s something you’ll never be able to escape.
