No Place for Transphobia in Anthropology: Session Pulled from Annual Meeting
americananthro.org
americananthro.org
They claim the accusation that "it assumes the truth of the proposition that it sets out to prove, namely, that sex and gender are simplistically binary" is false - one of their abstracts even makes explicit distinction between sex and gender [1]. While technically even biological sex is not entirely binary, it is, in the vast majority of cases, binary enough to support categorization of human remains as male or female.
Perhaps these points would have been made in their talk, however, it was shut down without notice to its presenters, despite having earlier gotten approval for it.
[1] In “No bones about it: skeletons are binary; people may not be”, Elizabeth Weiss wrote: “In forensics, however, anthropologists should be (and are) working on ways to ensure that skeletal finds are identified by both biological sex and their gender identity, which is essential due to the current rise in transitioning individuals.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Pulaski#Exhumation_and...
A later study funded by the Smithsonian Institution, the results of which were released in 2019, concluded from the mitochondrial DNA of his grandniece, known injuries, and physical characteristics, that the skeleton was likely Pulaski's.[57] The skeleton has a number of typically female features, which has led to the hypothesis that Pulaski may have been female or intersex.[58][59][60] A documentary based on the Smithsonian study suggests that Pulaski's hypothesized intersex condition could have been caused by congenital adrenal hyperplasia, where a fetus with female chromosomes is exposed to a high level of testosterone in utero and develops partially male genitals. This analysis was based on the skeleton's female pelvis, facial structure and jaw angle, in combination with the fact that Pulaski identified as and lived as male.[55][61]
Just the normal variation of humans is also an issue. For almost any characteristic, the bell curve of typical male features overlaps with the bell curve of typical female features. There are some anatomical features that are very distinct like the shape of the pelvis, but if you don't have a complete skeleton you might mistake a tall strong woman for a man or the other way around.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Use_regarding_hu...
Yes, there are always exceptions. Some people have six fingers or two heads. That is not license to pretend that, given a human skeleton, we cannot make any inferences about their... role in the human reproductive cycle and society, to avoid the contentious terms of "sex" and "gender". That's like saying we can't tell if a coin will land heads 50% of the time, because sometimes we get 10 heads in a row.
In particular, some museum curators have accommodated demands by indigenous tribes, usually from men, that female curators aren't permitted to handle their objects. So in the name of cultural respect, you have this outright sexism being endorsed instead.
Here's an example, from her Twitter, of how menstruating women were being discriminated against by her university's curation protocols; thankfully she got this overturned by getting lawyers involved:
> The @SJSU protocol for handling Native American remains used to state “Menstruating personnel will not be permitted to handle ancestors”. This sexist rule has been deleted, after @PacificLegal and I pointed out that it may be illegal. An important victory! #NAGPRA #anthrotwitter
- https://twitter.com/eweissunburied/status/151437363306542285...
This might be considered an insensitive reaction by some, but only if you elevate the desires of misogynist men above all else.
> UK anthropologist Kathleen Richardson’s abstract highlighted issues surrounding material disparities between the sexes in the tech industry that are being erased by counting men who identify as trans as women rather than by having more women enter the field.
> Francophone Canadian anthropologist Michèle Sirois was to offer an ethnographic account of the ways “in which Quebec feminists have organized to document, clarify and oppose the exploitative surrogacy industry that hides under the guise of 'equity' and 'inclusion'”, and in which surrogacy policies which exploit poor women are cynically framed as liberatory.
This session was going to be a "terf" train wreck and a massive distraction for the conference.
Yeah that's how they win. 'You will accept our religion or we will trainwreck your conference by mobilising a million zealots to call you names.'
You don't want them to win because they're not people who are operating on logic, they're operating on faith. That's not conducive to an orderly world.
A talk at a scientific conference, attended by adult scientists, was pulled, and one of the reasons given was "in order to ensure the safety and dignity of all of our members".
A __talk__ at a __scientific conference__, attended by __adult scientists__, was __pulled__, and one of the reasons given was "in order to __ensure the safety and dignity__ of all our members".
Disagree with the talk, don't attend, but apparently adult scientists need to be protected from listening to speech now...
Fragile little buggers... (or one hell of a violent talk...)
Not all talks at a conference are serious; some are humorous, some are meta-commentary on problems in the field, etc. If you say you are cancelling the talk because it's not scientific or not relevant to the field, the aggrieved party can complain about those other talks. In reality it was cancelled for all of the above reasons, but the one that is most inarguable is that they are not being hostile to a minority that attends the conference.
> UK anthropologist Kathleen Richardson’s abstract highlighted issues surrounding material disparities between the sexes in the tech industry that are being erased by counting men who identify as trans as women rather than by having more women enter the field.
The assumption here is that trans women are actually just "men who identify as trans." If that's the attitude that these scholars have, it's no wonder their paper was flagged as transphobic.
Unfortunately, it's common on HN for commenters here to see things primarily from a male viewpoint, and assume that female-centred perspectives are less valuable or less intelligent or even bigoted in some way. Please do keep an open mind when listening to women share their experiences and perspectives.
For situations where one's birth-assigned gender is relevant, the terms "assigned male/female at birth" (AMAB/AFAB) can be used. The researcher's claim about tech diversity could have been framed as, e.g., "a recent uptick in tech diversity can be ascribed to counting trans women by their self-identified gender rather than the gender they were assigned at birth". That comes across as much more sensitive and academic than "men identifying as trans", which just has TERF written all over it.
The reality of trans people is that their gender identity does not match their biological sex, either at birth or at any time thereafter. That's what being trans is.
And no, you cannot change your biological sex. Gene therapy and brain transplants aren't there yet.
None of this trivializes trans people, rather it is your argument that trivializes the experience of women who were born and raised female and the distinct experiences and perspectives stemming from that.
Gender is cultural. There are cultures with more than two genders, but they continue to have the same distribution of X and Y chromosomes because sex is biological.
When transitioning, some sexual traits may change, some may stay the same. That doesn't mean a trans woman is still a "man" in any sense.
No, it's an organised system of different parts whose development is coordinated to deliver a specific function: that of reproduction.
We have sexed bodies - female and male - because of our differential reproductive roles, and have evolved molecular mechanisms to drive development of those sexed bodies to support each reproductive role.
Describing sex simply as a "bunch of physical attributes" completely ignores that it is an evolved system function for reproduction, predicated on female and male gametes.
I have thought about this, and as a cis male, do I have the right to deny any other human their experience of being male ?
If someone lost their male reproductive organs in an accident, from disease or at birth - should I single them out and police their gender ID ?
Is someone more male than me ?
Am I more male than someone else ?
After this mental exercise I realized I can’t gatekeep another person’s experience. Everyone alive has paid the price of admission to exist as best they can with whatever they have.
I think this basically gets it, but I would say it somewhat misstates the case: gender is easily distinguished from biological sex (maybe not separated from it; the general correlation and the fact that behavior necessarily has a biological basis suggests that gender identity may itself be among the many dimensions of biological sex traits), but the categorization of people into two groups based on a subset of biological sex traits is not, itself, biological sex, it is ascribed gender. Biological sex is multidimensional (in the usual sense of the entire spectrum of traits that are considered within the ambit of sex) or not binary (in the narrower sense of ability to perform in one, both, or neither of two possible sexual reproductive roles.)
Sex essentialism, like race essentialism (whose arguments and methods it generally apes) defends social constructed exclusive categorization by misrepresenting social statuses ascribed based on some subset of physical traits as essential biological categories.
>A trans woman is female, a trans man is male.
These are explicitly biological terms. A trans woman is NOT female. Even if you only argue the lesser claim that "trans woman are women", I have never seen a convincing follow up to the inevitable response, "what are women".
I am amazed at how people who claim to care about their fellow humans can so easily demonize a huge swath of them in favor of a tiny minority. Just admit it: you are engaging in power politics, just like everyone else.
The zealots opposing this are opposed to the concepts of facts and words and communication
This notion of equating words with physical violence is so confusing to me. Where did it come from and why is it so popular?
Nothing in what you quote is equating words with physical violence.
You seem to be confusing the concept of “harm” (which is what is referenced) with the much narrower concept of “physical violence” (which is not, except by you.)
Now if anyone says something that may endanger you, as determined by you, that's basically stochastic terrorism. It is reckless and irresponsible, and not legitimate debate (ignore whether or not it is true).
The victim's veto.
But if the vast majority of samples are in 0 and F, then it makes sense to have these as categories to study, without invalidating the fact that there is another set R which defies clean placement into either.
But pretending like 0 and F aren't categories, but rather everything is a smooth linear continuum seems silly too if x is small.
Another point of contention that perhaps shall be left out for later discussion (i might have got some preconditioned view, but perhaps would like to hear others first) is whether the third category should be considered "equal" to the 0 and F.
Drew DeVault has a thread on Mastodon where he's invited people to reply with links to posts and comments here that they believe are examples of HN's users and moderators "censoring progressive voices or discussions, or tolerating hate".
This post was linked from one of the replies, https://fosstodon.org/@adrienne@treehouse.systems/1111726693..., and is likely being brigaded by readers of that thread, who are also posting judgemental opinions such as:
> holy fuck that thread is shockingly vile, and I’ve seen a lot of vile shit on the orange site
And:
> looks like the item got flagkilled off the front page, so at least it's not getting much new traffic, but the comments are an absolute cesspool
Seems that they would prefer people with views that dissent from their own to be censored, rather than to engage in open discussion.
I hate to think about how all the folks here with hateful/bigoted comments are either current or potential future coworkers.
Coworkers who issue nonsense bigotry claims against their coworkers like you are extremely toxic and unwelcome in any well run business staffed by mature adults. I fear for your coworkers, please do not harass them with this toxic nonsense.
> The session was rejected because it relied on assumptions that run contrary to the settled science in our discipline
I don't think it's settled science. You can cross different borders on our planet and have different anthropologic organizations that come to different conclusions dependent on what borders you're inside of.
How is that not a matter for science?
It is a matter for science, but most scientists just want to do science, not engage with culture war fanatics who will literally camp outside your house and subject you and your employer to an endless internet hate campaign if you commit what they see as heresy.
The reluctance to push the topic is quite understandable when you consider how unhinged some of the people on the other side are.