Reading The Book Isn't Enough, I Need To Also Write A 5-page Literary Analysis About It

reading the book isn't enough, i need to also write a 5-page literary analysis about it

this wizard has impeccable timing, but maybe that's what sealed the deal for me 💜

new zine about asexual history! this one's been rattling around my head for awhile

Come along Lacey, there's much to do.

Inspired by the RotE Discord prompt "Unfinished Business." And by business, I mean projects. Patience is the queen of abandoned WIPs.

Hello, archaeologist here! Now, while I do not specialise in osteology (studying old bones) I do have an understanding of how this stuff works generally.

Firstly, most sex estimation is done through a visual analysis of bones. This is simply because it is far cheaper, quicker, and easier to do than other methods. Also, at least in my country, indigenous groups often don't want the remains taken off the land and to a lab. What this usually looks like is looking at specific parts of the pelvis, comparing it to references (see the image below). There are multiple references points on the pelvis, as well as on other parts of the body (e.g. skull).

Now, looking at this image you will notice that it is rated on a gradient rather than in a dichotomy. This is because these characteristics vary, and even a 'typical female' can have more 'typically male' traits. Basically the idea is that you get a whole bunch of these and then you can make a conclusion from that.

The conclusion that will be drawn is also one of 5 categories: hyperfeminine-feminine-undertermined-masculine-hypermasculine. So its not just sorted into 'this one is a woman' and 'that ones a man', there is more room for nuance. Its VERY rare that you get remains that are all hyperfeminine. Plus, often the bones don't get preserved amazingly and you might not even have the right bones to be able to confidently make an estimate.

Now, something that is important is as follows: its an estimation of sex. And I'm going to break down what this statement means.

Firstly, that this is an estimation of sex. This means that it is understood as a flawed method, that may not line up with the 'reality' that existed in the past. (I'm going to leave it at that because nobody, especially me, wants to go through a confusing explanation of archaeological theory). Also, because the remains have been in the ground, decomposing and being affected by things like soil acidity and land usage, they're often missing a lot/characteristics are unclear.

The second thing that is important about that statement, is that it is and estimation of sex. Sex is different from gender. When sexing remains, archaeologists are looking at the biology, rather than cultural roles.

So- what does this mean for the originally asked question? Well, by the time you've gone through puberty, most of your bones have fused together fully (so your humerus head is now actually connected to the shaft). And, from a bit of googling, it seems that hrt doesn't change much of the macroscopic level. And since all the fleshy bits will have decayed in those thousands of years, then it is unlikely that hrt will have majorly changed the way that an individual is viewed through macroscopic analysis (most common form of sex estimation).

HOWEVER.

As I mentioned before, there is an understanding that a) these methods don't give firm answers, but are only indications/estimates of a past reality than can never be fully understood. And b) that whatever shows up in your bones in terms of sex is not indicative of any cultural roles that individual may have had.

And that is not even to mention the increasing awareness going around about how these methods are problematic. Without even getting into new understandings of gender, these methods are based on very small population samples. The collections that these methods are often based on frequently are overrepresented by males, and also based around a single population (e.g. American). So, there is still research going into new methods (though I don't know the details cause its not my area of expertise).

I also don't know enough about microscopic methods of sex estimation to make a comment on (this is through like, looking at an atomic level). So those methods may be able to provide different information, but, in the majority of cases these types of methods won't be used because its not economical.

This may seem disheartening to trans folks. It may seem to just confirm the 'the archaeologists will still know you're an X gender hur hur hur'. But, if theres one thing that is constantly true about archaeology it is this:

We know fuck all! Its all a guess! Its all an estimation! We can never truly, 100% know what was going on in the past, because all we get is the things that don't decay, so you will never get the full picture!

Please don't make me explain theory of knowledge, I still don't know the difference between epistimology and ontology.

Don't tell my theory professor

Although, in a thousand years they may have invented time machines so who am I to say.

Hope this answered your question. Sorry if I went overboard. Let me know if this doesn't make sense (that XKCD comic about average familiarity and such).

If you do, however, want to evade the archaeologists, and make us all really confused, you could always pay somebody to, idk, pour acid on your pelvic and skull bones. You'll fascinate us endlessly I promise, and it would be a pretty funny prank.

random thought

i wonder if, when we start digging up the bones of folks who went through hrt a couple thousand years from now, we'll be able to tell they were trans

like, i specifically remember that anti-androgens and estrogen does stuff to your bone mineralization, it was a big deal before i got actual hormones to be careful and not break anything

is that altered structure still there? an odd little call from a thousand years in past that we were different? odd thought