Chic Fil A people are crazy how will you look me in my face and tell me that sauce isn't just honey mustard
btw if u like v/a/c/c/u/m/i/n/g all the puppy dogys fucking hate u
The most ridiculous thing about this shit is that the idea that skeletal remains can be easily and unambiguously 'sexed' is absolutely bunkus
In 1972, Kenneth Weiss, now a professor emeritus of anthropology and genetics at Pennsylvania State University, noticed that there were about 12 percent more male skeletons than females reported at archaeological sites. This seemed odd, since the proportion of men to women should have been about half and half. The reason for the bias, Weiss concluded, was an “irresistible temptation in many cases to call doubtful specimens male.” For example, a particularly tall, narrow-hipped woman might be mistakenly cataloged as a man. After Weiss published about this male bias, research practices began to change. In 1993, 21 years later, the aptly named Karen Bone, then a master’s student at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, examined a more recent dataset and found that the bias had declined: The ratio of male to female skeletons had balanced out. In part that might be because of better, more accurate ways of sexing skeletons. But also, when I went back through the papers Bone cited, I noticed there were more individuals categorized as “indeterminate” after 1972 and basically none prior.
Allowing skeletons to remain unsexed, or “indeterminate,” reflects an acceptance of the variability and overlap between the sexes. It does not necessarily mean that the skeletons classified this way are, in fact, neither male nor female, but it does mean that there is no clear or easy way to tell the difference. As science and social change in the 1970s and 1980s revealed that sex is complicated, the category of “indeterminate sex” individuals in skeletal research became more common and improved scientific accuracy.
Source: https://www.sapiens.org/biology/intersex-biological-sex/
Cis transphobes, you too could have your skeleton miscategorised hundreds of years after your death, because neither gender nor sex are the clear binaries you want them to be. Which you would know if your view of science in these fields wasn't perpetually stuck in the first half of the 20th century.
(another good article from Sapiens on transgender perspectives on archaeology/anthropology - https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/transgender-people-exist-in-history/ )
Anyway I just wanted to put this here to say that the assholes who go "when they find your bones" aren't even correct, in recent decades that narrow approach has been challenged in the fields of archaeology and anthropology, and don't let anyone invalidate the joy we feel in life.
Trans joy now and forever.
Yes!!!!
A) not all archaeologists are osteoarchaeologists
B) the ones that are, are aware of ambiguity in human bones!! Which exists! This is like osteo-archaeology 101 (literally my intro bones & stones class covered this. It was "likely," this or that, not guaranteed).
C) all of them can conceive of human remains in context of how they were found meaning that a good archaeologist doesn't just look at a pelvis and declare the sex of the skeleton and that's all they ever study or do. ....that would be silly and also pointless. Archaeologists are gonna look at lots of things. They're going to look at epitaphs/tombstones, burial objects, clothing, location of burial, etc etc.
Like if an archaeologist digs up a person whose tombstone says "loving daughter, friend, sister, she will be missed," and that person's pelvis isn't as wide as expected they're going to get laughed at if they declare that the skeleton is actually a man on the basis of ignoring literally all other data points and the fact that outliers exist all the time.
An archaeologist might be able to gather enough data to argue: "this person could have been/was likely a trans woman, and here's what we know about their life, and they existed back then, and here's how they were honored in death." But it won't be done by bone size alone, and also... just shows trans people exist and are real and have history.
terfs just hate admitting science might validate trans existence as legitimate and real. But science doesn't work by running around making claims and then forcing evidence to fit those claims.
would you guys like to see the greatest beanie baby poem ever written
ocd is not fucking destigmatized
"intrusive thought" gets thrown around by assholes talking about putting strainers on their heads or stepping on a leaf who in the next sentence will say "if your thoughts are about actually hurting people they should put you in a psych ward". compulsions and rituals get seen as proof you're "crazy". ocd insight CAN be delusional, even. pocd and sexual ocd is especially demonized, though even something as "harmless" (to others. not *us*) as contamination OCD is still mocked, belittled, and seen as a sign something is fundamentally wrong with you. I have seen people twice my age advocate for violence against anyone who thinks the way I've been forced by my mental illness to think since i was 6, maybe 7 years old.
OCD is not destigmatized.
I think if a studio exec says they want to force you to starve to death so you’ll be made to accept garbage wages, you should crush them in a hydraulic press incredibly slowly
Like the fact that rich people have gotten to the point where they think they can just be like “oh yeah I’m literally trying to kill you” without fear of repercussions is beyond infuriating. They need to know what it feels like to be beaten to death by hammers.
rb for sample size! ive always lived in a big city and i forget ppl grew up elsewhere so. ye
Ian Stone, Doubting Thomas, oil on linen, 12x16 in, 2023
"If you know the painting by Caravaggio, Doubting Thomas, it was my direct inspiration for this piece.
A doubting Thomas is a skeptic who refuses to believe without direct personal experience. 50-60 years ago, it was not uncommon for people to think or believe that being gay was a phase or a mental illness or deviance in some shape or form. It's embarrassing that the same things are being said about trans people today."
STOP SCROLLING!!! THIS IS NOT A PHOTO IT'S OIL ON LINEN!!!!!!!!!
the deep sea creatures when a scientist shows up with a flashlight outta no where
i googled this on a whim and the first thing i get is nyt race science
just as an FYI for those who don't know - the NYT publishes things that are lowkey eugenics and phrenology and race science CONSTANTLY. it flies under the radar except for journalism twitter calling them out but the NYT SUCKS. it is very hard to encourage people to find reliable sources online when the "reliable sources" like papers of record do shit like this, and the NYT is one of the WORST offenders.