That’s impossible because there is a Basic Instinct 2 (I just realized you said “seen” not “made”. Still correct since so few people actually went to see BI2 ).
This is true, IMO, but the sound of footsteps gaining on you doesn’t necessarily translate to “harmless runner.” When I was a runner, especially early when it was still dark, I’d call ahead something like “just another runner!” I always felt bad that women had to worry about this shit, something that 6’3”, 215-pound me didn’t even think about.
Ooh, that’s a good idea. I like that.
It doesn’t help that literally every true crime show on TV depicts some runner getting kidnapped and murdered. It’s not very statistically likely but it’s really burned into women’s psyche that running alone is dangerous. I don’t go to my local park alone, even though I’d like to. Maybe I should.
But I read this story…
No, really. I read a story in the news and I can’t get it out of my head.
Maybe some of them were. In fact, almost certainly some of them were. It’s for real and doesn’t call for a winky smiley as though it were some kind of joke.
Yeah, i had the same thought when i read MrDibble’s post, “i bet some of those were actually trans men.”
Maybe. Or maybe that thought is an imposition of both an a priori binary construct of gender and “weapons = male” gender role mindset onto ancient cultures that might not have had either.
Let me spell that out. I bet that some prehistoric people did live in societies with assigned gender roles. And i bet some members of those societies didn’t fit nearly into the assigned gender roles based on their biology. And i further bet some of those societies allowed people whose gender presentation better matched something other than what their gross biology suggested were treated by others according to their gender presentation, and not according to their sexual bits. And at least some of the the “women buried with weapons” who have been discovered lived in such societies and fell into that category.
There were probably other societies with less well-defined gender roles at all.
None of which isn’t clear. And the jump from “biological female buried with weapons” to “hmm, trans man?” (certainly could be) is a jump that to me seems made consequent to a biases we impose about what is and therefore was typical about gender.
Obfuscation. No genderless society was ever known to exist. There have always been trans people.
Did I say anything about “genderless” or anything about whether or not transgender individuals have or have not been present throughout all human cultures through all of human history, “have always been trans people”? Let me doublecheck. Done. Nope. Did not.
Did I even imply either. Nope did not.
Do I believe that there has ever been a genderless human society? I cannot say with your absolute certainty but I highly highly doubt it.
Do I think every society has had transgender individuals? I suspect so but wonder if our interpretation of how gender identity worked and was considered in very ancient and different cultures is very filtered through our cultural lenses.
It really was what I took as the relevance of @MrDibble ’s post: modern observers interpreted gender identity on ancient remains by imposing our cultural lenses upon the findings - weapons means male because women didn’t fight. Biologically female? Jumping to a True Scotsman thought, that well maybe not a real woman gender individual but a trans man instead? Because that seems more probable than women gender individuals being widely accepted as fighters in these ancient history cultures? That seems to be the implicit bias about gender roles and norms across time.
I certainly believe that transgender individuals and individuals whose gender identities do not fit our binary or even “fluid” categorization mindsets, have widely existed in the breadth of human history. And biologically female individuals being accepted as male, fighting in wars, some identifying privately as male some just hiding their gender identity for various reasons, very likely has occurred. But boy my first thought discovering that remains of a warrior were biologically female are not “bet they were trans” but that the assumption of warrior = male identity is bias not necessarily what was the case in these cultures.
And i never suggested that there were no societies where women were warriors. I suggested there were some societies where fighting was coded as male and some people born with female parts were also accepted as male.
Note that i didn’t say, “i bet they were all trans men”.
Fighting is coded as male in enough societies that i think this is likely.
Sure. Although Norse society in particular didn’t seem to tolerate gender fluidity as much as some other old cultures - see the concepts of níð, argr and seiðr .
Other societies with female warrior burials were know to have cis-women warriors, even in antiquity. Famous for it, even.
It’s not some myth; this has been the case, within living memory, in, e.g., the Balkans: Balkan sworn virgins - Wikipedia
Well, you sure got that all wrong. I said some buried warriors were likely trans men. “Some” leaves open the possibility of women being warriors too. There’s no “instead.” It’s ¿por qué no los dos?*
*and why are we supposed to say it in Spanish?
This phrasing of yours:
an imposition of both an a priori binary construct of gender and “weapons = male” gender role mindset onto ancient cultures that might not have had either.
At first it seemed that “not have had either” applied to “gender” and “gender role,” and that sounded like no gender at all. Now I get that you had in mind to negate “binary construct of gender” and “weapons=male.” I had to reread your post to clarify that.
Look, once you open the possibility of nonbinary gender, that automatically means the presence of trans people by definition. In a society of binary gender, instances of trans are almost universally found. The upshot is that you just can’t get rid of trans people anyhow you figure.
Part of the zeitgeist I suppose. And it has a certain je ne sais quoi to it that way.
(sorry, could not resist)
O tempora, o mores!*
*Latin for ‘Oh, the times! Oh, the customs!’
(I know you know what that means, but I remembered a rule against posts in foreign languages, and translated it so as not to get in trouble.)
In case you really don’t know, it was a Spanish language commercial, I think, for tortillas – soft vs. hard.
I really didn’t know. I miss a lot of stuff and I only learn of it second hand. I also coined the acronym OKAMO (OK about missing out).
I’m not sure what exactly is being debated. It would most likely be the case that 1) in most if not all societies, hunting and warfighting was largely a male activity, while 2) there would still be a few women who participated in hunting and/or warfighting. Not contradictory. I can’t think of any society, though, at least up until the modern age, where the number of women who are fighting in combat as regular troops (as opposed to partisans/insurgents) wouldn’t be more than zero or a really tiny number though.
I think it caught on because the little girl in the ad was really cute.