[ SECRET POST #6006 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6006 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.
[From]



__________________________________________________



06.
[Youtube channel "Hello Future Me"]



__________________________________________________



07.
[Monark]



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________


















09. [SPOILERS for Across the Spiderverse]




__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for transphobia/standard JKR stuff]






















































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #858.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't disagree with your main point, but here's a tip: humans are not "sexually dimorphic." That term is reserved by people who actually do science for species where the sex difference is really dramatic, like one gender is five times larger than the other. Whereas, with humans, there are a lot of situations where people can reasonably assume they're looking at a skeleton of a man, and get it wrong. "You can be wrong about this without being an idiot" is not really a thing, with actual sexual dimorphism. I suspect someone influential wanted to underscore "men and women are different" with a sciencey-sounding word and they picked the wrong word. But, like ... you will make biologists flinch and judge you by using it like that.

[(Anonymous)]

+1 humans have way too much natural overlap, despite our general population curves, to be called dimorphic.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually adult sceletons sex is easy to identify based on scull stracture, pelvic bones, etc.
Here's a relevant study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15567621/

As an artist I'm aware of the diferences as well.
Btw, here's the metal plate we've sent into space. Pretty neat, isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque
I think the

[(Anonymous)]

Nope, too much overlap:

https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/12112/Merrington-Honors-Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=curce

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/srichard/files/richardson_sexing_the_x.pdf

[(Anonymous)]

1) The study just says that we need a better database for Hispanic sceletons and bones. Wich is fare enough.

In conclusion, while forensic anthropologists have many techniques for estimating
the sex of an individual, many of these techniques do not work as well on Hispanic
individuals. This is for many reasons, such as fragility of remains, small samples, and
most methods being developed primarily with samples that are not of Hispanic ancestry.

2) Yes, intersex is hard to identify. Same is true for the sceletons of trans people. Wich should be obvious. Nice paper otherwise, pretty ineresting.

3) This is some soft science nonsense on genders definition. We're talking sex, not genders. I had better opinion about Harvard tbh.

Currently, there is a broad popular, scientific, and medical conception of the X chromosome as the mediator of the differences between males and females, as the carrier of female-specific traits, or otherwise as a substrate of femaleness. As this essay has documented, associations between the X and femaleness are the accumulated product of contingent historical and material processes and events, and they are inflected by beliefs rooted in gender ideology. The still very contemporary view that the double X makes females unpredictable, mysterious, chimeric, and conservative, while the single X allows men to learn, evolve, and have bigger brains but also makes them the more risk taking of the two sexes, shows how conceptions of X chromosome structure and function often reflect and support traditional gender stereotypes.

[(Anonymous)]

1) this shows that what is considered sexual dimorphism ISN'T. It's a product of your lifestyle/culture. Scientists were over-attributing the male sex to skeletons that weren't, because they started with bad data. Kinda like you are.

3) There are at least 4 recognized human sexes.... and your sex chromosomes aren't a binary switch.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

[(Anonymous)]

I see. I'll read it in more depth then. I jumped straight to the Conclusion sections.
I hated how the third paper is presented but I'll give it another go as well.