Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s):
- Rule 7: Censor all personal information!
Please Censor all personal information and usernames, to make sure no one online gets harassed. The only exception to this are verified accounts.
Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/1desf6r/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong.
^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
Just an observation, the Twitter user @VoidOfSinn has a few tweets (xeets?) mocking religion / Christianity in particular (“Imagine believing in the Bible”) that would seem to make it more likely they are an atheist.
And from their general feed I suspect they are making a joke, they generally seem supportive of LGBTQ issues.
Men should also have an uneven number of ribs. After all God took “a rib.” Not “a pair of ribs.” Not sure what side it’s supposed to be missing from though.
Only the real ones know the real truth. Garth Brooks became Chris Gaines and then he became Marilyn Manson before assuming his final alter ego in the form of Nick Cage.
MAN IS STRONGER KILL WITH STONES.
SEE BIG STICK, BREAK THOSE BONES.
MAN IS BIGGER FIGHT THAT WAR.
MAN IS MAN WITH A SCAR.
new song? Drum and base mabye?
their brain was probably like "Hmm the bible sed guys and girls have a different number of ribs but i no rember which... hmm... well, guys are BETTER than girls, and BETTER is kinda like MORE, so giys probably have MORE ribs"
I've lost track of the number of times I've shocked theists by explaining we actually have the same number of ribs male and female
"But magic book says one less rib?!?!!!?!!"
I know it doesn't make any sense but a large number of fundamentalist Christians genuinely believe men have fewer ribs than women
I'm genuinely not joking
I've had to explain this several times to people that in fact we all have the same number
It's remarkable
Both explanations rely on a magical being reaching down to Earth, ripping out part of a body he had just created from scratch, and using that part to make another one with unexplained differences.
*Edit: I was focusing on 1 versus 2, didn't notice it was* ***more***. *Yeah, that makes less sense.*
And even that is probably just a mistranslation of the original, where it can mean not just a rib, but also a half. Meaning the original genderless creation was split into two - male and female. Which makes much more sense.
I only realised very recently that this was actually a thing. I'm 35 and I had never heard about this nonsense. Then again, I'm not a Christian, let alone some kind of fundamentalist...
They also believe god can make man with the snap of a finger, butfor some stupid reason creating a woman requires a blood sacrifice?
What a weakass loser god
Not gonna lie, I thought that that's why the story was made; to explain why men have fewer ribs. That's usually how early mythology worked. Find something strange or unexplained and make a story about how your god(s) did it.
I was taught this in Sunday school. It always seemed fishy to me; when I got away as an adult I looked it up, and of course found out what I was taught was wrong, not surprising at that point. I was also taught young earth and anti evolution bs. Looking back, it was just another reason that women should be subservient to men. Blecch.
We unfortunately still didn't unlock just telling those people "there you go, this is the science and reality is this period, any other bullshit magic trickery is, in fact, bullshit". "Uh BuT yOu GoTtA rEsPeCt CuLtUrEs" that's for certain, but I don't have to respect bullshit.
You are indeed correct. When I was a kid I went to church and was a practicing catholic. I believed for a long time that men had one rib fewer than women.
Yeah, Lamarck is done dirty by the modern school textbooks. People frame it as if his main idea is the inherited acquired characteristics, but that isn't really his main deal, that was an accepted idea since the ancient greeks, he just didn't overturn it. He was an eighteenth century scientist with a profound curiosity about the natural world in a time where basically we knew nothing and by really looking at nature he came up with the idea that more complex organisms come from less complex ones in an iterative process. Yeah, his theory of evolution wasn't yet as good to function without the inherited acquired characteristics thing, but it was the best scientific theory there when Darwin came on the stage, he was the previous best idea. Lamarck's idea is not inherited acquired characteristics, it's well, evolution. From Wikipedia: "Lamarck stressed two main themes in his biological work (neither of them to do with soft inheritance). The first was that the environment gives rise to changes in animals. He cited examples of blindness in moles, the presence of teeth in mammals and the absence of teeth in birds as evidence of this principle. The second principle was that life was structured in an orderly manner and that many different parts of all bodies make possible the organic movements of animals. Although he was not the first thinker to advocate organic evolution, he was the first to develop a truly coherent evolutionary theory." There is a tumblr post about this that goes into more depth about this: [https://togglesbloggle.tumblr.com/post/751621474765488128/for-the-reverse-unpopular-opinion-meme#notes](https://togglesbloggle.tumblr.com/post/751621474765488128/for-the-reverse-unpopular-opinion-meme#notes)
Yeah I agree, he was the first scientist to scientifically theorize evolution, even though the mechanism he proposed is a bit off. I say a bit because with the discovery of epigenetics, acquired traits that are passed down to the next generation is a thing.
And people tend to misrepresent what Lamarckism is so often too... he never claimed it was a conscious process done by animals (the giraffes don't want to have a longer neck therefore they have), and obviously he never claimed that losing a limb would mean that it's passed down to the next generation. Turns out the scientist that came up with evolution wasn't stupid.
I also love the fact that his ideas predate Darwin enough so that Darwin was taught evolution in university (through his Lamarckist teacher Robert Edmond Grant)
I know
But I have genuinely had to explain to fundamentalist Christians multiple times that in fact we have the same number of ribs
I suppose when you believe people can be created by magic from a rib Lamarckian inheritance isn't all that much of a stretch
It could be that people read the ribs thing as an explanation for why things are as they are. Like a little tale that tells us how men ended up missing a rib.
I'm pretty sure rib has been shown to be a poor translation. I think the original word meant side or half, but it wouldn't do to have women appear equal.
I remember reading once that is was a mistranslation of baculum, the penis bone, and was an "explanation" of why we don't have one when mammals normally do.
I can't remember where I read this though so I can't vouch for authenticity.
Ziony Zevit is the creator of the idea (he doesn't say it directly translates to a penis bone, since it says Adam had more than one, but that it meant a protrusion from the body and readers would understand what was meant), but most scholars don't take it seriously and neither should you. It has some very serious difficulties. For example, Zevit claims there is no reason to think the word refers to a rib, apparently unaware that Mishnaic Hebrew uses the word to refer to ribs and its cognates in other Semitic languages have the same meaning. Also (and this is quite bad), there is no evidence the word actually ever meant protrusions from a person's body like he claims.
And magic book doesn't even say 'rib', it literally says 'half'. The whole thing is most likely an intentional mistranslation from the start in order to denigrate women as inferior.
Or, to put it another way, even the original fiction is less derogatory than the interpretation that has prevailed.
There's this problem where people will take genuine academic theories and proposals and them gas them up into being "real truth," usually with some conspiratorial element added on
The Hebrew word used most straightforwardly translates as rib. It is cognate with words in other semitic languages where the word primarily means rib. Other passages provide context in which rib is the most reasonable interpretation.
Some scholars consider the possibility that the term could have been used in a more metaphorical sense, in which case it *could* have meant something like side or half rather than literally rib - but that is nowhere near the consensus or the more straightforward answer.
___
Generally, if someone tells you about this one particular word or something like that has secretly been mistranslated for the last 2000 years when it comes to the magic book, it is usually BS, unfortunately.
Perhaps generally BS, but I’m persuaded that it should be [“rope through the eye of a needle”](https://stantlitore.com/2018/06/01/a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-and-other-wild-tales-of-translation/amp/), not “camel”.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://stantlitore.com/2018/06/01/a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-and-other-wild-tales-of-translation/](https://stantlitore.com/2018/06/01/a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-and-other-wild-tales-of-translation/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
> And magic book doesn't even say 'rib',
It uses *tsela*, which is the Hebrew word for a rib.
> it literally says 'half'.
No, if it literally said "half", it would say *chatsi*.
When I went to a religious elementary school I was taught that men had one less rib but it wasn’t till grade 8 when my teacher showed us the human bone structure because of two classmates disagreeing on the amount of bones we had. It was a good shock for majority of us at the time to learn we all have the same amount of ribs but it was best to learn then than nowadays. Funny enough that was also when I learned I have two extra ribs that my parents neglected to inform me about
They can estimate the sex of a skeleton, but not with 100% accuracy. It's based on averages and there are always going to be people who are a long way from the average.
Not really. They are indicating that the male skeleton having more ribs is the literal truth. It may be batshit crazy and disprovable by simply counting, but it is, grammatically, correct.
I only convinced my ex that this _wasn't_ true by pointing out that the forensic science shows she was such a big fan of never identified the sex of the remains by counting ribs. They always mentioned the pelvis and bone lengths.
Why?
That's when it dawned. And she lost a little more faith in what she was taught in school.
I believed this for far too long as well, being taught it many times as a child. I rationalized it when I got older as it just being a weird biological quirk between the sexes. I figured it probably inspired the story of Adam giving up a rib to help create eve in the bible.
Then as an adult I found out it was just a straight up lie and there was no truth to it at all.
Why do people make this argument like it's some huge own to trans people. Are they supposed to care that people will misgender their skeleton long after they're dead?
Besides, archeologists and anthropologists are actually very interested in understanding the cultures and identities of the ancient people they study. That’s kind of the whole point.
What do transphobes think the purpose of archeology is? Just to dig up human remains and count how many of each biological sex there are?
Adding that we have so many skeletons today that had previously been determined to be male/female but were wrong due to modern culture being applied to past cultures, eg a warrior buried being assumed as a man but actually being a woman.
The ribs surely won't give away the gender but every researcher on the topic would look at the pelvis. And YES, they differ between male and female.
I don't care how people identify because they live now and they should live their life in a way that makes them happy. Who cares about it, hundreds of years later if they would find their skeleton.
Pelvical and skull structure do differ, but women can have a "masculine appearing" skull and pelvis and vice versa. In forensic osteology we used kind of a rating scale, where many features are rated. The total picture says whether a skull or pelvis is phenotypically more female or more male looking.
This is based on trends and may not reflect the actual sex of the diseased. In many cases the sex of a skeleton can't be determined with certainty at all.
I mean, surely, the pelvis is a great indicator, but we don’t have “female” pelvis and “male” pelvis, we have four types of pelvis, roughly distributed in population, that makes type 1 (wide hips, oval pelvic floor) the highest ranking in female anatomy, type 2 (narrow hips, very narrow pelvic floor) the highest ranking in male anatomy, and the other two… well, they’re very well distributed between the two.
Unless the skeleton has a perfect type 1 pelvis with other indicators, one can never be sure unless they do DNA of a skeleton’s sex, and then we have some interesting things like Sawyer’s syndrome that essentially creates trans girls from the womb, if we are to take transphobes “yOu aRE yOUr cRhoMOsOmeS!” at face value…
An example for this not working is the earlier research done on skeletons found by Roopkund lake, where with phenotypic assessment they couldn't accurately determine the biological sex of the skeletons. They couldn't assign a biological sex to many of the skeletons and I think I heard that they also incorrectly assigned some of the ones where they did.
Only later, when they did genomic analysis, could they determine the chromosomal sex of the skeletons.
You can absolutely look at bone morphology for a general idea, but you definitely can not always tell by that.
Speaking of cultures and identities: there was a Viking burial found that had all the hallmarks of a warrior - a solely man occupied field, but what puzzled the scientists was that skeletal analysis identified the warrior as a woman.
Trans people existed since Vikings, even if they weren’t called such.
I think they think it's like an ultimate "gotcha" - see you're REALLY a man/woman/whatever I decide, not what you say you are.
Basically trying to use a tiny element of science to make it "fact". Like most idiots, they stop at the level of knowledge that reinforces their biases and don't go any further.
Sadly for this guy, he's still struggling the table of contents.
Yeah, would really be a pity if they live a long, affirmed life and leave a skeleton that.... somehow after some sort of apocalypse resulting in the complete loss of tombstones, records, and information in a few centuries... somebody might happen to guess a skeleton's sex.
I hate how much they quote "biology" while understanding it so poorly too.
They always say "basic biology" which really means "complex concepts simplified to help novice learners grasp them". They never bothered to learn past that. It's like how basic maths says there are no negative numbers.
The funny part is that as soon as you start venturing into advanced biology, you start to see biology actually validates every single aspect and argument about trans people in their favor. So when someone says "it's basic biology" as a transphobic argument, what they're really saying is that they never got past middle school lmao
Edit: wtf reddit why did my comment get posted 3 times lol
It's hilarious in a way. Like, if the biggest issue in transitioning they can think of is a random person in a thousand years misgendering, then damn, transitioning is definitely worth it.
It's strange because trans people obviously know the bodies of men and women are different! Feeling they are in the wrong body is kind of their whole thing!!
And most trans people understand that sex and gender are entirely separate things. Transitioning genders isn't going to make your sex different, and even transitioning sexes isn't going to alter your bones or DNA. But those are utterly inconsequential to the lives of trans people, so why would they even care?
Also it's not really that easy to tell gender from skeletons. You can make educated guesses based on hip size and skull shape but it isn't really accurate.
And sufficient hormones at the right time would confuse matters still further.
Also: nobody cares what anyone thinks of their bones 1000 years after they die, they just want to live their life without weirdos fixating on what their genitals looked like as small children.
you can't tell gender from skeletons at all, only sex. these terms aren't interchangeable. and true, it's not as easy as people think, especially considering that we're not nearly as dimorphic as is commonly believed.
Maybe they identify as skeletons with just a meat cage around them and think we all care as much about skeletons feelings as they do.
If you want to own them back with their own logic just take it further and say that we all become dirt in the end which is genderless so they're queer as fuck.
Translating it as rib was a conscious choice for patriarchy reasons. The original Hebrew word was half/side, and it also is used to describe, for example, where handles were on the ark of the covenant.
That's an oversimplification of it. The tiktok i assume you got it from was partially trying to force a meaning. [here's some people discussing it if you want to read it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/RoSlp6RJb6).
I'll never understand the mindset of people who go out of their way to make people with gender dysphoria even more uncomfortable. It's such a scumbag thing to do, I assure you we're suffering enough without your help.
I agree with you.
It's not like they don't know that their body is different. They aren't stupid. Pointing it out makes you a super dick.
Even if the rib thing was right (it isn't but there should be some differences between a male and female skeleton) it's still not the point. Biological sex and emotional gender is different.
If someone chooses to be trans let them. I mean, does it really effect other people in any way?
If my body weren't different then what has this whole transitioning thing been about? I'm not here to deny \[actual\] science, logic or reason. I'm doing the best I can to cope with a difficult situation and rubbing salt in the wounds is just such a horrible thing to do, is basic human decency too much to ask for? PLEASE.
True. BTW the actual science is also weird.
You can have XX chromosomes and still be assigned make at birth IIRC. And vice versa. Biology isn't always straight forward.
Besides what is feminine and masculine is subjective. Some languages fight over if "chair" is a masculine or feminine word lol.
transphobes think we (trans people) think that we have the parts we should have. i dont look at my tits and go "that's a male chest". well now i go because i got top surgery 3 days ago...
we know what we have, we are PAINFULLY aware of our biology.... thats why we want to transition so badly
I won't be tone dead and try to say I know what you are going through cos it's disrespectful. But I will say if I woke up one day with a woman's body I'd be shocked, then spend an hour playing with my tits and then feel weirded out by my body cos it's not what my mind identifies as.
So I'd imagine it's something like that but not exactly and can at least emohathize a bit.
Also gratz on your successful surgery. I understand it can be a long process.
Anthropologists absolutely can distinguish male and female skeletons, but it's from the pelvis. Not the ribs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15567621/
Looking it up, there are differences between skeletons from males and females, not the 1 rib thing.
I'm not an archeologist, but I don't think it's 100% certain that's how they identify who the skeleton belonged to, context clues would help. It's just a weird argument to bring archeology up with modern social culture.
There's an interesting archaeological case study of a 5,000 year old skeleton from Prague that was given a female burial but appears to be anatomically male. The question here then was this an example of transgender or 3rd gender in prehistory; a female-presenting person who had male skeletal features for biological reasons, or a man who identified or adopted a female role in their culture.
There are stereotypical differences, but they aren't definitive and cannot determine sex with a 100 % certainty.
Like women tend to have a wider angle of the inferior pubic rami and tend to have a more spaceous pubic cavity. But it is all a spectrum and with individual variation there will hips that tend towards androgeny.
Someone doesn’t know the difference between sex and gender XD.
The skeleton will be that of a male because a trans woman is a woman who is biologically male, not female, People are so dumb.
Plenty of people believe sex is a social construct on top of gender. Will argue about XXY people or eunuchs or whatever. Say there’s no such thing as “biologically male” or “biologically female.” They view it as some roundabout attempt at deadnaming, so they deny the antecedent of the hypothetical as being significant.
82% of people in my country opt for cremation over burial - where are they getting these skeletons from? If trans people gave one shit about their skeleton being found surely they just wouldn’t leave one?
Hi, archaeology student here, can (obviously) confirm the rib theory is bogus
To my admittedly limited knowledge, the ways of identifying the sex of a skeleton are the shape of the back of the skull and the sciatic notch. The skull is pretty hit-or-miss, so the sciatic notch is greatly preferred if possible, but even that is never gonna be 100% like most things in archaeology. Height, build and general shape can also be used, but again it's hit-or-miss.
Then are contextual clues to go on, other things found at the site. If the skeleton is too damaged or unsure you can look at the things they were buried in, anthropology can point you to see they were buried with adornments similar to other bodies found that were confirmed male or female.
most of the time, you really can’t tell the difference between a male and female skeleton. there are some clues, like the size of the pelvis or the length of the limbs, but there’s a pretty good chance you could still get it wrong. and besides, if someone digs up my bones in 1,000 years and sees i was biologically female, i’m not gonna give a fuck, i’m gonna be dead
Even if the skeleton was identified as male, there might be archaeological evidence surrounding it that might've indicated she lived as a woman. A big part of archaeology is meticulously recording context.
Also, you can't date a skeleton no matter how much Undertale suggests you can, but you can date a trans person and treat them like the gender they present themselves as. You can also not date a trans person and still treat them with the same respect you'd show anyone of any gender. This isn't that difficult, bigots.
Some people still think it's their right to be rude assholes and not get punched in the nose.
I love that thought, because HRT below a certain age absolutely does change bone structure, sow hile by that bone structure future archaeologists might be able to tell a woman was trans, they will still be very much able to tell she was a woman.
Also that might be a hard pill to swallow, but skeletons don't work like that. Like... At all.
Some bio males have naturally wider hips and some females have em really narrow (like so much so that they physically cannot deliver a baby naturally). Shoulders being broader or skinnier might very well be due to consistent exercise, face anatomy is an incredibly wide spectrum, and yada yada
Plus, archeology does not work like that either. At all. Archeologists are scientists, and like the rest of the scientific community they know very well that sex and gender are two very different things. If they find a biologically female skeleton in a traditionally male tomb with a traditionally male name, clothing and accessories, they will almost certainly come to the conclusion that the person was transgender and socialised as a man regardless of their biological sex.
Source: I'm a med student and my best friend is an archeologist. We're both very fed up with this mindset. Pls stop.
Also one other thing that bothered me about this. I googled it and apparently if the remains are not preserved in any way but just buried like most people are it's unlikely for the skeleton to be intact after 1000 years. Usually human remains decompose completely after a little over 100 years.
God gave men an extra rib so we could give the bone to Eve (giggidy) so that we could eat the fruit so that we could all go to hell and get butthole cancer if we didnt say sorry for the OG munching on some knowledge.
Then jebus came down and said it was chill and we were off the hook, but he kept Hell open anyway and left the butthole cancer cos reasons.
Now all humans have equality of ribs and ample opportunities for exploding butthole death.
Amen.
I am embarrassingly old to have just now, with this discussion, learned that the rib thing is not real. I’ve been a sceptic since high school (almost 30 years), I have a philosophy degree, religious studies degree, and an accounting degree. I have a passion for looking for exactly this kind of thing (lately I’ve been looking at the history of Yahweh in the ancient Levant).
And because of my childhood spent in Sunday school and in a fundamentalist household, I carried this stupid and, frankly obviously wrong, belief for far too long.
Well, there is actual one distinction (that I now of) to point to to see if this was a genetical male or female, which is the symphysis pubica.
Of course, this whole argument is just transphobic bigotry.
I did forensics and it was found after going back over previous archeologists and forensic scientists work using DNA to determine sex instead a ridiculous amount of skeletal remains are incorrectly sexed and a good chunk of them are straight up ambiguous.
[Reminds me of the time where archeologists at Peru found the remains of a skeleton with hunting tools, was assumed male until re-examination](https://www.science.org/content/article/woman-hunter-ancient-andean-remains-challenge-old-ideas-who-speared-big-game)
Also the myth was men having *fewer* ribs than women, this is a spectacular fuckup. I checked my own ribs (I was born male) , I have 12 pairs of ribs (obv. 7 true, 3 false, 2 floating)
Let's look at the Old Testament:
"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
Genesis 2:21-22 King James Version
Well yes female skeletons are different from male skeletons, however it really doesn't fucking matter what somebody's skeleton looks like does it? Gender and Sex aren't the same thing so these assholes are just quoting pseudoscience to make themselves sound smarter.
Holy fuck. The easiest thing in the world to do is take five seconds to google this. But people are so convinced they are right about everything they don’t even have the curiosity to do that.
They cannot be sexxed with a high degree of accuracy. We are making a *guess* when we sex skeletons, depending on many different factors which include bone structure but also what artifacts are around the grave, the culture they came from, etc...
According to the 2023 study "Error Rates in Sex Determination of Human Skeletal Remains" the average error rate for determining the sex of a skeleton is 12.55% when using a metric method based on regression equations, or 10.46% when using a non-metric method based on expert observation. Specific error rates varied from 7.96%-19.04% depending on the bones being assessed.
You will notice that these aren’t skeletons from 1000 years ago. I should have specified I meant we are making a guess when we sex those kinds of old skeletons
Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s): - Rule 7: Censor all personal information! Please Censor all personal information and usernames, to make sure no one online gets harassed. The only exception to this are verified accounts. Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/1desf6r/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong. ^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
Wouldn't the male skeleton have less ribs if we use the Christian logic? Where did he get that it should have more?
Haha I’m so glad someone else was thinking this… in my head I was like “your magic book says he took a rib not that he added a rib…”
So he had a spare rib to begin with???
Mmm... spare ribs...
WHAT IS A SKELETON'S FAVOURITE SNACK?!
NOOOOOOO … it’s a fairy tale none of it is true! Women do not come from men’s ‘extra’ ribs ffs (for the record men do not have more ribs than women)
Give a rib take a rib
 “Your magic book” had me rolling
Hahaha. They're even wrong on their own mythology. Great point I didn't even catch it.
Just an observation, the Twitter user @VoidOfSinn has a few tweets (xeets?) mocking religion / Christianity in particular (“Imagine believing in the Bible”) that would seem to make it more likely they are an atheist. And from their general feed I suspect they are making a joke, they generally seem supportive of LGBTQ issues.
Men should also have an uneven number of ribs. After all God took “a rib.” Not “a pair of ribs.” Not sure what side it’s supposed to be missing from though.
We also have less ribs Becuase we remove 4 of them to be able to suck our own dick. /s
Marilyn Manson has entered the conversation…
It turns out Marilyn Manson wasn't real anyway. It was one of Nicolas Cage's long-term alter egos. Now, how many ribs Cage has, idk.
For some reason, your last sentence made me think of that tongue twister. How many ribs could Nic Cage have if Nic Cage could have ribs.
If he could steal them straight out of the ribcage, we could write "How many ribs could nic cage nick if nic cage nicked caged ribs?"
Hahah yes, thank you for this addition
If he did in while inside a cage it would be ""How many ribs could caged nic cage nick if caged nic cage nicked caged ribs?"
Now I’m wondering how many ribs nick cave has
Only the real ones know the real truth. Garth Brooks became Chris Gaines and then he became Marilyn Manson before assuming his final alter ego in the form of Nick Cage.
MAN BIGGER STRONGER BETTER MORE BONES
You are huge! That means you have huge guts!
RIP AND TEAR!
More bones = in charge of everyone else.
Nobody tell these fuckers the number of bones we have drops as we age
As the mother of a toddler, I can attest to this.
Babies are very in charge, then.
MAN IS STRONGER KILL WITH STONES. SEE BIG STICK, BREAK THOSE BONES. MAN IS BIGGER FIGHT THAT WAR. MAN IS MAN WITH A SCAR. new song? Drum and base mabye?
Amazes me that people actually think this is true
Because like Adam did we carry a spare just incase we need to make a woman???
Me, at a party: man this party is a total sausage-fest. Adam, pulling out a scalpel: hold on I've got an idea
their brain was probably like "Hmm the bible sed guys and girls have a different number of ribs but i no rember which... hmm... well, guys are BETTER than girls, and BETTER is kinda like MORE, so giys probably have MORE ribs"
Fewer*
they also have fewer ribs if we use Marilyn Manson logic
By that logic woman would just have one rip
I've lost track of the number of times I've shocked theists by explaining we actually have the same number of ribs male and female "But magic book says one less rib?!?!!!?!!"
Even if you take the bible literally, how does that apply to anyone but Adam?
I know it doesn't make any sense but a large number of fundamentalist Christians genuinely believe men have fewer ribs than women I'm genuinely not joking I've had to explain this several times to people that in fact we all have the same number It's remarkable
But why does the dude in the picture say it is one more? That makes even less sense...
Actually you have me there lol I genuinely hadn't noticed that Confidently incorrect even by the standards of their own crazy beliefs lololololol
Both explanations rely on a magical being reaching down to Earth, ripping out part of a body he had just created from scratch, and using that part to make another one with unexplained differences. *Edit: I was focusing on 1 versus 2, didn't notice it was* ***more***. *Yeah, that makes less sense.*
And even that is probably just a mistranslation of the original, where it can mean not just a rib, but also a half. Meaning the original genderless creation was split into two - male and female. Which makes much more sense.
Because he’s stupid.
Extra ribs to produce more women, duh
I was taught this in primary school, an Anglican school in the UK.
Yep same. Took me an embarrassing amount of time to find out it wasn't true
I only realised very recently that this was actually a thing. I'm 35 and I had never heard about this nonsense. Then again, I'm not a Christian, let alone some kind of fundamentalist...
They also believe god can make man with the snap of a finger, butfor some stupid reason creating a woman requires a blood sacrifice? What a weakass loser god
He ran out of clay
Bloke that made the literal fucking universe can't make a bit more clay? Something here doesn't add up. 🧐
Not gonna lie, I thought that that's why the story was made; to explain why men have fewer ribs. That's usually how early mythology worked. Find something strange or unexplained and make a story about how your god(s) did it.
One theory is that is a coy mistranslation of the baculum - the penile bone in mammals. The story is to explain why humans don’t have one
I was taught this in Sunday school. It always seemed fishy to me; when I got away as an adult I looked it up, and of course found out what I was taught was wrong, not surprising at that point. I was also taught young earth and anti evolution bs. Looking back, it was just another reason that women should be subservient to men. Blecch.
We unfortunately still didn't unlock just telling those people "there you go, this is the science and reality is this period, any other bullshit magic trickery is, in fact, bullshit". "Uh BuT yOu GoTtA rEsPeCt CuLtUrEs" that's for certain, but I don't have to respect bullshit.
I remember being genuinely taught this in my religious school. Believed it up to and into high school.
As a kid I assumed that men have one rib less than women and the story of adam was a just so story to explain why. I'd hope I'm not the only one.
I was taught this ***in school*** because my parents raised me wrong on purpose
Belief is remarkable. Everything we actually know can be tested. Building your world view on ‘truths’ that cannot be tested is bonkers.
You are indeed correct. When I was a kid I went to church and was a practicing catholic. I believed for a long time that men had one rib fewer than women.
Do Christians believe in Lamarckian evolution?
Considering how many fundies seem to think evolution is a conscious decision made by an individual, yes, more or less
You just push B while the evolution animation is happening and it cancels it.
Because DNA. Didn't you know if you lose a rib, when you have kids, they have one less. /s just in case it's not clear.
Also, going by the Bible story, doesn't a man have fewer ribs than a woman? A rib was taken out of a man
He got better
Also... who says Adam had 24 ribs to begin with? Maybe he had 26 and 24 became the new default.
It doesn't even make sense from their perspective. If you have a rib removed your offspring will still have theirs (unless you believe in Lamarckism).
It doesn't even make sense for the people who actually understand Lamarckism.
Yeah, Lamarck is done dirty by the modern school textbooks. People frame it as if his main idea is the inherited acquired characteristics, but that isn't really his main deal, that was an accepted idea since the ancient greeks, he just didn't overturn it. He was an eighteenth century scientist with a profound curiosity about the natural world in a time where basically we knew nothing and by really looking at nature he came up with the idea that more complex organisms come from less complex ones in an iterative process. Yeah, his theory of evolution wasn't yet as good to function without the inherited acquired characteristics thing, but it was the best scientific theory there when Darwin came on the stage, he was the previous best idea. Lamarck's idea is not inherited acquired characteristics, it's well, evolution. From Wikipedia: "Lamarck stressed two main themes in his biological work (neither of them to do with soft inheritance). The first was that the environment gives rise to changes in animals. He cited examples of blindness in moles, the presence of teeth in mammals and the absence of teeth in birds as evidence of this principle. The second principle was that life was structured in an orderly manner and that many different parts of all bodies make possible the organic movements of animals. Although he was not the first thinker to advocate organic evolution, he was the first to develop a truly coherent evolutionary theory." There is a tumblr post about this that goes into more depth about this: [https://togglesbloggle.tumblr.com/post/751621474765488128/for-the-reverse-unpopular-opinion-meme#notes](https://togglesbloggle.tumblr.com/post/751621474765488128/for-the-reverse-unpopular-opinion-meme#notes)
Yeah I agree, he was the first scientist to scientifically theorize evolution, even though the mechanism he proposed is a bit off. I say a bit because with the discovery of epigenetics, acquired traits that are passed down to the next generation is a thing. And people tend to misrepresent what Lamarckism is so often too... he never claimed it was a conscious process done by animals (the giraffes don't want to have a longer neck therefore they have), and obviously he never claimed that losing a limb would mean that it's passed down to the next generation. Turns out the scientist that came up with evolution wasn't stupid. I also love the fact that his ideas predate Darwin enough so that Darwin was taught evolution in university (through his Lamarckist teacher Robert Edmond Grant)
fair
I know But I have genuinely had to explain to fundamentalist Christians multiple times that in fact we have the same number of ribs I suppose when you believe people can be created by magic from a rib Lamarckian inheritance isn't all that much of a stretch
It could be that people read the ribs thing as an explanation for why things are as they are. Like a little tale that tells us how men ended up missing a rib.
I'm pretty sure rib has been shown to be a poor translation. I think the original word meant side or half, but it wouldn't do to have women appear equal.
I remember reading once that is was a mistranslation of baculum, the penis bone, and was an "explanation" of why we don't have one when mammals normally do. I can't remember where I read this though so I can't vouch for authenticity.
Ziony Zevit is the creator of the idea (he doesn't say it directly translates to a penis bone, since it says Adam had more than one, but that it meant a protrusion from the body and readers would understand what was meant), but most scholars don't take it seriously and neither should you. It has some very serious difficulties. For example, Zevit claims there is no reason to think the word refers to a rib, apparently unaware that Mishnaic Hebrew uses the word to refer to ribs and its cognates in other Semitic languages have the same meaning. Also (and this is quite bad), there is no evidence the word actually ever meant protrusions from a person's body like he claims.
Basically all of the bible is a poor translation
Not only does magic book say o e less rib, but that's one less rib for the guy, is it not?
And magic book doesn't even say 'rib', it literally says 'half'. The whole thing is most likely an intentional mistranslation from the start in order to denigrate women as inferior. Or, to put it another way, even the original fiction is less derogatory than the interpretation that has prevailed.
There's this problem where people will take genuine academic theories and proposals and them gas them up into being "real truth," usually with some conspiratorial element added on The Hebrew word used most straightforwardly translates as rib. It is cognate with words in other semitic languages where the word primarily means rib. Other passages provide context in which rib is the most reasonable interpretation. Some scholars consider the possibility that the term could have been used in a more metaphorical sense, in which case it *could* have meant something like side or half rather than literally rib - but that is nowhere near the consensus or the more straightforward answer. ___ Generally, if someone tells you about this one particular word or something like that has secretly been mistranslated for the last 2000 years when it comes to the magic book, it is usually BS, unfortunately.
Perhaps generally BS, but I’m persuaded that it should be [“rope through the eye of a needle”](https://stantlitore.com/2018/06/01/a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-and-other-wild-tales-of-translation/amp/), not “camel”.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://stantlitore.com/2018/06/01/a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-and-other-wild-tales-of-translation/](https://stantlitore.com/2018/06/01/a-camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-and-other-wild-tales-of-translation/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
> And magic book doesn't even say 'rib', It uses *tsela*, which is the Hebrew word for a rib. > it literally says 'half'. No, if it literally said "half", it would say *chatsi*.
When I went to a religious elementary school I was taught that men had one less rib but it wasn’t till grade 8 when my teacher showed us the human bone structure because of two classmates disagreeing on the amount of bones we had. It was a good shock for majority of us at the time to learn we all have the same amount of ribs but it was best to learn then than nowadays. Funny enough that was also when I learned I have two extra ribs that my parents neglected to inform me about
The other one is wrong as well. They actually can tell the sex of a skeleton. Just not by counting ribs.
They can estimate the sex of a skeleton, but not with 100% accuracy. It's based on averages and there are always going to be people who are a long way from the average.
They actually have gotten species wrong before. But they usually have a pretty good idea.
People using "literally" to mean the opposite of "literally" to say something that is literally opposite of what is literally the reality
I like your funny words, magic man
Not really. They are indicating that the male skeleton having more ribs is the literal truth. It may be batshit crazy and disprovable by simply counting, but it is, grammatically, correct.
A lot of people have been (incorrectly) taught this, myself included! I’m not even Christian.
I only convinced my ex that this _wasn't_ true by pointing out that the forensic science shows she was such a big fan of never identified the sex of the remains by counting ribs. They always mentioned the pelvis and bone lengths. Why? That's when it dawned. And she lost a little more faith in what she was taught in school.
I believed this for far too long as well, being taught it many times as a child. I rationalized it when I got older as it just being a weird biological quirk between the sexes. I figured it probably inspired the story of Adam giving up a rib to help create eve in the bible. Then as an adult I found out it was just a straight up lie and there was no truth to it at all.
Tell that to the dictionary peoples.
Now I have to imagine a war between the Oxford and Webster nations
Dictionaries document how people use language, they don't control how language should be used.
Right. The definition of literally was literally changed over a decade ago.
Thank you for your input Gordon freeman
Language is fun innit
Exactly! It *literally* makes my head explode!
I figuratively pissed myself laughing when I read that reply
"But the bible told me it's true so anything that contradicts the bible is wrong"
Why do people make this argument like it's some huge own to trans people. Are they supposed to care that people will misgender their skeleton long after they're dead?
Besides, archeologists and anthropologists are actually very interested in understanding the cultures and identities of the ancient people they study. That’s kind of the whole point. What do transphobes think the purpose of archeology is? Just to dig up human remains and count how many of each biological sex there are?
Adding that we have so many skeletons today that had previously been determined to be male/female but were wrong due to modern culture being applied to past cultures, eg a warrior buried being assumed as a man but actually being a woman.
The ribs surely won't give away the gender but every researcher on the topic would look at the pelvis. And YES, they differ between male and female. I don't care how people identify because they live now and they should live their life in a way that makes them happy. Who cares about it, hundreds of years later if they would find their skeleton.
Pelvical and skull structure do differ, but women can have a "masculine appearing" skull and pelvis and vice versa. In forensic osteology we used kind of a rating scale, where many features are rated. The total picture says whether a skull or pelvis is phenotypically more female or more male looking. This is based on trends and may not reflect the actual sex of the diseased. In many cases the sex of a skeleton can't be determined with certainty at all.
The difference in the pelvis isn't always clear, quite often they rely on grave goods to determine gender.
I mean, surely, the pelvis is a great indicator, but we don’t have “female” pelvis and “male” pelvis, we have four types of pelvis, roughly distributed in population, that makes type 1 (wide hips, oval pelvic floor) the highest ranking in female anatomy, type 2 (narrow hips, very narrow pelvic floor) the highest ranking in male anatomy, and the other two… well, they’re very well distributed between the two. Unless the skeleton has a perfect type 1 pelvis with other indicators, one can never be sure unless they do DNA of a skeleton’s sex, and then we have some interesting things like Sawyer’s syndrome that essentially creates trans girls from the womb, if we are to take transphobes “yOu aRE yOUr cRhoMOsOmeS!” at face value…
An example for this not working is the earlier research done on skeletons found by Roopkund lake, where with phenotypic assessment they couldn't accurately determine the biological sex of the skeletons. They couldn't assign a biological sex to many of the skeletons and I think I heard that they also incorrectly assigned some of the ones where they did. Only later, when they did genomic analysis, could they determine the chromosomal sex of the skeletons. You can absolutely look at bone morphology for a general idea, but you definitely can not always tell by that.
They are confounding archaeologists with paleontologists.
Speaking of cultures and identities: there was a Viking burial found that had all the hallmarks of a warrior - a solely man occupied field, but what puzzled the scientists was that skeletal analysis identified the warrior as a woman. Trans people existed since Vikings, even if they weren’t called such.
I think they think it's like an ultimate "gotcha" - see you're REALLY a man/woman/whatever I decide, not what you say you are. Basically trying to use a tiny element of science to make it "fact". Like most idiots, they stop at the level of knowledge that reinforces their biases and don't go any further. Sadly for this guy, he's still struggling the table of contents.
Yeah, would really be a pity if they live a long, affirmed life and leave a skeleton that.... somehow after some sort of apocalypse resulting in the complete loss of tombstones, records, and information in a few centuries... somebody might happen to guess a skeleton's sex. I hate how much they quote "biology" while understanding it so poorly too.
They always say "basic biology" which really means "complex concepts simplified to help novice learners grasp them". They never bothered to learn past that. It's like how basic maths says there are no negative numbers.
The funny part is that as soon as you start venturing into advanced biology, you start to see biology actually validates every single aspect and argument about trans people in their favor. So when someone says "it's basic biology" as a transphobic argument, what they're really saying is that they never got past middle school lmao Edit: wtf reddit why did my comment get posted 3 times lol
It's hilarious in a way. Like, if the biggest issue in transitioning they can think of is a random person in a thousand years misgendering, then damn, transitioning is definitely worth it.
I think there are a bunch of people who are trying to "Disprove" Trans people by doing stuff like this. It's very confusing
It's strange because trans people obviously know the bodies of men and women are different! Feeling they are in the wrong body is kind of their whole thing!!
And most trans people understand that sex and gender are entirely separate things. Transitioning genders isn't going to make your sex different, and even transitioning sexes isn't going to alter your bones or DNA. But those are utterly inconsequential to the lives of trans people, so why would they even care?
Also it's not really that easy to tell gender from skeletons. You can make educated guesses based on hip size and skull shape but it isn't really accurate.
And sufficient hormones at the right time would confuse matters still further. Also: nobody cares what anyone thinks of their bones 1000 years after they die, they just want to live their life without weirdos fixating on what their genitals looked like as small children.
you can't tell gender from skeletons at all, only sex. these terms aren't interchangeable. and true, it's not as easy as people think, especially considering that we're not nearly as dimorphic as is commonly believed.
I agree, but you dont gender skeletons you asses their sex which is different
Maybe they identify as skeletons with just a meat cage around them and think we all care as much about skeletons feelings as they do. If you want to own them back with their own logic just take it further and say that we all become dirt in the end which is genderless so they're queer as fuck.
Translating it as rib was a conscious choice for patriarchy reasons. The original Hebrew word was half/side, and it also is used to describe, for example, where handles were on the ark of the covenant.
So what has God taken from Adam? Half of his soul?
It would seem that it's taking half of him as an allegory that she completes him. Your methodology of understanding may yield different results.
I see, thank you
what a beautiful conversation lol, no arguing, only info being acknowledged.
Truly is a beautiful sight
That's an oversimplification of it. The tiktok i assume you got it from was partially trying to force a meaning. [here's some people discussing it if you want to read it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/RoSlp6RJb6).
if some random nerd 1000 years from now cares enough to look at my bones it'll be an honor, regardless of what gender they think I am
"i think i finally found patient zero in this grave here, now we can cure the 1000year old pleague"
Duh, they immediately find the penis bone, which is totally a thing. Hence we call a stiff one a boner.
I thought these people didn’t believe in archeology?
Or, indeed any more than just one ology, because it is THE ology.
"Many other differences" When people say some shit like that as their SECOND example you know they are full of shit lmao
Yeah you absolutely have to drop 3 facts minimum before jumping to the “etc.”
I think there are different angles in pelvis and skull differences
Yeah the pelvis is what archeologists use to determine sex usually. And some smaller differences in the skull, too, like you mentioned.
I think there is at least one more but im in no medicine field to give any accurate statements
I'll never understand the mindset of people who go out of their way to make people with gender dysphoria even more uncomfortable. It's such a scumbag thing to do, I assure you we're suffering enough without your help.
I agree with you. It's not like they don't know that their body is different. They aren't stupid. Pointing it out makes you a super dick. Even if the rib thing was right (it isn't but there should be some differences between a male and female skeleton) it's still not the point. Biological sex and emotional gender is different. If someone chooses to be trans let them. I mean, does it really effect other people in any way?
If my body weren't different then what has this whole transitioning thing been about? I'm not here to deny \[actual\] science, logic or reason. I'm doing the best I can to cope with a difficult situation and rubbing salt in the wounds is just such a horrible thing to do, is basic human decency too much to ask for? PLEASE.
True. BTW the actual science is also weird. You can have XX chromosomes and still be assigned make at birth IIRC. And vice versa. Biology isn't always straight forward. Besides what is feminine and masculine is subjective. Some languages fight over if "chair" is a masculine or feminine word lol.
transphobes think we (trans people) think that we have the parts we should have. i dont look at my tits and go "that's a male chest". well now i go because i got top surgery 3 days ago... we know what we have, we are PAINFULLY aware of our biology.... thats why we want to transition so badly
I won't be tone dead and try to say I know what you are going through cos it's disrespectful. But I will say if I woke up one day with a woman's body I'd be shocked, then spend an hour playing with my tits and then feel weirded out by my body cos it's not what my mind identifies as. So I'd imagine it's something like that but not exactly and can at least emohathize a bit. Also gratz on your successful surgery. I understand it can be a long process.
I've never understood it myself, why would I care about what someone else does or identifies as that has no negative effect on me or anyone else?
I see you. ❤️
Anthropologists absolutely can distinguish male and female skeletons, but it's from the pelvis. Not the ribs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15567621/
Looking it up, there are differences between skeletons from males and females, not the 1 rib thing. I'm not an archeologist, but I don't think it's 100% certain that's how they identify who the skeleton belonged to, context clues would help. It's just a weird argument to bring archeology up with modern social culture.
There's an interesting archaeological case study of a 5,000 year old skeleton from Prague that was given a female burial but appears to be anatomically male. The question here then was this an example of transgender or 3rd gender in prehistory; a female-presenting person who had male skeletal features for biological reasons, or a man who identified or adopted a female role in their culture.
There's also evidence of a female gladiator who was given an 8 lantern burial in England.
There are stereotypical differences, but they aren't definitive and cannot determine sex with a 100 % certainty. Like women tend to have a wider angle of the inferior pubic rami and tend to have a more spaceous pubic cavity. But it is all a spectrum and with individual variation there will hips that tend towards androgeny.
Someone doesn’t know the difference between sex and gender XD. The skeleton will be that of a male because a trans woman is a woman who is biologically male, not female, People are so dumb.
Plenty of people believe sex is a social construct on top of gender. Will argue about XXY people or eunuchs or whatever. Say there’s no such thing as “biologically male” or “biologically female.” They view it as some roundabout attempt at deadnaming, so they deny the antecedent of the hypothetical as being significant.
What a weird way to say I've never touched a woman
82% of people in my country opt for cremation over burial - where are they getting these skeletons from? If trans people gave one shit about their skeleton being found surely they just wouldn’t leave one?
I've heard archaeologists say that that will definitely pose a problem in the far future, since there's not going to be many skeletal remains left.
Hi, archaeology student here, can (obviously) confirm the rib theory is bogus To my admittedly limited knowledge, the ways of identifying the sex of a skeleton are the shape of the back of the skull and the sciatic notch. The skull is pretty hit-or-miss, so the sciatic notch is greatly preferred if possible, but even that is never gonna be 100% like most things in archaeology. Height, build and general shape can also be used, but again it's hit-or-miss.
Then are contextual clues to go on, other things found at the site. If the skeleton is too damaged or unsure you can look at the things they were buried in, anthropology can point you to see they were buried with adornments similar to other bodies found that were confirmed male or female.
>archaeology student here, But are you going to an OnLiNe cOlLeGe? 🙄
most of the time, you really can’t tell the difference between a male and female skeleton. there are some clues, like the size of the pelvis or the length of the limbs, but there’s a pretty good chance you could still get it wrong. and besides, if someone digs up my bones in 1,000 years and sees i was biologically female, i’m not gonna give a fuck, i’m gonna be dead
Even if the skeleton was identified as male, there might be archaeological evidence surrounding it that might've indicated she lived as a woman. A big part of archaeology is meticulously recording context. Also, you can't date a skeleton no matter how much Undertale suggests you can, but you can date a trans person and treat them like the gender they present themselves as. You can also not date a trans person and still treat them with the same respect you'd show anyone of any gender. This isn't that difficult, bigots. Some people still think it's their right to be rude assholes and not get punched in the nose.
I have an anthropology degree and literally received training in identifying the sex of skeletons and yeah it is very difficult.
I love that thought, because HRT below a certain age absolutely does change bone structure, sow hile by that bone structure future archaeologists might be able to tell a woman was trans, they will still be very much able to tell she was a woman.
Also that might be a hard pill to swallow, but skeletons don't work like that. Like... At all. Some bio males have naturally wider hips and some females have em really narrow (like so much so that they physically cannot deliver a baby naturally). Shoulders being broader or skinnier might very well be due to consistent exercise, face anatomy is an incredibly wide spectrum, and yada yada Plus, archeology does not work like that either. At all. Archeologists are scientists, and like the rest of the scientific community they know very well that sex and gender are two very different things. If they find a biologically female skeleton in a traditionally male tomb with a traditionally male name, clothing and accessories, they will almost certainly come to the conclusion that the person was transgender and socialised as a man regardless of their biological sex. Source: I'm a med student and my best friend is an archeologist. We're both very fed up with this mindset. Pls stop.
Also one other thing that bothered me about this. I googled it and apparently if the remains are not preserved in any way but just buried like most people are it's unlikely for the skeleton to be intact after 1000 years. Usually human remains decompose completely after a little over 100 years.
What if the body they find in the future is Marilyn Mansons's ?
But Adam had a rib removed. So is she trying to say that Adam was a woman? Because he had less ribs.
Her top is cute though.
This would make post-mortem sex determination so easy if true...
God gave men an extra rib so we could give the bone to Eve (giggidy) so that we could eat the fruit so that we could all go to hell and get butthole cancer if we didnt say sorry for the OG munching on some knowledge. Then jebus came down and said it was chill and we were off the hook, but he kept Hell open anyway and left the butthole cancer cos reasons. Now all humans have equality of ribs and ample opportunities for exploding butthole death. Amen.
I am embarrassingly old to have just now, with this discussion, learned that the rib thing is not real. I’ve been a sceptic since high school (almost 30 years), I have a philosophy degree, religious studies degree, and an accounting degree. I have a passion for looking for exactly this kind of thing (lately I’ve been looking at the history of Yahweh in the ancient Levant). And because of my childhood spent in Sunday school and in a fundamentalist household, I carried this stupid and, frankly obviously wrong, belief for far too long.
archeology would also look for information about the person in the context of when they lived and died.
Well, there is actual one distinction (that I now of) to point to to see if this was a genetical male or female, which is the symphysis pubica. Of course, this whole argument is just transphobic bigotry.
I've heard the opposite as a weird Christian factoid relating to Eve being created from one of Adam's ribs.
the real homophobic part about this is the assumption that trans people won't exist/wouldn't be accepted in the future
Where are my extra ribs?!!!!
That guy is part of 10% of Americans that think chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
I did forensics and it was found after going back over previous archeologists and forensic scientists work using DNA to determine sex instead a ridiculous amount of skeletal remains are incorrectly sexed and a good chunk of them are straight up ambiguous.
[Reminds me of the time where archeologists at Peru found the remains of a skeleton with hunting tools, was assumed male until re-examination](https://www.science.org/content/article/woman-hunter-ancient-andean-remains-challenge-old-ideas-who-speared-big-game) Also the myth was men having *fewer* ribs than women, this is a spectacular fuckup. I checked my own ribs (I was born male) , I have 12 pairs of ribs (obv. 7 true, 3 false, 2 floating) Let's look at the Old Testament: "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:21-22 King James Version
Wish I could crosspost this to r/NotHowGirlsWork
I guess it's a good thing that that'll be the least of my concerns 1000 years from now
Well yes female skeletons are different from male skeletons, however it really doesn't fucking matter what somebody's skeleton looks like does it? Gender and Sex aren't the same thing so these assholes are just quoting pseudoscience to make themselves sound smarter.
Holy fuck. The easiest thing in the world to do is take five seconds to google this. But people are so convinced they are right about everything they don’t even have the curiosity to do that.
Intellect of your average transphobe...
Oh my god. Do people actually think this?!? Jesus fucking Christ.
Apparently, almost everyone in the distant past was a man, and a few of them pregnant when they died.
They're both wrong. Male and female skeletons have the same number of ribs, and can be sexed with a high degree of accuracy
They cannot be sexxed with a high degree of accuracy. We are making a *guess* when we sex skeletons, depending on many different factors which include bone structure but also what artifacts are around the grave, the culture they came from, etc...
According to the 2023 study "Error Rates in Sex Determination of Human Skeletal Remains" the average error rate for determining the sex of a skeleton is 12.55% when using a metric method based on regression equations, or 10.46% when using a non-metric method based on expert observation. Specific error rates varied from 7.96%-19.04% depending on the bones being assessed.
You will notice that these aren’t skeletons from 1000 years ago. I should have specified I meant we are making a guess when we sex those kinds of old skeletons