archeologists

I am really interested in this claim. Could you pleaae cite a source?
Gender identification for skeletons would be based purely on biological gender (or rather biological sex). While biologically intersex (hermaphrodites) people do exist, it is a biological anomaly and unlikely to have been preserved for the archeological record.

Thank you. So it's not based on just the bones, which makes sense when other artifacts are preserved.

I was not suggesting that anomalies and outliers be ignored entirely, but that they be recognized for what they are: anomalies and outliers.

In current context, this raises the question of how to fairly accommodate the anomalies and outliers without harming those that are normal (statistically common).

I am for accepting ones identity so long as it doesn't harm others, such as unfair competition or having to be exposed to genitals of the opposite sex in settings that should be protected from such.

But they're NOT anomalies. They're NOT outliers. When you stop dismissing their presence, they were always there, in plain sight, in the societies we've been digging up but we weren't willing to listen to the clues.

It is normal to have transgender people in your society. Non-binary genders always existed. They weren't rare - every society had them, throughout human history.

Stop dismissing this as a detail you could simply ignore - if you're TRULY interested in archaeology as a scientific discipline and not just a lazy way to make an unresearched argument, you have to understand how unscientific that kind of thing would be.

The bottom line is: modern archaeologists are more than happy to group gender into more than two data clusters and have been for some time now.

You, yourself, refered to them as outliers and validated my use of the term anomaly.

"you're also ignoring anomaly as data. In science, you would never do this. Outliers are ALWAYS markers that your model of the world is not complete"

We should do our best to REASONABLY accommodate them within our society, but like I said, in ways that do not harm the majority. We can not harm 99% of the population to make less than 1% feel warm and fuzzy about how they see themselves.

Using chosen names and pronouns harm no one. People can dress and behave however they want regardless of gender. But if I'm in a women's locker room, i should not see a p**is (keeping it covered with clothes or hidden by privacy curtain is a reasonable compromise). And being a biological male provides an unfair advantage in sports.

The majority claims harm for like, no reason. People are still calling it a violation of personal liberty to wear one extra item of clothing every day for public health concerns. The majority quite often fabricate stories of harm to themselves where there is none. I myself am highly skeptical that your life is affected one thousandth of an iota by how professional athletics is and isn't run.

The harm is to the athletes. True, i am not harmed by that, because I am not an athlete. But If I were younger and athletically inclined...
You also did not address the other issue mentioned, which would affect me. Female locker rooms should be a safe space for me, or any other female. While seeing a p**is should not be triggering and cause stress, it easily can due to personal circumstances and history. There's a reason that indecent exposure is illegal.

People with body dysmorphia do not go flashing themselves around the locker room. Exactly the opposite. This is some fictional nonsense you're imagining to try to create conflict where there isn't any.

And if I'm wrong, if it DOES happen that way, get them on charges of indecent exposure. We haven't changed the rules on that in any way at all🤷 unless you're in some red state nightmare where the laws on sexual assault are poorly enforced, but that is very much its own issue.

Apparently they're not making archaeologists like they used to.
To put it another way, it's these so-called "archaeologists" that have changed.
The binary skeletons haven't.

Option 1: the integrity of the archaeology field has been compromised as a scientific research discipline. Option 2: RoyShafer still doesn't actually know what he's talking about.

.... Let me think, which of these options is just more believable... Option 1.... Maybe... Option 2... Oh aye.... Option 1 again... Far-fetched but possible.... Option 2... Oh definitely... Option 1 again...