Skip to main content

View Diary: Two years ago: Archaeologists announce discovery of 5000-year-old transgender skeleton (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I brought the vibe (0+ / 0-)

    to your other diary because your entire argument surrounded objections to the use of the only British law that could be used to prosecute two biologically female people in their 20s who had been found guilty of child sexual abuse.

    At no stage would you understand that the 2003 Act did not include provisions to specifically outlaw a pre-op trans man abusing girls under 16 unless penetration was involved and a third pre-op trans man had been prosecuted under the Act because penetration did take place. Frankly your complete lack of any expression of concern for the victims disgusted me.

    Again, I have merely pointed out that the evidence for your assertions based on what appears to be several publications and sites picking up on a sensationalized press agency report does not lead to the conclusion that you present. However IF you had bothered to follow the links others found (in particular this one) your case that this was a particularly novel burial would have been better supported.

    An oval, egg-shaped container usually associated with female burials was also found at the feet of the skeleton. None of the telltale objects that usually accompany male burials — such as weapons, stone battle axes and flint knives — were found in the grave.
    Now IF the skeleton is confirmed as that of a male, your case becomes stronger but there is no way you can prove the individual was transsexual. I have pointed out below that the rather small picture appears to show two typically female features in the skull but insufficient evidence showing in the photo of the pelvis.  

    "Who stood against President Obama in 2012?" - The trivia question nobody can answer.

    by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:36:12 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The thing is I didn't have an argument... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Avilyn that other diary.  I was not promoting any action in favor of the two individuals you mention.  I was, however, in favor of what the trans community in Scotland was asking for, which is discussions with Scottish prosecutorial authorities about future possible prosecutions regarding the charge.

      Your reading comprehension failed you in that regard.  Then you started saying nasty things about me...and now have the audacity to accuse me of ad hominem against you.

      In this case, I have specifically said that I will let the archaeologists state their conclusions rather than offer any myself...but again you seem incapable of reading that.

      •  You did not condemn child abuse (0+ / 0-)

        quite apart from the fact you seemed not to understand that the particular law could would only be invoked against pre-operative female-male transsexuals whose sexual assaults did not involve penetration.

        Instead, you lifted the rather (dare I say) hysterical article which claimed it would mean all trans people would be required to reveal their sexual identity to any partner. I gave you a whole set of reasons based on quotations from the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, the statutory guidelines for Crown Prosecutors in England and the sentencing guidelines why that would not occur.

        In fact my main objection to the article you quoted was that it would do exactly the opposite of promoting trans freedom in Britain by falsely inducing fear of that law being used.

        "Who stood against President Obama in 2012?" - The trivia question nobody can answer.

        by Lib Dem FoP on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:35:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site