This might get me on trouble but as a historian I need to speak about this because I saw some people commenting on how white archaeologists and historians like to misgender people from ancient times when that's not true. https://twitter.com/The_Ada_Rhodes/status/1320769078802501632

As a part of the LGBTQ+ community myself, I'd never do such thing to trigger trans people as I want them to be happy for who they are. With that said, saying we are misgendering a mummy is not right, as we don't have enough evidence to proof anything 100%.

The article shows a rare mummy. It already says its not common to see. The relevant part here is that the corpse was inside a female packing but had a male bone stucture.

Yes, this mummy might have been a mtf transgender, but we can't be sure, as the article says the package is way older than the mummy. There's a chance of this hypothesis being wrong, and this just being a case of a male individual inside a female package.

I have to say this is not the best example for an archaeologycal paper, as a normal rule, both hypothesis would be stated on said paper. The point is not to close yourselves in one only hypothesis and let the others be there.

The only way we could be 100% sure that the mummy was transgender is by a written text (of that time, of course) that assured this mummy in particular liked to be referred as a female. Otherwise, we can't be sure of anything and the scientific research will be the norm*

* this one being the text above that states this is a male individual inside a female packing.

I don't want to offend anyone with this, I just want to show another perspective and make sure everyone understands how ancient archaeologysts and historians work.

If anyone considers this thread is wrong, please let me know why, I'm open to learning and being educated on the subject.