I wish the story had given this “anthropologist’s” name so I could look him up and ridicule him myself.
Room Erupts Into Chaos After Anthropologist Says No Way To Tell Sex Of Person Based On Bones
“So if you were to dig up a human, two humans, in 100 years from now, both man and woman, could you tell the difference, strictly off of bones?”
“No,” the anthropologist said before the entire room burst out into laughter before people began talking over each other.
I’m curious as to his specialty. Sounds like it isn’t forensic anthropology
When available, the pelvis is extremely useful in the determination of sex and when properly examined can achieve sex determination with a great level of accuracy. The examination of the pubic arch and the location of the sacrum can help determine sex.
However, the pelvis is not always present, so forensic anthropologists must be aware of other areas on the skeleton that have distinct characteristics between sexes. The skull also contains multiple markers that can be used to determine sex. Specific markers on the skull include the temporal line, the eye sockets, the supraorbital ridge, as well as the nuchal lines, and the mastoid process. In general, male skulls tend to be larger and thicker than female skulls, and to have more pronounced ridges.
See? Even leftist Wikipedia knows better.
This has been used in archaeology/anthropology for probably a couple of hundred years. It’s used by law enforcement to ID bodies and presented as evidence in court; for decades. But it escaped this “specialist.”
The good news, as my sister noted, is that they did laugh at his absurd claim.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)