6 ms·
[citation needed] it's humanoid remains, but not modern human
by iopq 2y ago
[citation needed]
it's humanoid remains, but not modern human
- silverquiet 2y agoI feel like this is peak HN pedantry, but it seems like there's some controversy amongst anthropologists these days as how to sort of colloquially define human; I've heard some say that any species in the genus homo should qualify.
- galangalalgol 2y agoAnd how to legally define human is extremely controversial and always has been.
- navane 2y ago[flagged]
- silverquiet 2y agoPerhaps my mind is so open that it's in danger of falling out, but when people say that that's so easy to define and then don't do so, I get really confused. I'm like, have you ever seen a dude who looks like a lady? It's a question that's bedeviled sports for a long time actually - in the 60's the Olympics required "nude parades" to check that competitors were in fact women, but obviously that had some problems. I believe they eventually settled on some sort of hormone ratio as the definition.
- iopq 2y agoYes, this dude looks like a lady: https://64.media.tumblr.com/83308f0513790d8503264e72aa5e854a/37840f84773c473e-66/s540x810/63354126dc1ffa77ee5b227c41f52e1d7b5e281d.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/83308f0513790d8503264e72aa5e854a...
- thaumasiotes 2y agoIn the classical Olympics, as in all Greek athletic competitions, all competitors were required to be nude during the events. You can't compete in clothes. It didn't cause any problems.
- daemoens 2y agoI mean, who actually cares about things like chafing, sunburns, or the awkward stares of spectators? Let's all just embrace our inner Greek and strip down for the 100-meter dash.
- samatman 2y agoHN really isn't the place for this conversation, but if we ever found a human whose biological sex was ambiguous using a simple checklist with maybe three tests in it, that would be a first. Woman and man are complex, female and male are not. Yes, this includes all known intersex conditions. No, there's no significant disagreement about those criteria.
- silverquiet 2y agoFunny, I think HN is the ideal place for this conversation, though it's a bit weird to get there on this thread. But it's a subject of fascination for me personally, and it's a shame that it's taken on weird political dimensions. I was under the impression that Caster Semenya tends to confound simple categorization like you suggest.
- samatman 2y ago"The condition is rare, affects only genetic males, and has a broad spectrum." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency
- silverquiet 2y agoAnd now you have posted a vague reply of your own; what are you trying to say? From the same article: > Management of this condition in the context of sex assignment is a challenging and controversial area. As I said, it seems that there are cases where things are not clear.
- samatman 2y ago> Sex assignment is the discernment of an infant's sex, usually at birth. The question is not whether you can briefly look between someone's legs and determine their sex. We know (per the article) that this can fail as much as 0.05% of the time. The question was what is Caster Semenya's biological sex: the answer is male. This is, in fact, clear.
- dclowd9901 2y agoIs this because there are people walking around today with a substantial amount of Neanderthal DNA and were being cautious not to denigrate them?
- tokai 2y agoRight back at you with the citation needed. Humanoid is not a taxonomic term anymore. All Homo are humans. Never said modern, which it obviously isn't.
- iopq 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human > Although some scientists equate the term "humans" with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member.
- swatcoder 2y agoThere's no citation for that claim and it would be unlikely for there to be one. It's just some dude's personal impression about a subjective matter (a word in transition), and carries no more weight than any other comment being made here. A more meaningful source would be a usage guide like Garner's Modern English.
- iopq 2y agoOkay, link to your source
- denton-scratch 2y agoActually, it is cited. The fragment you quoted is from the lede, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the material. So if you read on to the section "Etymology and definition", you find that the same claim is cited to Merriam Webster. As it happens, this citation is useless, because it doesn't support the claim. Basically, I think it's fraudulent to cite that claim to that MW article.
- DonHopkins 2y agoI don't wanna classify you like an animal in the zoo, but it seems good to me to know that you're Homosapien too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwmO_GZfzI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwmO_GZfzI
- denton-scratch 2y agoI thought the term "humanoid" referred to bipedal aliens with bilateral symmetry. Or to human-like robots.
- shiroiushi 2y ago"Humanoid" refers to anything with a human body morphology (i.e., bipedal, two legs, two arms, head). That can be actual humans, human-looking robots, bipedal aliens with bilateral symmetry, or even Barbie dolls I suppose.
- kergonath 2y agoIt’s something that looks like human remains, and that needs to be imaged properly to have a definitive answer.