“This study was undertaken as part of a broader research looking at the interplay between early social complexity and gender inequalities,” study co-author and University of Seville prehistorian Leonardo García Sanjuán tells PopSci. “As part of this research, it became obvious that there is a serious problem in the identification of biological sex in prehistoric skeletons, which are often found in a poor state of preservation.”

Now redubbed the “Ivory Lady,” this woman’s tomb was first discovered in 2008 in Valencia on Spain’s southeastern coast. The find dates back to the Copper Age, when the metal was used for construction, agriculture, and even creating engravings of owls that may have been toys. The grave is also a rare example of single occupancy burial at the time and the tomb was filled with the largest collection of valuable and rare items in the region. These treasures include high-quality flint, ostrich eggshell amber, a rock crystal dagger, and ivory tusks.

All of these trinkets and single tomb initially indicated that the remains must belong to a prominent male, but peptides and DNA don’t lie.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-36368-x

In light of @Deimos mentioning that we have a lot of "favorite" topics going around, how about something a little meatier?

I've seen it a few times already around threads that someone uses the word "guy" to refer to a poster and the response is "I'm not a guy". I'm not trying to invalidate this stance, but rather make this argument in the same way I argued for a singular "they". Consider the following:

• the plural form, "you guys" is already neutered. I can walk up to a group of women and ask "How're you guys doing?" and it doesn't draw any ire
• we've similarly neutered "dude" in both the singular and plural, but it's especially casual and almost familiar
• "gal" sounds like something out of the forties, "girl" is diminutive, and "person" is clinical / formal
• we don't have another common, non-gendered, non-specific term that fits the "sounds right" criteria and fits in the environment like the one we have (wherein users are getting to know each other and don't know exactly how to address one another).

I realize that this is probably masculine-normative and therefore problematic, but my main goal here is to stimulate discussion on a meatier topic (gender) without having it be an incredibly serious topic.

[EDIT]

I want to clarify a few things, as this reads a lot more trolly than it did 6 hours ago.

generalizing "guy" is a sexist idea because it attempts to make the masculine the generic (what I called "masculine-normativity" above). However, there isn't a term that adequately replaces "guy" but is neutered (@Algernon_Asimov brought up that "dude" fits, but is as more casual than "guy" than "person" is more formal). [Edit edit: I'm an idiot. They pointed out that "dude" as I had defined it earlier in my post would work just as well, but they did not agree that it has been neutered]

Instead of bringing this up as purely a matter of diction, I set myself up as an antagonist to see what would happen. And for this I apologize.

That said, I feel like there is some good discussion here and do not want to call making the thread a mistake. More that mistakes were made in the manner of its posting.