What is the purpose of "gender studies"? Reading its followers, one might wonder. Their production oscillates between minority ego-trips ("initiatory quest of a dyke and a madwoman in heterosexual territory"), small manuals of grooming ("how to "queer" classrooms") sometimes frankly crazy ("queer herbarium")1...
So what does the woke researcher do in his working hours? Research… but not the kind he is paid for. Especially not describing the complexity of things: his world is simple, fixed, reduced to an eternal political struggle between the eternal “dominants” and the eternal “dominated”. To question this reading grid (built with large stones according to Marx, Delphy and Butler) is already “fascism”. No, he is looking for weapons to weigh in on this struggle, and without any scruples.
It is a real profession: it mainly consists of inventing historical falsifications (sometimes statistical). The impossible "masculinization of French" is thus used to justify the imposition of inclusive writing, the fantasized "Swiss colonial past" to develop a profitable cult of repentance in Switzerland. Crude tinkering? Yes, but effective, with complicit media taking charge of presenting them to the general public as truths. With the help of success, these myths will become so numerous that they will end up competing with each other: it will be the battle for the "Viking warriors".
“Gender archeology”, or the quest at all costs for “LGBT-friendly ancient societies”
The wokes want deconstructing traditional values of Western societies. To do this, the most effective way is to prove that they have nothing "traditional" or "natural": the arguments of conservatives would then lose all their meaning. To demonstrate this, activists will therefore look for counter-examples of feminist and LGBT-friendly societies.
Alas for them… they do not exist. The vast majority of past and/or non-Western societies seem to have been solidly “patriarchal”: political inferiority of women, homosexuality sometimes timidly tolerated but generally taboo, “gender fluidity” most often limited to cross-dressing and linked to ceremonial practices. theory has therefore lead in the wing.
Never mind: our activists are going to cheat. First, we will attribute the unpleasant aspects of non-Western societies to the bad influence of Whites: the rejection of homosexuality in Africa is thus systematically presented as a "consequence of colonialism" ... even though the most refractory are peoples who have never been colonized (Ethiopia, Liberia). And where the facts are too big to be denied (Islamic world), we will simply pass them over in silence.
As for ancient cultures, by definition poorly understood, nothing is simpler than inventing the untruths necessary for current political action. Thus, a fictitious “equality of sexualities” in ancient China or ancient Rome is evoked to justify same-sex marriage. To support transactivism, all known ancient transvestite figures are anachronistically claimed as “trans” or “non-binary”: Native American berdaches, Suomi shamans, sacred hijra prostitutes, etc. even when their descendants protestTo win, they are allowed to do anything – even “cultural appropriation”, a crime when their opponents commit it.
Early on, these pious lies were supported by partisan academics: they then acquired the appearance of “science” useful for convincing the public. In the 1930s, the lesbian feminist anthropologist Margaret Mead caused a sensation by describing matriarchal, sexually free and happy Oceanic societies… which were in fact none of these things. But it was a useful pretext for demanding a radical change in American mores, judged in comparison “neurotic”. Becoming bestsellers, her books contributed to the sexual revolution of the 60s. The deception would not be discovered until twenty years later.
In the 1970s and 80s, against a backdrop of the politicization of universities, these activist researchers gained influence and founded real departments, the famous "Studies" (Black Studies, Gender Studies, LGBT+ Studies, etc.). After 2010, with the support of the media, they turned the creation of politically motivated myths into a real industry. A good example is that of the "queer Joan of Arc", invented by the "gender historian" Clovis Maillet, herself gender-fluid. Which is based on nothing… but what does it matter? His “works” barely published, they benefit from overwhelming press coverage, inspire plays and militant manifestos, justify the wokeness of the 2024 Olympic Games…in short, a huge political gain for a tiny lie – with the advantage of hunting on the lands of conservatives and Catholics.
Around 1985, “Gender Archaeology” was born. An exact copy of “Gender Studies,” it reproduced its rhetoric word for word: “archaeology is political,” “objectivity is a myth,” so I have the right to pass off my activism as science.2The first “gender archaeologists” were mainly intersectional feminists, quickly joined by LGBT+ activists: thus two currents were born, “feminist archaeology” and “transgender/queer archaeology”.
Highly radical, "queer archaeology" is nothing more scientific than its name. Its avowed goal is to "force [society] to recognize the fluidity and contextual nature of human identity."3. They don't mind the fact that there is no proof: our activists will resort to the usual woke techniques to bring the human sciences into line. On the one hand, they will silence colleagues who dare to recall the facts: in March 2020, a Canadian anthropologist will thus be dismissed for claiming that "there are only two genders." On the other hand, they will invent "proofs" to the contrary, using ever more fanciful interpretations. The tomb of a 4th-century Athenian actor contains (unsurprisingly) a makeup box? This is the "sign of a certain gender fluidity" in Ancient Greece4. An Ethiopian chronicle claims that a nun and a saint "loved each other"? This is evidence of Christian lesbianism in 17th-century East Africa.5...
By co-opting themselves, the activists then managed to get this dubious work published in university journals: archaeologists were outraged by this from the end of the 90s, in vain.6. We will even see the publication, under the cover of scientific articles, of real little manuals of political action: such as this fascinating " Let's Queer Serbian Archaeology ", call for support for the imposition of sex education in schools in the Balkans.
Publications and academic titles then allow them to be taken seriously by the media.
These, whether accomplices or negligent, do not differentiate between proof and (far-fetched) interpretation. We see articles appearing like " Ancient Egypt was totally queer "," This Roman Emperor Was a Trans Woman "... not based on anything serious, but very useful in normalizing queerness/transidentity among the general public, by claiming that it dates back to the most ancient times, with "scientific" support. The fabrication of these myths will take on such magnitude that "queer archaeologists" will end up entering into competition with their "feminist archaeologist" allies: this will be the Birka controversy.
Birka's Disputed Grave: Feminists vs. Transactivists
In 1878, a 581th-century Scandinavian tomb was discovered in the Swedish archaeological site of Birka. Named "Bj.XNUMX", it was apparently the final resting place of a high-ranking warrior, buried with his sword, horses, sumptuous clothing... the general context made him classify as a "man".
In August 2017, a team of researchers declared, based on DNA analysis, that the deceased was in fact a woman. They claimed to have discovered the first "Viking warrior": until then, only Scandinavian mythology and a few isolated historical sources suggested their existence. Their publication receives worldwide media coverage: it is relayed by more than 130 press agencies, inspires four documentaries and a children's book… “Wonder Woman [really] existed” he will go so far as to write the Washington Post.
Several archaeologists, however, will judge the article sensationalist, and question its conclusions. A woman buried like a warrior is not necessarily one, underlines a researcher. The skeleton of the deceased, who died in her thirties, does not show any signs of possible fighting. Another archaeologist points out that the tomb was dug in the 19th century using primitive methods: the bones were then arranged with such little care that three femurs were found in the bag that contained them. Elements also suggest the presence next to the woman of a man's body, a warrior of whom she would only be the wife.7. But the authors have clearly favoured the thesis of the "powerful woman", even if it means multiplying unfounded assertions: such as making her a "high-ranking officer" with "tactical knowledge"... on the sole basis of the presence of a strategy game in the tomb.
These fanciful interpretations are surprising: less so when we know that Neil Price, the main author of the article, is regularly accused of them.8, and that some co-authors are known proponents of "feminist archaeology". But to activist, activist and a half: they will be immediately attacked by "queer archaeologists". "Viking woman", but why not "transgender or non-binary Viking"? A controversy will quickly begin between academics from both camps, supported by their respective communities on social networks. The real objections, although sometimes repeated in newspapers, will pass far behind.
To understand the futility of the controversy, one must know that no two Scandinavian tombs are alike, to the point that any classification is impossible.9. There is therefore no "Viking funeral rite" from which one could draw a generality. Even the presence of a sword proves nothing: they are sometimes found on the skeletons of old people and children incapable of bearing arms.10. Better, Bj 581 may not even be a "Viking grave" at all: Birka was a trading center and place of passage, the grave presents cultural traits of Eastern Europe, from which the deceased would come. according to the very analyses of the article.
To conclude in these circumstances is madness: but both "queer" and "feminists" want historical proof for their cause. However, soon enough, the "queer archaeologists" will be defeated. The image of the "Viking warrior", very present in popular culture (video games, television series) fascinates the general public. The post-MeToo media and institutions, required to show their support for the cause of women, are massively relaying the article. It is both an example of a powerful woman, and proof that they have been " erased from history " by a masculinist science, as a militant anthropologist writes in The Guardian.
The authors also have the advantage of academic notoriety: "queer archaeologists", often very young researchers, do not have enough weight with the press to challenge the version of the more established "feminists". Especially since they oppose dubious evidence with... no evidence at all, which their opponents do not hesitate to point out.
The “queer archaeologists” will then bias, by curious trials of “misgendering of bones”. And what if the deceased of Birka, after all, was a woman and a non-binary? Nothing affirms it… but since we cannot exclude it, it must be mentioned, otherwise we may be “discriminating” against her! “By insisting on [her] identity as a woman, we actively erase her potential transgender identity”, laments a Canadian activist-researcher, “because of the current media obsession with powerful women”.11Others are demanding that the sex of the bones found no longer be mentioned, or that it be reduced to an "osteological sex" 12.
This absurd concern not to "offend" people who have been dead for centuries poorly conceals an attempt to artificially make possible trans identities appear everywhere in the past. Sometimes, the string is so big that it becomes comical. A Merovingian tomb turns out to be empty? This is the occasion for fifteen pages of ideological platitudes on this non-binary that we could have found13. Queer archaeology is more dishonest than feminist archaeology…but only by one degree.
The irony here is that some could have been in the other's shoes without any problem. Neil would later claim in a controversial book that the Vikings had a conception of gender "beyond biological binarity", and several of his co-authors praise "queer approaches" in their work. Conversely, "queer archaeologists" mostly also claim to be "feminists". More than a war of clans, the conflict seems to be a circumstantial opposition within the same milieu of woke academics, in permanent competition for media attention. Some prefer to play the "woman" card, others the "non-binary" card, but they share the same ideological foundation.
Moreover, when in 2019 the authors publish a second item to "respond to the controversy", they will be careful not to fault their "queer" adversaries. The criticisms focus on the few objective contradictory archaeologists, described as "Pavlovian skeptics" (sic). And they have nothing scientific about them: it doesn't matter whether the deceased was really a warrior or not, "warrior-ness is a gendered construct", and the presence of a sword is enough to assign her to it. To contest it is "unbearable" because if it had been a man, no one would dare question his status as a fighter: some clearly "need" to "deconstruct her out of existence". No comment.
Suontaka: a very curious “non-binary Viking”
Defeated, the “queer archaeologists” will in turn get to work, and two years later discover precisely what they were looking for: a non-binary Viking. Their article seems a poor copy of Birka's: same interpretations taken as proof and very political conclusions, but here more shameless, and without even the concern to maintain a coherent reasoning.
Signed mainly by young doctoral and post-doctoral students, this article begins with a long reminder of the notion of "gender". It insists on the fact that men of the Middle Ages are more "gender-fluid" than is said, in support of other activist "works"14The remains studied will be those from a 10th century tomb located in Suontaka (Finland), where, near the skeleton, both women's adornments and a sword were found.
The "partially destroyed" tomb was violated in the Middle Ages and another sword placed inside. The skeleton, found very degraded, is almost entirely missing: only two humerus heads in poor condition remain. The authors admit that even with ancient DNA techniques, the quality of the results is poor: barely sufficient to determine the number of X and Y chromosomes. These results would not be consistent with the karyotype of a man (XY), nor that of a woman (XY) according to them.
The authors then change their approach: they make simplifying assumptions and simulate the possible results in four scenarios where the deceased would have the following karyotype: XY, XX, two bones from two bodies XX and XY, and finally XXY (Klinefelter syndrome). They then note that the results correspond "99,75%" to their model for Klinefelter.
This is a first warning sign: you can make this kind of self-verifying modeling say anything, provided that you choose ad hoc hypotheses, especially with such a small sample and of such low quality. But since we have no way of verifying the data, so be it. Note that there is no discussion of potential contamination, even though the tomb was violated and later Viking objects were found inside. The Scandinavian habit of throwing old human bones, roasted and ground into powder, near the bodies15, is not mentioned either.
This is where the skid begins. Klinefelter syndrome, which is uncommon (1 in 500 births), is asymptomatic in the majority of cases, almost asymptomatic in most others. Only some carriers have, very rarely, some androgynous features (start of breasts, small sexual organs, etc.). However, our authors will deduce from a 1990 study stating that these "already very rare" cases "sometimes" have "gender-related insecurities"... proof of the non-binarity of the deceased.
This "proof" is therefore based on three elements: the presence of a sword, a woman's brooch, and a DNA defect causing in perhaps one case in a million a slight "gender disorder". We saw above that the first two meant nothing; and the third is a farce. The authors, embarrassed, immediately take the opposite view: since the "gender feelings" of 1990 and the year XNUMX were probably different, it is "difficult" to conclude. First, the problem is not there, but in the weakness of their demonstration. Second, if they doubt it... why, throughout the rest, treat the non-binarity of the deceased as certain?
The rest is even stranger. A sword was found placed against the deceased: it is therefore "a strong symbol of identity and personality". But the guard is missing: it was therefore removed to make the weapon "unusable, less violent or agender, if we follow the traditional symbolism of swords." Since when does removing the guard from a sword make it "agender"? What is this curious "traditional symbolism" that is unknown but never explained? Mystery! But as before, an immediate counterpoint by citing the only plausible hypothesis "Otherwise, it is possible that the handle was made of organic matter [and that it rotted]". This is all the more likely since everything in the tomb was degraded, down to the bones: but here again, the authors clearly wanted to insinuate an improbable non-binarity, even if they immediately retracted it.
All the "proof" of the deceased's non-binarity rests on these two absurd assertions. Since they are contradicted as soon as they are stated, the authors are safe from any criticism. The game will consist of forgetting these reservations as soon as we have finished writing them, and reasoning thereafter as if they were certain.
Let's summarize the rest: Klinefelter "proves" that the deceased was non-binary. The sword without a hilt "proves" that the people who buried him knew it, but that they still considered him a warrior, "respected" even in view of the rich ornaments found around him. The authors calmly conclude that the Suontaka grave can be "seen as proof (sic) that non-binarity was highly valued and made visible" in 10th-century Scandinavia.
All doubt has miraculously disappeared. Of course, we have previously multiplied the conditionals and the "counterpoints", but obviously purely formal, because we then reason as if they did not exist. To the point of evacuating the historical context: the medieval Scandinavian cultures seem to have been anything but queer-friendly. A contemporary collection of laws16 cites "effeminate" ("ragr") among the three insults that are worth an immediate duel. Better, if the offended party does not respond to the insult, the proof of his lack of virility is considered done: he is immediately banished and everyone is free to kill him.
But what does it matter? The main thing is that the thesis of "ancient LGBT-friendly cultures" has been "proven by science". The international left-wing press immediately seized on the news: the NPR, The Guardian…surprisingly, even the otherwise conservative Figaro falls for it. The craze is, however, much less strong than for Birka. This is because Niel Price stole the show from the authors, by announcing to the media a year earlier the existence of non-binary Vikings, on the sole basis of... his intimate conviction17. Competition is tough among researchers. woke : fabricating is not enough, you also need to have sufficient academic qualifications for journalists to be interested in you.
The authors will still have the opportunity to do some LGBT+ propaganda among minors: two of them will be solicited by an American educational newspaper. Written for elementary school students, their popularization article takes a step-by-step look at Suontaka's "discovery" in a pretty, colorful infographic: it's a pretext for teaching children to "indicate their pronouns" and become "an ally of non-binary people."
The existence of a "respected" non-binary Viking warrior clearly shows that sexual identity is not natural but a "social norm", a "stereotype" to be abolished. "This is true today as in the past", the authors conclude! Sumptuous irony, when we have just caught them making History lie to justify the ideologies of the present.
(Mikhail Kostylev is Guillaume Pronesti's post-Soviet, talkative false nose)
