What is the purpose of "gender studies"? Judging by what its proponents write, one might well ask. Their output oscillates between minority ego trips ("a lesbian's and a queer woman's initiatory quest in heterosexual territory"), little grooming manuals ("how to 'queer' classrooms"), and sometimes outright absurdities ("a 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”
Woke activists aim to deconstruct the traditional values of Western societies. To do this, the most effective approach is to prove that these values are precisely neither "traditional" nor "natural": the arguments of conservatives would then lose all meaning. To demonstrate this, activists seek out counter-examples of feminist and LGBT-friendly societies.
Unfortunately for them… they don't exist. The vast majority of past and/or non-Western societies seem to have been firmly "patriarchal": women's political inferiority, homosexuality sometimes timidly tolerated but generally taboo, and "gender fluidity" most often limited to cross-dressing and linked to ceremonial practices. The theory is therefore seriously flawed.
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, which are by definition poorly understood, nothing is easier than inventing the falsehoods necessary for current political action. A fictitious "equality of sexualities" is thus invoked in ancient China or ancient Rome to justify same-sex marriage. To support trans activism, all known ancient cross-dressing figures are anachronistically claimed as "trans" or "non-binary": Native American berdaches, Finnish shamans, sacred hijra prostitutes… even when their descendants protest . To win, anything goes—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 veritable departments, the famous "Studies" (Black Studies, Gender Studies, LGBT+ Studies, etc.). After 2010, bolstered by media support, they turned the fabrication of politically motivated myths into a veritable industry. A prime example is that of the "queer Joan of Arc," invented by the "gender historian" Clovis Maillet, herself gender-fluid . This figure is based on nothing... but what does it matter? Her "work," barely published, received overwhelming press coverage, inspired plays and activist manifestos, and justified the "Wok-ization" of the 2024 Olympic Games ... in short, a huge political gain for a tiny lie—with the added advantage of encroaching on the territory of conservatives and Catholics.
Around 1985, "Gender Archeology" emerged. A carbon copy of "Gender Studies," it reproduced its rhetoric almost verbatim: "archaeology is political," "objectivity is a myth," therefore I have the right to pass off my activism as science. [2] . The first "gender archaeologists" were primarily intersectional feminists, quickly joined by LGBT+ activists: thus, two currents arose, "feminist archaeology" and "transgender/queer archaeology."
Extremely radical, "queer archaeology" is scientific in name only. Its stated goal is to "force [society] to recognize the fluidity and contextual nature of human identity" [3] The fact that there is no proof of this doesn't bother them: our activists will resort to the usual woke techniques for bringing the humanities to heel. On the one hand, they will silence colleagues who dare to point out the facts: in March 2020, a Canadian anthropologist was dismissed for stating that "there are only two genders." On the other hand, they will invent "proof" of the contrary, using increasingly 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 Greece [4] . 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 Norse mythology and a few isolated historical sources had hinted at their existence. Their publication received worldwide media attention: it was picked up by more than 130 news agencies, inspired four documentaries and a children's book … "Wonder Woman [really] existed," the Washington Post even went so far as to write.
Several archaeologists, however, deemed the article sensationalist and questioned its conclusions. A woman buried like a warrior is not necessarily one, one researcher pointed out . The skeleton of the deceased, who died in her thirties, showed no signs of having fought. Another archaeologist noted that the grave was dug in the 19th century using primitive methods: the bones were then arranged with such carelessness that three femurs were found in the bag containing them. Evidence also suggests the presence of a male body next to the woman, a warrior of whom she was only the wife. [7] . But the authors have clearly favoured the "powerful woman" thesis, even if it means multiplying unfounded claims: 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 one knows that Neil Price, the article's lead author, is regularly accused of them [8] , and that some co-authors are well-known proponents of "feminist archaeology." But to each their own: they will immediately be attacked by "queer archaeologists." "Viking woman," but why not "transgender or non-binary Viking"? A controversy will quickly erupt between academics from both sides, supported by their respective communities on social media. The real objections, although sometimes mentioned in newspapers , will be relegated to the background.
To understand the futility of the controversy, one must know that no two Scandinavian graves are alike, to the point that any classification is impossible [9] . There is therefore no “Viking burial rite” from which a general rule can be drawn. Even the presence of a sword proves nothing: they are sometimes found on the skeletons of old men and children incapable of bearing arms [10] . Better still, Bj 581 may not even be a "Viking grave" at all: Birka was a trading center and transit point, the grave exhibits Eastern European cultural traits, from which the deceased would have come according to the article's own analyses.
To reach a conclusion under these circumstances is madness: but both "queer" and "feminist" groups want historical proof for their cause. Soon enough, however, the "queer archaeologists" will lose the upper hand. The image of the "Viking warrior," so prevalent in popular culture (video games, television series), fascinates the general public. Post-MeToo media outlets and institutions, obligated to demonstrate their support for women's rights, widely disseminate 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 one activist 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” then resort to bias, through curious trials of “misgendering bones.” What if the deceased from Birka, after all, was a woman and non-binary? Nothing confirms it… but since it cannot be ruled out, it must be mentioned, otherwise she might be “discriminated against”! “By insisting on [her] female identity, we are actively erasing her potential transgender identity,” laments a Canadian activist-researcher, “because of the current media obsession with powerful women” [11] . Others call for the sex of the bones found to no longer be mentioned, or for it to be reduced to an "osteological sex" [12] Adams, DM, Blatt, SH, Flaherty, TM, Haug, JD, Isa, MI, Michael, AR, & Smith, AC (2023). "
This absurd concern about not "offending" people who have been dead for centuries barely conceals an attempt to artificially conjure up possible trans identities throughout the past. Sometimes, the ploy is so blatant it becomes comical. A Merovingian tomb turns out to be empty? This provides the opportunity for fifteen pages of ideological platitudes about this non-binary person that could have been found [13] Queer archaeology is more dishonest than feminist archaeology … but only by a 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 the authors published a second article in 2019 to "respond to the controversy," they carefully avoided challenging their "queer" opponents. The criticisms focused on the few objectively dissenting archaeologists, whom they labeled "Pavlovian skeptics" (sic). And these criticisms were anything but scientific: regardless of whether the deceased was truly a warrior or not, "warriorhood is a gendered construct," and the presence of a sword was enough to assign it to her. Challenging this was "unbearable" because if it had been a man, no one would dare question his status as a fighter: some clearly "need" to "deconstruct her from existence." No comment.
Suontaka: a very curious “non-binary Viking”
Defeated, the "queer archaeologists" in turn set to work, and two years later discovered precisely what they were looking for: a non-binary Viking. Their article seems a poor copy of Birka's: the same interpretations taken as evidence and highly political conclusions, but here more shameless, and without even the concern for coherent reasoning.
Authored primarily by young doctoral and postdoctoral students, this article begins with a lengthy review of the concept of "gender." It emphasizes that medieval men were more "gender-fluid" than commonly believed, drawing on other activist "works" [14] ." The remains studied are those from a 10th-century grave in Suontaka, Finland, where both women's clothing and a sword were found near the skeleton.
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: this kind of self-checking model can be made to say anything, provided one chooses ad hoc assumptions, especially with such a small sample and such low quality. But since we have no way of verifying the data, so be it. Note that the possibility of contamination isn't even discussed, even though the tomb was violated and later Viking artifacts were found inside. The Scandinavian custom of throwing roasted and powdered old human bones near bodies [15] , is also not mentioned.
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 vanished. Conditional statements and counter-arguments were certainly used beforehand, but clearly for purely formal reasons, since they are then dismissed as if they didn't exist. To the point of ignoring the historical context: medieval Scandinavian cultures appear to have been anything but queer-friendly . A contemporary collection of laws [16] , lists "effeminate" ("ragr") among the three insults that warrant an immediate duel. Even worse, if the offended party fails to respond to the insult, his lack of virility is considered proven: he is immediately banished, and anyone is free to kill him.
But what does it matter? The essential point is that the thesis of "LGBT-friendly ancient cultures" has been "proven by science." The international left-wing press immediately seized upon the news: NPR , The Guardian … surprisingly, even the otherwise conservative Figaro fell for it. The enthusiasm, however, was far less intense than for Birka. This was because Neil Price had stolen the spotlight from the authors, announcing to the media a year earlier the existence of non-binary Vikings, based solely on… his personal conviction. [17] . Competition is fierce among woke researchers : fabricating isn't enough; you also need sufficient academic credentials to attract journalists' attention.
The authors will nonetheless have the opportunity to do some LGBT+ propaganda among minors: two of them will be approached by an American educational newspaper. Written for elementary school students, their popular science article retraces Suontaka's "discovery" step by step in a nice color infographic: it's a pretext for teaching children to "state 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)
