I'm happy to post dissenting comments that are supported with facts. The above-linked articles do support their assertion with facts from the exhumation of Pulaski's corpse, and DNA analysis.
The BBC article to which you link has this title: "Casimir Pulaski may have been woman or intersex, study says". Notice MAY HAVE. They do not sound convinced themselves. I took anthropology, and a gracile female-looking skeleton with a wide hip can belong to a 100% male.Years ago, we used to see all kinds of news stories about such-and-such a historical figure being possibly gay, and now we are seeing the same about being possibly transgender.
"I took anthropology"One course does not qualify anyone to comment authoritatively on a skeleton.
The Polonia Center recently made this statement about the conjectural and ideology-driven claim that Pulaski was intersex:http://poloniacenter.com/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/archive/PolEvDC7/20190416222903/
How do you know that the report was ideology driven? What I read was based on scientific analysis of a skeleton. That's science, not ideology.
The report plainly states that that the skeleton "may have" been female. That's ideology, not science.
Conjecture is not fact.
You changed the subject.
No I didn't.
Bieganski the Blog exists to further explore the themes of the book Bieganski the Brute Polak Stereotype, Its Role in Polish-Jewish Relations and American Popular Culture. These themes include the false and damaging stereotype of Poles as brutes who are uniquely hateful and responsible for atrocity, and this stereotype's use in distorting WW II history and all accounts of atrocity. This blog welcomes comments from readers that address those themes. Off-topic and anti-Semitic posts are likely to be deleted. Your comment is more likely to be posted if: Your comment includes a real first and last name.Your comment uses Standard English spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Your comment uses I-statements rather than You-statements. Your comment states a position based on facts, rather than on ad hominem material. Your comment includes readily verifiable factual material, rather than speculation that veers wildly away from established facts. T'he full meaning of your comment is clear to the comment moderator the first time he or she glances over it. You comment is less likely to be posted if:You do not include a first and last name.Your comment is not in Standard English, with enough errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar to make the comment's meaning difficult to discern.Your comment includes ad hominem statements, or You-statements. You have previously posted, or attempted to post, in an inappropriate manner. You keep repeating the same things over and over and over again.