Assyriology as a field of study has long been dominated by the ideas and values of the white, Western men who, during the 19th century, were responsible for the development and growth of all scientific research. This has resulted in a resilient androcentric bias in the discipline, which to this day continues to influence scholarly perceptions of Ancient Mesopotamian society - and particularly of Mesopotamian women. Amongst many other things this includes the application of modern, misogynistic prejudice regarding the female body onto Akkadian women; one such modern concept which, despite recent criticism, is still widely accepted as true, is the notion of ‘menstrual impurity’. By the implementation of standpoint theory - an epistemology which emphasises the influence of a scholar’s own experiences on their perception and interpretation of their field of study - this paper examines the translations of three Akkadian terms which have been used to support the alleged existence of the concept of menstrual impurity in Mesopotamia. The terms are reexamined through an analysis of their etymological and contextual semantics, the results of which are then used comparatively in order to determine the validity of their current translations. The results of this analysis reveal a thoroughly biassed and unscientific interpretation process, which perpetuates the androcentric perspective within the discipline and contributes to the spread of a false image of Ancient Mesopotamian women and their lives. Not only is it highly unlikely that any of the analysed terms actually signify menstruation, but the very notion of ‘impurity’, which is indeed a significant part of the words’ meaning, is interpreted in a modern, stereotypically negative sense that most certainly is not reflective of the Mesopotamian perception of the concept.

Students with disabilities experience differential levels of achievement in mathematics when compared with their nondisabled peers. Identifying and implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) is essential to increase their mathematics achievement. However, an argument is re-emerging that calls into question the effectiveness of well-known EBPs, such as explicit/direct instruction. However, the argument is based on opinion and conjecture, rather than student outcome measures. In this commentary, we use research on explicit and direct instruction with mathematics to (a) highlight the confusion over theoretical implications, (b) call for researchers to reduce personal bias within research, and (c) emphasize the need for improving outcomes of students with disabilities affecting mathematics learning.