For generations, forensic anthropologists have sorted human remains into two categories — male or female — as though the skeleton itself were a simple declaration. Researchers at Boston University now argue that this practice rests on a biological fiction, one that flattens the genuine complexity of human sex into a framework too narrow to hold it. The field is being asked not merely to update its methods, but to reckon with what it has long assumed to be settled truth.
Skeletal biologists urged to move beyond binary sex classifications
The skeleton tells a story, but it's not a simple one.
Mark
Why has forensic anthropology held onto the binary for so long, even as other fields have moved away from it?
Mimi
Partly inertia. The methods work well enough for most cases, and institutions are slow to change. But there's also something deeper—the binary feels natural, almost inevitable, when you're trained to see it that way from your first anatomy class. It's hard to question what you've been taught to see as objective fact.
Mark
But the source material says sex itself is more complex than just skeleton. So what are forensic anthropologists actually measuring?
Mimi
They're measuring skeletal traits that correlate with sex on average—pelvic width, bone density, skull shape. But correlation is not destiny. There's real overlap. A person with a wider pelvis might have been assigned female at birth but have testosterone levels that shaped their skeleton differently. The skeleton tells a story, but it's not a simple story.
Mark
If a skeleton doesn't fit the binary, what happens now? How does a forensic anthropologist handle that?
Mimi
Often they force it. They might note it as "ambiguous" or "indeterminate" and move on, or they pick the closest category and hope it's right. But that's a failure of the framework, not the skeleton. The skeleton is doing what it's supposed to do—showing variation. The anthropologist is the one struggling.
Mark
What would change if the field adopted these sex-expansive practices?
Mimi
Training would shift first. Students would learn to describe what they actually see—the range of traits—rather than sorting into categories. In forensic cases, that might mean saying "the skeletal features suggest this person may have had elevated androgens" rather than "this is a male skeleton." It's more precise and less likely to erase someone's actual identity.
Mark
Does this affect how families are notified of remains?
Mimi
Potentially, yes. If a family knows their loved one was transgender or intersex, and the skeleton is reported as the opposite sex, that's a second loss. Getting it right matters. And sometimes the skeleton itself might be the only evidence of something the family didn't know.
Le Pouls
- A foundational assumption of forensic anthropology — that skeletal remains can be reliably sorted into male or female — is being challenged as both scientifically incomplete and potentially harmful to marginalized individuals.
- Textbooks and training materials have long presented idealized, binary skeleton illustrations that erase the natural overlap and variation found across real human bodies, shaping how entire generations of practitioners think.
- For transgender, intersex, and gender-nonconforming individuals, binary skeletal classification can mean being misidentified or misgendered in death, compounding grief and complicating legal investigations.
- Boston University's Sean Tallman and colleagues are calling for concrete reforms: rethinking how sex is defined in research, expanding reference samples, and training practitioners to articulate variation rather than suppress it.
- The field is positioned at a turning point where better science and greater ethical accountability are converging — demanding not just new tools, but a transformed interpretive framework.
For generations, forensic anthropologists have sorted human remains into two categories — male or female — as though the skeleton itself were a simple declaration. Researchers at Boston University now argue that this practice rests on a biological fiction, one that flattens the genuine complexity of human sex into a framework too narrow to hold it. The field is being asked not merely to update its methods, but to reckon with what it has long assumed to be settled truth.
When a skeleton arrives in a forensic lab, the first question has long been: male or female? Measure the pelvis, assess the bones, examine the skull — then sort. The answer has been treated as obvious.
A new review from Boston University's Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine challenges that certainty. Led by associate professor Sean Tallman, the research team argues that skeletal biology has been built on a false premise. Biological sex — encompassing hormones, genetics, internal and external anatomy, and skeletal structure — does not resolve neatly into two categories. These elements exist on a spectrum, with significant overlap, and they do not always align.
The problem is embedded in how the discipline teaches. Textbooks routinely place a small, gracile "typical female" skeleton beside a larger, more robust "typical male," creating a visual impression of clean separation that does not reflect actual human variation. Students trained on these materials inherit an oversimplified picture of biology — one that forensic anthropology has been slow to correct, even as academic theory has increasingly acknowledged sex as a spectrum.
The consequences are not abstract. When remains do not conform to binary expectations, they risk being treated as anomalies rather than evidence of natural variation. For transgender, intersex, and gender-nonconforming individuals, misclassification in death can mean misidentification, delayed investigations, and compounded grief for families.
Tallman's team reviewed published literature, textbooks, and field practices, identifying patterns of language and methodology they describe as essentialist and queerphobic — not isolated errors, but structural features of the discipline. Their proposed remedies are concrete: redefine how sex is operationalized in research, broaden the reference samples used to establish skeletal baselines, and train future practitioners to recognize and communicate human variation rather than flatten it.
The analytical tools of skeletal biology are not the problem. The interpretive framework is. Forensic anthropologists are not simply sorting bones — they are making claims about human bodies and identities that carry real weight in courts, in investigations, and in the stories told about the dead.
When a skeleton arrives at a forensic anthropologist's lab, one of the first questions asked is simple: male or female? The answer has long been treated as straightforward. Measure the width of the pelvis. Look at the robustness of the long bones. Examine the shape of the skull. Sort the remains into one of two categories. Done.
But a new review from researchers at Boston University's Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine argues this approach is not just outdated—it's scientifically incomplete and potentially harmful. The team, led by associate professor Sean Tallman, contends that skeletal biologists have built their entire field on a false premise: that sex is binary, when in fact it is far more varied. A person's sex encompasses hormones, genetics, external anatomy, internal anatomy, and skeletal structure. These elements do not always align neatly into "male" or "female." They exist on a spectrum, with considerable overlap between categories.
The problem runs deep into how the discipline teaches and communicates. Textbooks and educational materials routinely present side-by-side images of a "typical" female skeleton—small, gracile, delicate—next to a "typical" male skeleton, larger and more robust. These illustrations create a false impression of clear separation. They do not show the actual range of human variation. They do not demonstrate how much overlap exists between people who identify as female, male, or intersex. A student who learns from these materials comes away with an oversimplified picture of human biology.
Forensic anthropology, the field that applies skeletal analysis to medico-legal investigations, has been particularly slow to reckon with this reality. While theoretical discussions in academia increasingly acknowledge that sex is a spectrum and gender is a social construct, the practical work of forensic anthropology remains locked into binary thinking. Tallman notes that the field "has yet to experience a feminist groundswell," and conversations about the biocultural dimensions of sex and gender have only recently begun to surface.
The researchers examined published articles, textbooks, and real-world practices in the field, documenting examples of language and methodology that they describe as sexist, queerphobic, and essentialist. These are not isolated incidents but patterns baked into how the discipline operates. When forensic anthropologists present their findings to courts, law enforcement, and families of the deceased, they are reinforcing these same binary assumptions. For marginalized groups—transgender individuals, intersex people, those whose bodies do not conform to stereotypical presentations—this can mean being misidentified, misgendered, or rendered invisible in death.
The stakes are real. A skeleton that does not fit neatly into the male or female category might be dismissed as an anomaly or an error, rather than recognized as evidence of human variation. In a forensic context, misidentification can delay investigations, complicate legal proceedings, and add pain to families already grieving.
Tallman and his colleagues argue that moving beyond the binary is not just an ethical imperative—it is better science. Sex-expansive practices, they write, "better reflect the science of human biocultural variation." They also affirm the lives and identities of LGBTQIA+ people, something the field has largely failed to do. The researchers outline concrete steps: rethinking how sex is operationalized in research, diversifying the reference samples used to establish baseline skeletal characteristics, and training the next generation of forensic anthropologists to recognize and articulate human variation rather than flatten it into categories.
The field stands at a crossroads. The tools and methods of skeletal analysis are not inherently flawed. But the interpretive framework—the assumption that two categories can contain all human variation—is. Changing that framework will require not just new techniques but a fundamental shift in how skeletal biologists understand their role. They are not simply sorting bones. They are making claims about human bodies, human identity, and human difference. Those claims carry weight.
Citations marquantes
While theoretical discussions increasingly recognize that sex is a spectrum and gender is a social construct, practical application and teaching remain rigidly fixed on a male/female binary.— Sean Tallman, associate professor of anatomy & neurobiology at Boston University
Sex-expansive practices better reflect the science of human biocultural variation while importantly affirming LGBTQIA+ livelihoods, which the field needs to embrace and prioritize.— Sean Tallman
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Phys.org ↗
Education