Journal of Forensic Investigation
Download PDF
Review Article
Sex Estimation in the Forensic Anthropology Classroom: Some Students Wonder, Where do I fit?
Weitzel M1*, Cartales J1 and Cockrill L2
1Criminal Justice Science Division, Western Oregon University, USA
2Interdisciplinary Studies, Western Oregon University, USA
*Address for Correspondence:
Weitzel M, Criminal Justice Science Division, Western Oregon University,
USA; E-mail: weitzelm@wou.edu
Submission: 15 August, 2022
Accepted: 12 Septemer, 2022
Published: 15 Septemer, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Weitzel M, et al. This is an open access article
distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Forensic anthropology students learn to estimate the sex of an
individual from their skeletal remains, which is important in creating
a biological profile for the decedent. Traditional methods posit a
classification of very female, female, indeterminate, male, and very
male. The fact is that neither intersexuality nor gender identity have
been included as part of the practice is not lost on university students
who are increasingly emboldened to reveal their own identities. We
call upon forensic anthropologists to recognize non-binary sex and
transgender identities as part of best practices moving forward.
Keywords
Forensic Anthropology; Biological Profile; Sex Estimation; Gender;
Transgender; Non-binary
Introduction
Forensic anthropology is a popular academic discipline. During
the 2021-22 school years 123 students were enrolled in an introductory
forensic anthropology class at Western Oregon University (WOU),
reaching full capacity each semester. The course covers the
fundamental principles of the discipline, including the methods used
in creating a biological profile of the decedent. Along with age and
ancestry estimation, sex estimation is a hallmark procedure used in
the identification of human remains. The underlying assumption is
that biological sex in humans is binary and, although the traditional
methods produce results that lie along a continuum, the goal has
generally been to determine whether the skeletal features most closely
align with an individual that was male or female. Indeed, one forensic
anthropology textbook states that “For scientists, sex is a biological
fact, whereas gender is a socially ascribed and perceived identity” and
“We must remember that when a police officer asks for the ‘gender’
of a unknown decedent, it is not a question of how that individual
dressed, acted, or performed various roles in society, but rather a very
simple question of biological ‘male’ or ‘female’ [1]. Indeed, perceived
identity cannot always be taken into account when examining skeletal
remains. Presenting sex as one of two categories certainly simplifies
the dissemination of information, and expediency is important for
law enforcement. It’s much easier to look for a missing male or female
than it is for someone who was intersex or identified as gender-fluid,
gender non-conforming, agender, etc.
However, questions have increasingly surfaced in the classroom
such as: What if someone doesn’t identify as male or female? Why
don’t the methods speak to the 1.2 million people in the United States
that identify as non-binary [2]? Co-author Cockrill, a student at
WOU, wonders “would I be identified correctly given my transgender
status”? Currently, there is no reasonable answer. The American
Board of Forensic Anthropologists (ABFA) describes a forensic
anthropologist as someone who (in part) estimates an individual’s
biological sex (male or female) [3]. The leading organization of certified forensic anthropologists does not present a non-binary
option. Yet, in the 2021 ABFA Code of Ethics Section I, i) it is written
that forensic anthropologists must “respect the individual and
collective rights of others and not discriminate on the basis of age,
race, color, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity and/or expression, marital status, place of birth, physical or
mental disabilities, and/or professional standing” [4]. Is it possible
to respect one’s sex or gender identity yet not include them in the
investigative process? We argue that forensic anthropologists have a
moral and professional obligation to apply the scientific method to
sex estimations both accurately and honorably, but we are missing the
mark on both accounts.
Beyond John and Jane Doe:
Forensic anthropologists would benefit first by standardizing
definitions of sex and gender. In biology we know there are numerous
examples of animals that don’t exist as wholly male or wholly female.
Some animals, like the clownfish, may change from one sex to another.
Others, like slugs, have both male and female reproductive organs. In
humans, too, there is a lot more variation than we have been willing
to recognize in science and society at large. Anthropologist Agustín
Fuentes addresses the issue quite succinctly stating that of the 140
million babies born last year, 280,000 did not exhibit clear male or
female genitalia [5]. The ambiguity seen in external sex organs is just
one example of a multitude of developmental complexities involving
our chromosomes and hormones that blur the line between male
and female [6]. But for all of history’s scientific advancements there
never seemed to be an opportune time for embracing the wonders of
this particular phenomena. In the postcolonial U.S., at least, we have
done well to create a culture of secrecy surrounding intersexuality.
Thus, we’ve been duped into thinking that, in humans, binary sex,
like biological race, is something salient for the entirety of our species.Gender identity, a social construct, has its own set of problems but
at least we do better to accept that it exists. Forensic anthropology’s
sibling discipline, cultural anthropology, has helped to inform us of
the varying cultures that, through time, have recognized three or
more genders. Transgender, a term used to describe people whose gender identity doesn’t conform to birth-assigned sex [2], is just one
of many non-binary terms that have become part of the vernacular
in the U.S.
Forensic anthropologists must parse out the essence of the terms
sex and gender. Once we accept that neither sex nor gender uniformly
exist as binary, forensic anthropologists should work to update their
codes of ethics and improve best-practices. A new set of inclusive
techniques can then be introduced to the entire classroom, so every
student’s identity is understood to be part of the practice.
This isn’t Forensic Anthropology’s ‘First Rodeo’:
Forensic anthropologists are familiar with changing paradigms
predicated upon antiquated and false notions. The discipline has
been experiencing a rebirth regarding another important part of the
biological profile - biological affiliation or ancestry, formerly referred
to as race. It’s worth noting that the skeletal anatomy involved in sex
estimation is also population-specific, contingent on the individual’s
ancestry. When the principal author began teaching in 2005 there
were three categories of race in which skeletal features were generally
thought to be situated: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. While
most practitioners recognized the limitations of assigning typological
“race” using inaccurate and dehumanizing categories, it wasn’t until
recently that some of those forensic anthropologists started to question
this approach more formally and thoroughly through research. In
2019 the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (now
American Association of Biological Anthropologists) adopted
a Statement on Race and Racism that asserts “Humans are not
divided biologically into distinct continental types or racial genetic
clusters. Instead, the Western concept of race must be understood
as a classification system that emerged from, and in support of,
European colonialism, oppression, and discrimination” [7]. While
the practice of assigning a socially constructed race to skeletal features
persists, albeit using new and improved techniques, many still raise
the question as to whether these estimates are really helping to solve
missing person cases or serving to perpetuate fallacious concepts
of race [8]. Shouldn’t we be asking similar questions about sex and
gender?Sexual Maturity - Forensic Anthropology Grows Up:
To be clear, distinguishing male and female sex from adult skeletal
remains has always been considered estimation with varying levels of
accuracy in the methods and precision in the results. Estimating sex
of sub adults under 12 years of age or prior to puberty is not advisable.
Molecular methods are the most accurate in confirming the presence
or absence of the Y-chromosome but can be costly and prohibitive
depending on the condition of the bone(s), not to mention the
method presumes that chromosomes also correlate nicely to male or
female, which they may not. For individuals over the age of 18, the
most common approach is based on the visual observation of certain
morphological features. Bones of the pelvis, which are most closely
tied to reproduction, are considered the best indicators of sex but
bones of the skull and other skeletal elements are also used [9-16].
Features are scored as 1-5 with 1 exhibiting a typically female shape,
5 a typically male shape, and 3 an indeterminate shape. One might
describe an individual with a score of 2 as probable female and 4 as
probable male, but no one seems to know what 3 means other than it is neither typically male nor typically female. In The Descent of Man,
Darwin said “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does
knowledge” [17]. Perhaps forensic anthropologists have fallen prey to
this very condition, confidently assigning human remains as male or
female without considering sex outside of this binary. The methods
are reliable; they’re producing the same results as the original, but the
original might have been based on an a priori assumption.In the classroom, co-authors Weitzel and Cartales tell students
that gender is not something we can determine using skeletal remains
alone. But students quickly become aware that even when assessing
sex, results don’t always land neatly as male or female; features often
fall along a continuum, exhibiting some degree of phenotypic overlap
or ambiguity [18,19]. It’s that ambiguity that has conventionally been
ignored - until now.
There has been an uptick of research in forensic anthropology
aimed at readdressing sex and introducing gender [20-25]. There is
even a trans-led task force that focuses on locating and researching
cases of LGBTQ+ persons [26], especially those who may have
identified as transgender. Transgender individuals that have not
undergone any kind of physical transitioning will likely retain the
characteristics they were born with and will exhibit features that
may be classified as male or female regardless of their gender. But
what about intersex individuals?. Intersexual persons may not be
the majority, but they are equally human and should have an equal
chance of being identified. We need to start asking: What does
intersex skeletal anatomy look like? When features are scored as 3
or indeterminate does it mean the features themselves are neither
male nor female? Does it mean the individual was neither male nor
female? Or does it simply mean the method is unable to provide the
information we are looking for? Further questions arise when it comes
to transgender individuals who have sought to alter their appearance
to better reflect their gender. What do bones look like from someone
who undergoes gender-affirming surgery (GAS) or gender-affirming
hormone therapy (GAHT)? Some aspects of forensic anthropology
may evolve slower than others, but the discipline has always drawn
from interdisciplinary research in an effort to improve, which we
must continue to do in order to answer these questions.
Conclusion
All students taking forensic anthropology should be taught that
the criminal justice system is working to make sure they are part of
the human death investigation process.
Unfortunately, non-binary individuals do experience high rates
of violence but that shouldn’t be the sole reason for introspection
and scholarly growth [24,25]. Discrimination and marginalization
will likely continue to be a part of the death investigation process and
societies and their institutions must protect individuals from this. But
let us first ensure that the offender is not the very premise upon which
sex estimation rests.