After the advent of DNA testing, many anthropologists and archeologists were embarrassed because skeletal remains were missexed.
Even my A&P textbook had this garbage in it. It claimed racial difference in the skull and sex difference in the Hip bones. But it’s bullshit. The most reliable way to sex a skeleton is with DNA.
‘The Mismeasure of Man’ by Gould is a fascinating history of bio-determinism and psudoscientific attempt to measure it.
Archaeologist here, maybe it’s just new wave training but widely taught that it’s not an easy task to sex skeletons on morphology alone.
Sure some features appear more commonly amongst men and some more commonly amongst women, but there is considerable overlap.
Pelvis are generally identifiable, but the bio-archaeologists I know prefer to say the skeleton displays female characteristics without providing a definitive biological sex. They have to have some great evidence before claiming for certain.
Also fun fact, you can’t measure this morphology when there’s still skin and muscle fucking attached.
The show Bones had a lot of weirdness, but I did appreciate that they consistently (at least the first few seasons when I was watching) stripped the bones down and even had a bug guy on staff to do it efficiently.
The most reliable way to sex a skeleton is to be interested in what they’re interested in, and not say stuff like “ay, babey, you’d looked better with more meat on those bones!” Otherwise, just ride the vibe and see where the mood takes you.
After the advent of DNA testing, many anthropologists and archeologists were embarrassed because skeletal remains were missexed.
Even my A&P textbook had this garbage in it. It claimed racial difference in the skull and sex difference in the Hip bones. But it’s bullshit. The most reliable way to sex a skeleton is with DNA.
‘The Mismeasure of Man’ by Gould is a fascinating history of bio-determinism and psudoscientific attempt to measure it.
Archaeologist here, maybe it’s just new wave training but widely taught that it’s not an easy task to sex skeletons on morphology alone.
Sure some features appear more commonly amongst men and some more commonly amongst women, but there is considerable overlap.
Pelvis are generally identifiable, but the bio-archaeologists I know prefer to say the skeleton displays female characteristics without providing a definitive biological sex. They have to have some great evidence before claiming for certain.
Also fun fact, you can’t measure this morphology when there’s still skin and muscle fucking attached.
The show Bones had a lot of weirdness, but I did appreciate that they consistently (at least the first few seasons when I was watching) stripped the bones down and even had a bug guy on staff to do it efficiently.
What about sexing a pope?
Take them to dinner first and see if y’all click
Well, I guess you’d check under his skirt or whatever you call it.
Most anthropologists and archaeologists are too old for that.
Dig up their corpse. Put it on trial.
The most reliable way to sex a skeleton is to be interested in what they’re interested in, and not say stuff like “ay, babey, you’d looked better with more meat on those bones!” Otherwise, just ride the vibe and see where the mood takes you.