Skeletons can’t be infallibly sexed because sexual characteristics aren’t binary, including the shape of the skeleton. They are usually gendered using multiple clues
I just sort of expected all demonstration skeletons to be super typically male, because some male with a tophat as big as his sexism came up with it in the 1800s. Generally, my pessimistic assumptions about this end up true.
But yeah, I realize in my pessimism I overshot into the wrong direction.
My secondary school had a demonstration skeleton, but it was the skeleton of a real person who donated their body to science.
The teachers had given them a male name, despite the skeleton being female. Apparently kids just expected skeletons to be male for some reason, and explaining the difference every time was annoying to teachers.
I didn’t have the brain capacity to realize that it might have been kinda messed up towards the real person that skeleton belonged to, but now that I think back on it… yeah, there’s problems with that.
Edit: The context here is a stupid gotcha by transphobes, and how it isn’t even correct. Keep in mind in the future when they find our bones that our current society is very mobile and global. I don’t exactly live in the same place as the rest of my family, so they will only have random assorted skeletons from people from lots of different places to compare to and will therefore have reduced accuracy when guessing my natal sex.
Wow, thanks for sharing. I was definitely under the impression that skeletons could be identified with at least a reasonable amount of certainty. (Though maybe what I thought I knew was that women who had children could be identified?)
Skeletons can’t be infallibly sexed because sexual characteristics aren’t binary, including the shape of the skeleton. They are usually gendered using multiple clues
Incorrect.
I’ve sexed so many skeletons over the years and it’s never felt wrong before. 😏
Can confirm. I watched.
I just sort of expected all demonstration skeletons to be super typically male, because some male with a tophat as big as his sexism came up with it in the 1800s. Generally, my pessimistic assumptions about this end up true.
But yeah, I realize in my pessimism I overshot into the wrong direction.
Dang you just unlocked a confusing memory.
My secondary school had a demonstration skeleton, but it was the skeleton of a real person who donated their body to science.
The teachers had given them a male name, despite the skeleton being female. Apparently kids just expected skeletons to be male for some reason, and explaining the difference every time was annoying to teachers.
I didn’t have the brain capacity to realize that it might have been kinda messed up towards the real person that skeleton belonged to, but now that I think back on it… yeah, there’s problems with that.
Removed by mod
in one instance, sure? that can’t be generalized to all populations, nor does it account for intersex individuals
https://forensicsdigest.com/scope-of-forensic-anthropology-estimation-of-gender-from-human-skeletal-remains/
Edit: This one is way more relevant https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2015/908535
Edit: The context here is a stupid gotcha by transphobes, and how it isn’t even correct. Keep in mind in the future when they find our bones that our current society is very mobile and global. I don’t exactly live in the same place as the rest of my family, so they will only have random assorted skeletons from people from lots of different places to compare to and will therefore have reduced accuracy when guessing my natal sex.
Wow, thanks for sharing. I was definitely under the impression that skeletons could be identified with at least a reasonable amount of certainty. (Though maybe what I thought I knew was that women who had children could be identified?)
Either way, I appreciate the links!
They had those supernarrow Balkan pelvises, though.
Balkan men are like Shakira: their hips don’t lie.