Transgender identification: gender and sex estimation in forensic casework
OA Version
Citation
Abstract
Societal knowledge about issues faced by transgender and gender-diverse individuals has increased; however, the field of forensic anthropology has struggled to keep abreast with ever-evolving perceptions of sex and gender. Specifically, forensic anthropology lacks a codified approach to identifying transgender decedents due to binary assigned sex estimation methods that lack a biocultural approach and divergent perspectives on the role of gender. Using an anonymous survey of forensic anthropologists (n=130), the present research explores the processes of biological profile deployment in forensic casework, along with current perspectives on sex and gender and associated methods, language, and reporting. Regarding the role of gender in casework, most (51.5%) believe identifying gender improves the odds of identification, and many (40.8%) would include such information in a forensic anthropological report, with 59.0% uncertain about testifying to gender. Additionally, 55.4% of respondents report that skeletal sex estimation does not represent a decedent’s gender, and most would cite signs of gender-affirming surgery (59.2%) or material evidence (47.7%) for use in reporting gender despite uncertainties about Daubert compliance (38.5%). Regarding terminology, respondents prefer “sex” (52.3%) or “biological sex” (34.6%) over other arguably more apt descriptors such as “assigned sex” (19.2%). While forensic anthropologists acknowledge the need for clarity in gender-inclusive definitions and mostly maintain that skeletal sex is not equivalent to gender, further studies for a truly biocultural forensic anthropology should focus on the role of sequential evidentiary unmasking and material evidence alongside assigned skeletal sex analyses.
Description
License
Attribution 4.0 International