As trans people we are often told that “when archaeologists dig up your skeleton they will know your biological sex.” It may seem difficult or even impossible to refute this because what could be more unchangeable than our physical skeletons? Some of our closest great ape cousins, such as gorillas, have obvious sex differences in their bones, with males being visibly much larger and stronger than females. Could this be the same in humans? This view fuels opinions fronted by everyone from homophobes claiming that marriage is only between man and a woman to J.K Rowling’s ardent obsession with gamete size that enables gender policing in bathrooms. It seems obvious that sex has a great influence on human bones, and as the main biological material that preserves archaeologically, scientists must have developed foolproof techniques for determining sex of an individual!
While there are skeletal and genetic methods used by archaeologists that work in certain situations, the reality of biology is that it never exists in a simple binary as transphobes and the general right wing would like to have us believe. There are a huge amount of complications that make sex estimation difficult or frankly impossible. Archaeologists are well aware of these complications and it dictates so much of what information we feel confident in using to reconstruct the past. In the midst of so much anguish with increasing hatred towards queer and especially transgender people, it is becoming increasingly important to be able to dismantle the ways in which those who want to eradicate us, misrepresent or ignore the process of science to aid their own political goals.
In any basic archaeology course, students will be taught sex estimation through several bony features on the skull and pelvis that usually have some differences between the sexes. This method is useful and accurate in some contexts, but it also has flaws. While bones can reveal a significant amount of information about the lived experience of an individual, most aspects of their life will show no effect on the skeletal system and will therefore be unknown to us. This is the central doctrine of osteology, the study of human bones, and is drilled into the mind of every archaeologist. In practice, sex estimation can be conducted with relative confidence on individuals where these differences are more pronounced, but in most archaeological cases the situation is more complex, making the estimation less accurate or even impossible.
First, archaeological remains are almost always very fragmentary, and in many cases the areas on the skeleton examined in sex estimation do not survive. Skeletons buried with the pelvis facing up, which most are, often have the pubis bone crushed under the weight of the dirt over them, destroying the features used in sex estimation. In these situations, other less accurate methods may be employed such as analysing occupational markers, which are increased muscle attachments due to habitual actions in certain muscle groups. These can give an indication of the sex of the individual in cases where textual evidence gives us an idea of gender roles in the studied society. Even in these circumstances, experts working on archaeological remains can easily fall into the trap of projecting modern ideas of gender onto ancient societies. This is exemplified by Paleolithic females who were generally much more robust and larger than today, so non-pelvic bones could easily be mistaken for male under traditional methods. This projection of preconceived ideals onto past societies has had detrimental effects on how the past is perceived by professionals and ordinary people alike, which has inevitably bled into modern political discourse surrounding gender.
While the skeleton is often unable to yield a successful visual sex estimation, the study of DNA from archaeological skeletal remains seems more promising. The most basic understanding of how sex is determined genetically is that an XX chromosome pair develops into female and an XY pair develops into male. While this seems like a simple binary at first glance, one which transphobes love to claim supports their arguments, the reality is of course much more complex. The specific gene that initiates sex determination is controlled by the sex-determination region Y (SRY) found on the Y chromosome which switches on genes involved in testis formation and blocks those that form female reproductive structures. While this is correct under our current understanding of genetics and does work in some situations, nature throws in plenty of complications in the form of mutations.
One type of mutation known as Swyer syndrome knocks out this critical SRY gene, meaning that an individual with XY chromosomes would develop typically female. If an archaeological individual with this mutation had their DNA analysed, they would be sexed as male despite likely living their whole life as a cisgender female.
Another form of mutation that can affect how sex is expressed in the body involves abnormal numbers of chromosomes. A notable type is Klinefelter Syndrome (XXY chromosome configuration), which sees typical male development with some female sexual characteristics developing following puberty. A Mediaeval Portuguese individual, whose skeletal anatomy had caused confusion amongst archaeologists, has recently been identified as having an XXY chromosome configuration after their DNA was analysed.
There is a tendency to imagine these scientific concepts exist in a way that is simple for humans to understand. That seemingly unchanging and obvious ideas throughout history such as sex exist in that way with no nuance or exceptions. For the political aims of transphobes and general right-wing, the natural biological binary works perfectly in their goal of preserving the current cultural system. They can state that man and woman, XX and XY, is biological, and that is perfectly reflected in the skeleton based on oversimplified and outdated scientific methods. For transphobes, the status quo – the rigid gender roles of man and woman – is intrinsic. To reject the status quo would be to reject one’s own nature.
But unfortunately, biology is not concerned with making itself as efficient and simple as possible for the benefit of the human mind. Even without humans injecting our notions of cultural gender construction, sex is complex in ways we are only just beginning to understand and apply to many facets of science, including archaeology. As this nuance is understood more and more over the coming years, our reconstructions of the past will also be more complex, for both our understanding of societies in the past and for transgender people living today who are perhaps destined to be analysed by some future archaeologist.
