Sean Tallman still remembers the textbook diagrams: a delicate, narrow-hipped skeleton labeled "female," standing beside a broad, rugged one marked "male"—as if every human body fits neatly into one of two molds. Now an associate professor of anatomy & neurobiology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Tallman is leading a growing call to dismantle that oversimplified binary in human skeletal biology. In a 2026 review published in the Annual Review of Anthropology, Tallman and his colleagues argue that the field’s rigid reliance on male/female sex estimation fails both science and society. For decades, forensic anthropologists have used skeletal features—especially the pelvis, skull, and long bones—to assign sex, often presenting it as a clear-cut determination. But human biology doesn’t conform to such neat categories. Hormones, genetics, anatomy, and lived identity all contribute to a far more complex reality, one that includes intersex, transgender, and nonbinary individuals whose bodies don’t align with traditional expectations.
The persistence of the binary isn’t just scientifically outdated—it has real-world consequences. In medico-legal contexts, misgendering remains can deepen trauma for families and misrepresent the identities of the deceased, particularly within LGBTQIA+ communities. Tallman points to the field’s textbooks and teaching materials, which routinely show only two skeletal “types,” ignoring the vast overlap in size and shape between people across the sex and gender spectrum. This narrow portrayal reinforces essentialist, often sexist and queerphobic assumptions, while excluding the biological diversity that modern science acknowledges. What’s more, the lack of a feminist or critical gender lens in forensic training has left the discipline lagging behind broader shifts in anthropology and medicine.
Yet change is possible. The researchers outline concrete steps toward sex-expansive practices: revising curricula to include intersex variation, developing statistical models that account for spectrum-based biology, and centering ethical responsibility in forensic reporting. Some labs are already experimenting with probabilistic sex assessments rather than binary declarations, acknowledging uncertainty and variation. These shifts aren’t just about political correctness—they reflect better science. By embracing the full scope of human biocultural diversity, skeletal biology can become more accurate, more inclusive, and more humane. As Tallman puts it, the goal isn’t to erase biological patterns, but to understand them with greater nuance and care. The skeleton, long seen as a silent witness to identity, may now help amplify voices that have long been marginalized—ushering in a future where science sees people as they truly are.