Identities, Experiences, and Beliefs: On Challenging Normativities in Biological Anthropology

Sex, gender, and sexuality in paleopathology: Select current developments and pathways forward

OBJECTIVE

Overall, paleopathology trails behind related fields in exploring sex, gender, and sexuality in past societies. Here, we interrogatively synthesize scholarship on topics not included in similar reviews, focusing on sex estimation methods, and considering the social determinants of health; trauma; reproduction and family; and childhood - to highlight novel, social epidemiology- and social theory-informed frameworks and interpretive devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Many paleopathological interpretations focus on sex-gender differences relative to health, with increasing use of intersectionality. Others consistently project present-day ideologies about sex, gender, and sexuality (e.g., binary sex-gender systems) into paleopathological interpretations (i.e., presentism).

SIGNIFICANCE

Paleopathologists have an ethical imperative to generate scholarship that contributes to social justice initiatives focused on dismantling structural inequalities, especially relative to sex, gender, and sexuality (e.g., homophobia), such as through denaturalizing presentist binary systems. They also have a responsibility towards greater inclusivity relative to researcher identity and diversification of method and theory.

LIMITATIONS

In addition to material limitations complicating reconstructions of sex, gender, and sexuality relative to health and disease in the past, this review wasn't comprehensive. The review was also limited by the relative paucity of paleopathological work on these topics.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The outlook for paleopathological research on sex, gender, and sexuality is, however, positive; paleopathology is well situated to tackle these aspects of social identity. Future work should consider critical, self-reflective movement away from presentism; more robust contextualization; and further engagement with social theory and social epidemiology theory and approaches, including the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD), social determinants of health, and intersectionality.

Challenging the binary: Gender/sex and the bio-logics of normalcy

BACKGROUND

We are witnessing renewed debates regarding definitions and boundaries of human gender/sex, where lines of genetics, gonadal hormones, and secondary sex characteristics are drawn to defend strict binary categorizations, with attendant implications for the acceptability and limits of gender identity and diversity.

AIMS

Many argue for the need to recognize the entanglement of gender/sex in humans and the myriad ways that gender experience becomes biology; translating this theory into practice in human biology research is essential. Biological anthropology is well poised to contribute to these societal conversations and debates. To do this effectively, a reconsideration of our own conceptions of gender/sex, gender identity, and sexuality is necessary.

METHODS

In this article, we discuss biological variation associated with gender/sex and propose ways forward to ensure we are engaging with gender/sex diversity. We base our analysis in the concept of "biological normalcy," which allows consideration of the relationships between statistical distributions and normative views. We address the problematic reliance on binary categories, the utilization of group means to represent typical biologies, and document ways in which binary norms reinforce stigma and inequality regarding gender/sex, gender identity, and sexuality.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We conclude with guidelines and methodological suggestions for how to engage gender/sex and gender identity in research. Our goal is to contribute a framework that all human biologists can use, not just those who work with gender or sexually diverse populations. We hope that in bringing this perspective to bear in human biology, that novel ideas and applications will emerge from within our own discipline.

Uncloaking a Lost Cause: Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States

Since the professionalization of US‐based forensic anthropology in the 1970s, ancestry estimation has been included as a standard part of the biological profile, because practitioners have assumed it necessary to achieve identifications in medicolegal contexts. Simultaneously, forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the racist context of the criminal justice system in the United States related to the treatment of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; nor have we considered that ancestry estimation might actually hinder identification efforts because of entrenched racial biases. Despite ongoing criticisms from mainstream biological anthropology that ancestry estimation perpetuates race science, forensic anthropologists have continued the practice. Recent years have seen the prolific development of retooled typological approaches with 21st century statistical prowess to include methods for estimating ancestry from cranial morphoscopic traits, despite no evidence that these traits reflect microevolutionary processes or are suitable genetic proxies for population structure; and such approaches have failed to critically evaluate the societal consequences for perpetuating the biological race concept. Around the country, these methods are enculturated in every aspect of the discipline ranging from university classrooms, to the board‐certification examination marking the culmination of training, to standard operating procedures adopted by forensic anthropology laboratories. Here, we use critical race theory to interrogate the approaches utilized to estimate ancestry to include a critique of the continued use of morphoscopic traits, and we assert that the practice of ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy. Based on the lack of scientific support that these traits reflect evolutionary history, and the inability to disentangle skeletal‐based ancestry estimates from supporting the biological validity of race, we urge all forensic anthropologists to abolish the practice of ancestry estimation.

"[This] system was not made for [you]:" A case for decolonial Scientia

BACKGROUND

Sylvia Wynter's "recoded" form of science called decolonial Scientia (DS) is grounded in an understanding of humans as simultaneously biological and cultural. DS includes narrative interventions that destabilize Western scientific authority, and address limitations that empirical data collection and analysis place on capturing simultaneous realities. Therefore, Wynter's narrative "languaging" is both scientific critique and grounded in a tradition of Black radical imagining.

AIMS

In this article, I use languaging to destabilize the canonical narrative tied to W. M. Cobb's production of the article "Race and Runners." The standard telling focuses on Cobb's examination of Owens' lower extremities to expose the fallacy of racial differences in athletic ability. Destabilization of the narrative allows for identifying relational complexities between actors involved in the canonical story - and identifying ideologies embedded within it that guide our deconstructions of biological race. My alter(ed)native subjectivity informs my use of languaging to argue that the relationship between narrative and research practices belie Western scientific/unscientific binaries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Audiovisual and documentary sources of the public-facing "Race and Runners" story were subject to comparative analysis to verify the content and order of events in the canonical narrative. Letters focused on race and athletic ability obtained from the W. Montague Cobb Manuscript Collection at Howard University serve as "apocryphal" sources of information. Correspondence between Cobb and a representative member of the public named Howard Duncan took place within a period immediately before, during and after Cobb publishes "Race and Runners" in the Journal of Health and Physical Education. Contents were subject to a systematic analysis that involved reviewing documents to identify statements reflecting scientific practices, human interactions and relationships between race and athletic ability reflected in the canonical narrative. Contents were also examined for statements relevant to the narrative that departed from or added to the canonical story in the same three areas. Details regarding departures and additions were recorded along with the specific part of the narrative to which they corresponded. Narrative departures and additions were articulated with the canonical narrative in the interest of destabilizing it to identify "knots of ideas, histories and narratives that, contrary to Western science, can only be legible in relation to one another" (McKittrick, 2015b p. 2).

RESULTS

Letters exchanged between Cobb and Duncan reveal dynamics that are obscured in the canonical storyline. For instance, Duncan's ability as a white male to assert himself as Cobb's peer demonstrates how racialized power is enacted through science. This is also reflected in Owens' position in the narrative as a voiceless object of knowledge. Letters also present Cobb's identity beyond being a "pioneer," rendering how he is studying and experiencing racism. This includes how he refuses to engage Duncan as a peer.

DISCUSSION

More than mere stories, narratives are motivating and instructive forces that shape how we study human biology and use our research to oppose biological notions of race. Correspondence between Cobb and Duncan reveals how Western scientific ideologies that reinforce prescribed roles and boundaries are embedded in narratives. These ideologies can limit the transformative potential of our approaches to contesting biological notions of race.

Soylent Is People, and WEIRD Is White: Biological Anthropology, Whiteness, and the Limits of the WEIRD

WEIRD populations, or those categorized as Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, are sampled in the majority of quantitative human subjects research. Although this oversampling is criticized in some corners of social science research, it is not always clear what we are critiquing. In this article, we make three interventions into the WEIRD concept and its common usage. First, we seek to better operationalize the terms within WEIRD to avoid erasing people with varying identities who also live within WEIRD contexts. Second, we name whiteness as the factor that most strongly unites WEIRD research and researchers yet typically goes unacknowledged. We show how reflexivity is a tool that can help social scientists better understand the effects of whiteness within the scientific enterprise. Third, we look at the positionality of biological anthropology, as not cultural anthropology and not psychology, and how that offers both promise and pitfalls to the study of human variation. We offer other perspectives on what constitutes worthy and rigorous biological anthropology research that does not always prioritize replicability and statistical power, but rather emphasizes the full spectrum of the human experience. From here, we offer several ways forward to produce more inclusive human subjects research, particularly around existing methodologies such as grounded theory, Indigenous methodologies, and participatory action research, and call on biological anthropology to contribute to our understanding of whiteness.