See subject. Just a bunch of bones. Even I know that the hips are dead giveaways.
I’m trying to think what else skeletally separates the sexes at first glance. Second glances too, of course. And naturally these change over growth curve. But just wondering.
My training is very basic and abbreviated. First thing to look at is the birth canal on the pelvis. Female is usually big and round while that on the male is smaller and heart-shaped. But this is not always the case. The next is the skull (which I think is the best way but needs practice and experience.)
A male skull has thicker brows and sagittal ridges compared with a female skull. The female brain case looks rounder and smoother. The male looks like it was designed to get knocked about more often.
The underside of the lower jaw: the male is a continuous curving line. That of the female has a flattening right at the chin where more tissues collect. That’s why women have soft chins.
In my my opinion, an experienced forensics man should be able to determine the gender with the above givens. No lawyer argument when comparing the bones of a sturdily built female with those of a very effeminate male.
The OP seems, almost, to be trying to ask something like:
“Can a male and female skeleton be distinguished if all the bones that have a different structure between males and females were removed?” ::insert-suitable-emoticon-here::
The answer just might be Yes. You could get DNA samples from bones, n’est-ce pas? And you could distinguish male vs. female that way, couldn’t you?
I also thought that but if you think about it, no two bones are alike, if you exclude paired ones.
Here’s another relevant remark that I just spotted in another nearby current thread:
I read it more charitably as “What bones have different structures between males and females, aside from hips which I already know about?”
To which two answers has been “skulls (braincase, eyes, and jaw)” and “head of femur”.
Are there more? Can, say, ribs or humeruseses be reliably distinguished?
Male vertebrae are broader, but just looking at a vertebra wouldn’t tell you anything in a vacuum. Male bones are also more dense and have a higher Young’s modulus*, but again this is a relative measure.
*resistance to snapping, basically.
Sure, just count the ribs.
Is it possible to tell male vs. female bones apart in the skeletons of pre-pubescent children?
I assume this has to do with the angle the thigh-bone meets the pelvis? Wider pelvis, different joint?
Just watch any episode of *Bones *and you’ll get a half a dozen ways to tell sex, age, and ethnicity. I don’t know if they’re for real or not, but they sound good.
As I understand it from past reading, the two ranges of established measurements and possibly distinguishable features are overlapping sets. So you could never be 100% sure as you may be investigating an outlier.
Elbows differ (which is why men’s shirts never button up the rear). I don’t know the responsible bone structure, though.
“Sex Determination in Skeletal Remains”, Simon Mays and Margaret Cox.
(Search was “archaeology osteology sexual dimorphism”.)
Yeah, they talk a good talk, but I’ve noticed whenever they date the remains (“This guys been out here for six days.”), they’re almost always waaaaaay over-estimating. I understand this is because they don’t want to show the gross, bloaty, fly-blown, purpling carcass before it’s skeletonized, and there are instances where remains are skeletonized in hours as opposed to weeks, but it’s Every! Damn! Time!
We used to have a pathologist post here, and she was awesome, but I haven’t seen her in a while.
The skeleton with a “Boner” belongs to a dude. 
This is the “carrying angle”. It helps a female’s hands clear her wider pelvic girdle (as when carrying buckets, palms forward). Still begs the question of why people are evolved to carry buckets…:dubious:
The larynx is different in mature males and females. Most of the larynx will decompose, but there is often some calcification and sometimes ossification as we get older. The hyoid may be different as well, i’m not sure.
The ratio of index finger length and ring finger length is an index of masculinization/femininization (did I add extra syllables there?). But that’s a spectrum, and some females have the masculine pattern, and vice-versa.
Also, despite what they show on *Bones *(and I do like the show), I’m not confident that you could reliably reconstruct the fingers from a grab-bag of phalanges (that is, if all you had was a partial, disarticulated skeleton).