DNA mixtures are frequently encountered in forensic casework especially in cases of sexual assault. When evidence is recovered, the sample may have come from multiple contributors in different proportions. The first part of this study examines the fidelity of contributor proportions by using the residual to analyze known mixture samples. The coefficient of determination between the expected and observed proportions was also determined and used to assess the fidelity of mixture proportions. The second part of this study involved separating major and minor contributors in a mixture by characterizing the observed proportions. Results for the 2-person mixture show that as the mass of amplified DNA decreases, the number of allele dropouts increases. Furthermore, as mass decreases, the level of variation between the expected and observed proportions increases, as determined by the residuals and the coefficients of determination. In addition, as mixture proportions become more disparate the amount of variations between the expected and observed proportions are not as great as the mass. For the 3-person mixtures, as mass decreases, the residuals increase. Also, when the coefficient of determination of the 3-person mixtures were compared to those obtained with the 2-person mixtures, it was determined that the R2 were larger for the former. This was a result of higher total amplification masses. In mixture 1:2/2:1, major and minor proportions are not distinguishable In mixture 1:4/4:1, major and minor proportions can be distinguished at 1 ng. In mixture 1:9/9:1, proportions are distinguishable at 1, and 0.5 ng. Mixtures could not be distinguished at the 0.25 ng level, despite proportion and is the result of the increase in variation with decreasing mass.

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.