Any pathologists here? Using correct sex in post mortem or autopsy

[Whineandcheese]

I have been wondering recently what happens when a person who self-identifies as the opposite sex dies and a post mortem or autopsy is required. Are they identified as their biological sex in the report? And what if they have had surgery? Can anyone enlighten me?

Evidence in relation to what?
The RCPath guidelines currently do not appear to address recording gender identity as well as or instead of biological sex. From that it would be reasonable to work on the basis that they will carry on with recording bio sex.

The first link suggests the college have been thinking about what to do for several years in general terms. Presumably they're hoping it goes away.

Coroner's inquests take evidence from various sources. The post mortem feeds into that.

Surely if it's a dead body and the coroner is an expert in anatomy, and might even need to actually see inside the person's body; they won't have any doubt over what sex the dead body is?

I don't believe a corpse can be 'non binary'.

In the UK pathologists do post mortems, not coroners. It's not Quincey. Pathologist ≠ coroner
"Q What qualifications do coroners have?
A Since 2013 newly appointed coroners must have the five year judicial eligibility
qualification (like all judges) which requires five years of legal practice or part-time judicial practice. Coroners appointed before 2013 could be lawyers or doctors; a few
are both."
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/faqs-cc.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi3lPiIn9mSAxWwXUEAHRVbLNsQFnoECAgQBQ&usg=AOvVaw3bxJC1NEzRpWTHOEqPUzLR

"If a post-mortem is needed

The coroner may decide a post-mortem is needed to find out how the person died. This can be done either in a hospital or mortuary.

A post mortem might take place even if a coroner decides not to investigate the death.

You cannot object to a coroner’s post-mortem - but if you’ve asked the coroner must tell you (and the person’s GP) when and where the examination will take place."
https://www.gov.uk/after-a-death/when-a-death-is-reported-to-a-coroner

Sorry yeah pathologist was what I meant. I mean both should know what sex someone is though.

Evidence needed to record the sex of the deceased, as mentioned in the guidelines posted and quoted from by ArabellaScott in the first two responses on this thread.

I'm not a pathologist so really can't comment on how much surgery +/- medication for what number of years plus the baseline of that individuals "masculine/feminine" appearance it would take for an experienced pathologist not to quickly observe the biological sex of the deceased.
It doesn't appear that the RCPath have advised pathologists to do anything other than accurately record the biological sex of the deceased (unless someone has found otherwise) so can't see any reason for them not to do so.
Whether a coroner chooses to follow their guidance (which is completely separate to pathologists and RCPath guidelines and a post mortem report) and write an inquest outcome containing social aspects of gender identity instead of or as well as biological sex appears to be up to the coroner.

The deceased’s gender identity could be relevant to the manner of their death, just as their religious or political affiliation could be relevant.

Each case must of course be dealt with on its specific facts.

Followed by a list of reasons for ignoring the only possible fact which is that the body will be either male or female.

I was under the impression that it's not expressly required to specify sex in all cases because sometimes, there just isn't enough material with which to ascertain this - such as when finding fragments of ancient/historic remains - or when there may be more than one individual. So not really about hurting the feelings of a dead person/avoiding that, but about having to be able to say 'We cannot say beyond a doubt, but this is the most likely/we just can't tell on examination'. Certainly better than the cases where it has been assumed remains are male or female and later found to be wrong.

The point that this necessary ambiguity that has to be allowed, but has subsequently been used for different purposes is a separate matter.

Coroner's report: "This woman died of prostate cancer..."

Are all the PPs saying it doesn't matter ok with that?

it also matters when determining cause of death - you automatically think of Silent Witness forensic PMs but in real life many PMs would be if the cause of death wasn't known, or in specific circumstances (can't recall the fine details but I think having a fall, admitted to hospital then dies quickly is one of them). Does the pathologist need to look for a uterus and pregnancy or post-partum complications? A coroner's PM is often pretty basic - quick rummage, find a CoD & zip you back up. Given the number of maternity care scandals having accurate sexing of the deceased and proper PMs as appropriate to sex is important.
Ditto cases of death by suicide (much commoner in males, putting a TIM down as a female or TIF as male will skew statistics) or homicide. Plus the possibility of death related to complications of genital surgery or cosmetic breast surgery.

🤣😂🤣

There isn’t enough “evidence” on a dead body to ascertain whether it’s male or female?
What medical schools are churning out these utter fucking muppets?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
My posts have been trying to differentiate between the pathologist doing an pm and a coroner running an inquest.

If you read my posts and the links, you’ll see that the majority of coroners have a legal not medical background. That guidance is for coroners. I’m not saying it’s right.
The RCPath doesn’t appear to have published any autopsy guidance suggesting pms record anything other than bio sex.

I should have quoted Sadcafe.

"whether ‘non-binary’ is an acceptable category of ‘sex’ on the register of deaths has not been considered by the courts."

However, the courts have considered whether nonbinary is a legally recognised category for living people and decided it is not. While the law may frequently be an ass, it is surely not so resolutely asinine that it would allow a gender category for the dead that it denied them while alive.

Ones that can't tell from a fossilised finger bone, fragment of skull or pool of gloop from multiple victims whether they had a uterus, penis or not?

I wouldn’t put it past them. The lawmakers have been sufficiently asinine as to create asinine law allowing people to falsify their documentation and supporting public and private deception. Though only in ways that do not inconvenience male people, of course.

Just to throw some numbers into the mix, I'd say that 99.9% of average adult humans could identify correctly the sex of the body of any average adult human 99.9% of the time . That's with zero medical training and just the judicious use of 18+ years of living in the real world.

When you are arguing with idiots, it sometimes helps to invert the assertion(s).

Of much more relevance here is how many times in the (say) past 26 years - no fuck it - 126 years has there ever been a recording case where a pathologist has been found to have incorrectly identified the sex of the deceased ?

A question so easy, it was designed for ....

I often wonder how other countries might react if they did not agree with such practices ?

I mean regardless of what your own idiot government may think, what happens when a old stylee man ponces into a regime that is not as enlightened as the UK and that flatly refuses to countenance sex changes ? And if that regime then chooses not to accept UK passports as it can't trust them ? Probably more of a legal question, I guess.