[1] In 2016, a special issue of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory was dedicated to papers that challenged a binary approach to gender.
[3] Jan Turek, writing in 2016, described how archaeological interpretation can be limited since "current gender categories do not always correspond with those of a former reality".
[9] For figurines from coastal Ecuador, many of these objects combine both masculine and feminine attributes through either physical characteristics or dress.
[11] Alberti argues that any sexed differences are highly dependent on the socio-religious context of the figurines, rather than specifically gendered identities.
[7] Studies that support interpretations of gender fluidity include ones on pre-Columbian Maya burial practices,[7] multiple Hidatsa genders during the pre-Columbian era,[16] mortuary practices in Chumash communities,[17] communities during the Copper Age on the Black Sea coast in Bulgaria,[18] the excavation and interpretation of a 5,000-year-old person by the Czech Archaeological Society,[19] the reassessment of grave Bj.581 at Birka,[20] non-binary gender expression in Inuit cultures,[21] Roman Galli,[22][23] a 1,000-year-old person who likely had Klinefelter syndrome from Finland,[24] the life of Elagabalus,[25] prehistoric burials in Europe,[26] historical archaeology around the Engabao community in Ecuador,[27] material cultures in medieval England,[28][29] dress in eighteenth-century Ireland,[30] and many others.