Biotechnical innovations in ancient DNA (aDNA) testing and proteomic methods that examine dental enamel have advanced the estimation of sex in past populations. Because these techniques effectively materialize chromosomal sex, bioarchaeologists use them to study recently excavated remains and revisit individuals whose bodies and burials have generated gender trouble in analyses. Archaeologists’ fascination with (or fetishization of) the latter is shared by non-specialist audiences, and both may label these decedents as “transgender,” “intersex,” and/or “non-binary.” Here I reflect on the ethical repercussions of such conclusions, well-intentioned though they may be. These queer concepts have emerged from more recent and politicized circumstances, which have little applicability, culturally or historically, to archaeological case studies. I argue that implementation of a material-discursive approach to biotechnical sex estimation can engender better understanding of the constitutive nature of socio-sexual lives (in the past and present), as well as the relationality between us and the ancient peoples we study. To do so can avoid the dissemination of misinformation about sex, gender, and sexuality in archaeological studies and news mediascapes.