The vast majority of people can identify other people's sex; so why the pretence that men are women?

And I’m not sure “animals” notice which sex we are as they’re not exactly high intelligence.

Do you own a dog? Many dogs know very clearly which sex other dogs and humans are.

Sure it does. In group markings were 100% visual, not scent. So, there’s your evidence that smell was not important.

With 100% accuracy? No we cannot. And I’m not sure “animals” notice which sex we are as they’re not exactly high intelligence. Even an average human often cannot tell a male from a female within most animal species. We have experts for that.

Irrelevant as during most of human history, any strange human was a danger. That’s why even the earliest prehistoric human groups adopted distinct in group markings so you could spot friend from foe at a distance. They certainly didn’t close their eyes and sniff for a whiff of manliness.

It's probably true we still instinctively or subconsciously are more wary of strangers, but that does not remotely mean that women are not also warier of males. (And clearly your certainty re what prehistoric women did with their noses has no basis in evidence)

@NewLightbulbs
Really? Then you should genuinely keep a log of them on here, with credible evidence, otherwise I am inclined to scepticism on on your claims.

Well, you can easily Google these reports if you like for verification.

Always. Please tell me you don’t still believe that sexist, long debunked by modern archaeologists that men were hunters/warriors and women were gatherers bollocks?

I think a major point, here, is this: why can't men, however they "identify", whatever they may feel about themselves - just stay out of women's single-sex spaces? Then start the 1000th thread on that subject.

Irrelevant as during most of human history, any strange human was a danger.

Load of old bollocks. When were strange women ever a danger?

Yes I know. I didn’t quote the OP, I quoted 3 other posters. HTH.

“Do you not think women being able to recognise men and vice versa might have an evolutionary advantage?” Irrelevant as during most of human history, any strange human was a danger. That’s why even the earliest prehistoric human groups adopted distinct in group markings so you could spot friend from foe at a distance. They certainly didn’t close their eyes and sniff for a whiff of manliness.

I think children deal with it best.

My teen ds came home telling me how TWAW etc. One of his teachers had clearly swallowed a political correctness pill.

So I showed him a picture of the American male swimmer who claims to be a woman just to get on the podium, and asked DS if the picture was of a man or a woman.

He immediately said 'a man'. He used his eyes and his own common sense to reach a conclusion. It took about half a second. 🙂

Both hinge on being 100% accurate at identifying all TW. That’s the commonality.

The existence of a false positive doesn't demonstrate there are any false negatives.

The OP was 'vast majority'. Not 100%. And I still think that's likely to be accurate.

Do you not think women being able to recognise men and vice versa might have an evolutionary advantage? For fairly obvious reasons.

Both hinge on being 100% accurate at identifying all TW. That’s the commonality.

You can’t always tell. No one is perfect. Not even you.

And I’m not denying that there are times you have correctly spotted a TW and then choose to say nothing. That happens. But equally, there are times you think you see a TW and are wrong.

I have demonstrated the statement that women can always tell the sex of another person (even if blind, just scratch and sniff ) is false. Always means every time, 100% perfection. Clearly we have fallen short of this. Every other month or so there’s a report of a natal woman confronted by someone mistaking her for a TW. If women could always tell, there would be zero incidents.

I have demonstrated that the premise that women can always tell a TW from a natal woman is false.

The case mentioned was that one women couldn't tell a woman wasn't a TW, which isn't the same thing as being able to tell that a TW isn't a woman.

Extrapolation usually involves a bit of logic and also saying “might be possible” or “may be able to” not brazen “women can always tell if a person is a man by their smell” and similar absolutist, proven as a fact type statements.

Like we have funding for anything not critical. We are a broke ass country. There’s no suppression, there’s prudent prioritisation of our limited resources.

@NewLightbulbs

Oh, I think I have shown that the premise that women can always tell the sex of a person is an exaggerated claim that cannot be true.

It’s not a question of certain women who can tell and certain women who cannot tell because they lack magic powers sensibilities. Although I think it amusing that every thing you snarkily say about me- “you yourself may lack women's sensitivity” is actually applying to GC member at large, Jeanna Hoch, as she is the person who after an extended period of face to face interaction with bodies pressed close together (well within sniffing distance) mistook a natal woman for a TW. She’s my illustrative example if you will that your belief simply cannot be true.

The claim that “women can always tell the sex of another person” and one poster added on that this is true even if the woman in question is blind! Is patently false. And doubling down on it is a bit extremist tbh. You’re supposed to be on the side of science and biology and yet the ridiculousness of insisting that women can sniff a male person vs a female person like we are bitches female bloodhounds seems to escape your notice.

I would like to suggest much of the smell differences from mens toilets vs womens toilets is not a good proxy for proving you can sniff the sex of a human being stood normal social distance from you (even if blind!).

The thing about experiments @Onnabugeisha is that you can typically extrapolate. If sex-specific hormones and pheromones are causing mood and attraction differences, it follows that we subconsciously detect sex-specific hormones and pheromones.

The other thing to note is that any remotely GC experiments lose funding or don't get through ethics. Neatly meaning that people can say, "there's no proof". Well there wouldn't be if you're suppressing scientific enquiry.

I'd like to see a lot of study, I welcome it, I hope it's done. The TRAs don't seem to share my enthusiasm for the bright spotlight of scientific enquiry.

“These results suggest that sex-steroidal compounds modulate mood, memory and autonomic nervous system responses and increase their significance within specific behavioral contexts. These findings lend support to a specific role for these compounds in chemical communication between humans.”

Another irrelevant and useless study. Who cares about hormones and moods? This has nothing to do with can women always tell the sex of another person.