Can't believe I'm writing this, but disappointed in JK today

GIven the multiple skeletal, voice, and other bodily differences between the sexes, I doubt that there's many of those, if any.

Women's instincts to detect men are safety-critical and have been selected for for good reasons.

You can only know for sure of the ones you spotted.

FFS my cat can tell a man from a woman. Dogs can tell. It's not hard.

I've met several people, mostly men, who were trying to look like the opposite sex. The most convincing ones foxed me for almost a minute, and they grabbed my attention on sight and kept it until I'd figured it out why something about them felt "off". You might read up on something called the "uncanny valley", which explains why that "off" feeling happens.

I think a lot of trans people make themselves and each other feel more secure by believing that they totally pass, completely unclockable. I don't believe that they are right, I think they just don't know how many times the people around them say nothing to be polite or avoid being the target of a trantrum.

I think that lots of women on this forum are making themselves feel more secure by believing that they can reliably tell the sex of every single person that they meet.

I don't believe they're right, I think they just don't know the ones they've met where they don't know.

The idea of forcing clothing on anyone was barking mad. As bad as any of the non violent fans nonsense.

I can't believe you are using a 90 second youtube video about ONE man being caught hiding his identity with a burqa to support a claim that no more than 9 people in a million could possible successfully masquerade as the opposite sex. I think your figure is completely unsubstantiated and likely to be wildly inaccurate.

The idea of forcing clothing on anyone was barking mad. As bad as any of the non violent fans nonsense.

I can't believe you are using a 90 second youtube video about ONE man being caught hiding his identity with a burqa to support a claim that no more than 9 people in a million could possible successfully masquerade as the opposite sex. I think your figure is completely unsubstantiated and likely to be wildly inaccurate.

I don’t think they are. They’re saying that in the VAST majority of cases, a glance is enough to tell us who is male and who is female regardless of how they’re dressed or their haircut.

That’s very different from saying that in those very few cases where it’s not immediately obvious, those more ambiguous-looking women are NOT also women. They are.

If not, how do you think it works? That we randomly guess at a person’s sex with no real clue? Yet a dog who’s afraid of men can always tell who the men are - and that’s not due to some amazing intuition that dogs have and humans don’t. It’s not: identifying someone’s sex is a very basic skill that’s innate to both humans and dogs rather than consciously learned. All we learn are the names to put on that difference.

I am frustrated by the fact that women cannot see how they are effectively stating that some of their fellow females are not feminine looking enough to be a real woman.

Nah, we're not. Being a woman isn't determined by your face shape but by whether your mullerian ducts developed in utero. Being a woman gives a constellation of secondary sexual characteristics that let others reliably determine your sex. Face is one of that constellation.

It's sufficiently close to 100% that we don't need sumptuary laws to force gendered attire in order to assure single-sex spaces and other safeguarding protocols. Which, if you look at the thread context, is the point I was making.

I'd argue that, taking all observations made during a real-life interaction into account, the number of people who genuinely look like the opposite sex are single digits per million.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GJyUT7y3KY4 demonstrates that gait and overall body shape are sufficient to recognise a man masquarading as a woman, with face and other details obscured.

Humans are more obviously dimorphic than many other species that reproduce sexually, but in a world where this were not the case, women would still need sex based rights.

they are effectively stating that some of their fellow females are not feminine looking enough to be a real woman.

No, we are saying that men are not women. If the difference between men and women were 'looking feminine', men could indeed change their appearance and become women. But if this were the only difference between men and women, we wouldn't bother to classify people as men and women.

Facial sexual dimorphism in humans is deemed scientific fact by everyone working in computer vision.

I'm sorry but it really isn't that categorical.

Most women will have feminine features. Most men will have masculine features. That's the only "fact".

Most is not all and there is a big overlap. There are women with very masculine faces and men with very feminine faces.

Every time women have this discussion I am frustrated by the fact that women cannot see how they are effectively stating that some of their fellow females are not feminine looking enough to be a real woman.

Hence why I've been careful to talk about real-life interactions.

I get "sirred" sometines, last time was in Toolstation 😂, but the sirrer realises their mistake as soon as I speak

Hence why I've been careful to talk about real-life interactions.

I get "sirred" sometines, last time was in Toolstation 😂, but the sirrer realises their mistake as soon as I speak

I think people who think it's difficult to tell the difference have been looking at too many filtered photos.

We're talking about 100%, not "extremely reliably". There is an overlap in every single one of the features that you mention.

Males cannot 100% be told from females in ordinary social interaction.

Anyone who thinks they can is simply blissfully unaware of the ones they couldn't.

Facial sexual dimorphism in humans is deemed scientific fact by everyone working in computer vision.

I'm sorry but it really isn't that categorical.

Most women will have feminine features. Most men will have masculine features. That's the only "fact".

Most is not all and there is a big overlap. There are women with very masculine faces and men with very feminine faces.

Every time women have this discussion I am frustrated by the fact that women cannot see how they are effectively stating that some of their fellow females are not feminine looking enough to be a real woman.

It’s sophistry.

Facial sexual dimorphism in humans is deemed scientific fact by everyone working in computer vision.

I'm sorry but it really isn't that categorical.

Most women will have feminine features. Most men will have masculine features. That's the only "fact".

Most is not all and there is a big overlap. There are women with very masculine faces and men with very feminine faces.

Every time women have this discussion I am frustrated by the fact that women cannot see how they are effectively stating that some of their fellow females are not feminine looking enough to be a real woman.

We're talking about 100%, not "extremely reliably". There is an overlap in every single one of the features that you mention.

Males cannot 100% be told from females in ordinary social interaction.

Anyone who thinks they can is simply blissfully unaware of the ones they couldn't.