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

[NewLightbulbs]

Just this, really.

The vast majority of people can identify other people's sex very quickly; it's bloody obvious. So why the pretence that men are women, and we will threaten you if you don't play along?

Is that really being kind? Or is it bludgeoning with threats of job loss, assault, doxing, rape, death?

For correctly observing that a man is a man?

Is there any sanity at all in this state of affairs?

So many words. But to summarize.. with 100% accuracy humans of normal intelligence can correctly sex other humans. And even if, by some slight of hand a mythical trans person could pass clothed, they could not ever pass unclothed. Which means they do not pass. They wouldn't pass in the gym, in a medical examination, on the beach, in a changing room or in bed. Which means they do not pass full stop.
I could pretend they do. But I don't want to.

On gait, humans have different gaits because of the compromise needed in the female pelvis for a biped to give birth to an infant with a big head. There's a functional reason, it didn't evolve for the purpose of allowing skeletons to be accurately sexed but handily it serves that purpose.

antipodeancanary · Today 01:40

Yes, accurate and succinct!

Yes true re the pelvis; but humans have also evolved to find wider hip ratios in females attractive, so it’s all bound up together. Plus gait isn’t just a function of the pelvis, but of lots of things - height and size, for one - which we also use to sex each other, even though aggregate height differentials didn’t evolve specifically because of that. But evolutionary change is not fixed or tidy to one specific reason - nothing evolves specifically for something anyway; it just randomly happens to benefit it and it often randomly benefits other stuff too.

Plus gait is also heavily socialised, too - and it might well be that what we perceive about gait is social as much as - or even more than - physical. We still use it though; if a characteristic can be reliably used to help us determine what sex someone is, it doesn’t in the end always matter how much it’s social or how much it’s physical, because we always use a combination of both.

The key thing is that we also easily pick up changes in the social display of sex markers and apply them, too, as part of the whole picture - that’s why we can usually tell even if someone changes posture or clothes or mannerisms; it’s a composite of lots of factors and because it’s a composite it’s far more accurate.

And this too, thank you ErrolTheDragon:

On gait, humans have different gaits because of the compromise needed in the female pelvis for a biped to give birth to an infant with a big head. There's a functional reason, it didn't evolve for the purpose of allowing skeletons to be accurately sexed but handily it serves that purpose.

What about blue hair, though?!

That’s an interesting thought. What if all the women in Afghanistan decided they are men so they have access to education and jobs?

My OH was in the gym the other day when a woman came in, stripped naked and got dressed in front of them all. No one dared say a thing . So it’s working the other way too. I bet many of those men felt very uncomfortable. OH certainly did.

I have no problem at all with men wanting their own single-sex spaces too. Their own privacy, safety and dignity.

So long as it's not a work situation where meetings take place in female-excluding golf clubs or strip clubs or the Masons, where deals are made informally between men; and women are automatically excluded.

Oh, really?!

My OH in the gym the other day when a woman came in, stripped naked and got dressed in front of them all. No one dared say a thing . So it’s working the other way too. I bet many of those men felt very uncomfortable. OH certainly did.

Sorry, but I do very very much doubt that scenario - a woman stripping naked in a room full of men?!

I'm sorry, but that scenario:
"My OH in the gym the other day when a woman came in, stripped naked and got dressed in front of them all."

Just reads like a run-of-the-mill male porno fantasy.

And however way you look at that scenario, the men and women are distinct.

Point I am trying to make is that male humans are distinctive, and most women can spot them quite well, most of the time, regardless of clothing, high heels, long hair or a wig, makeup; even expensive facial feminisation surgery. We can still spot the bloke.

With regards to gait, wasn’t there an experiment where males and female skeletons were modelled walking using software and the joints such as hips, knees and ankles and shoulders were highlighted with dots. And so when the skeletons were removed and just the joint dots were shown walking humans could still quite reliably sort the clips into male and female skeletons.

The brain used the ratios visible and the hip width, and hip to knee to ankle alignment.

I will see if I can find it.

Also, sex sorting facial recognition using software seems to be reliable enough in detecting male vs female. It may have some trouble with females on testosterone or with males who have had their faces peeled back and bones shaved and remodelled.

Not sure why it is so implausible that some people are more attuned and can tell more than others.

has this study been posted?

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8474840/

What are you talking about?

Biological women don't need to justify themselves or their biological truth.

Women are not the ones causing immeasurable harm.

Just look up the statistics across the world for violent crimes.
It is not biological women who are the cause of the overwhelming majority of it.

That's down to all the kinds of men, however they say they identify.

Do you mean this one @Helleofabore ?

Are these the 3 quotes where you allege that people have said that 100% of the time you can tell?

Re-read them, that's not what they say.

You said you have evidence but then you refuse to post it and instead tell other posters to google it. No, you post it. You said you already had it which should mean that you've siphoned through the reams of false news and propaganda to find actual real news and incidents. Great, then post it.

Men not allowed to have everything they want, including having everyone pretend to believe in their fantasies = “immeasurable harm”.

Ah yes, we’re familiar with that.

Women being excluded from rape crisis centres, pushed out of their sports, being locked in a prison cell with a male....not immeasurable harm. Hastag everday sexism.

I know but it just made the men feel uncomfortable. I’m not making it up. I was aghast.

Anyway, going back to the title of the thread, the demand for a pretence is an attempt to exert authoritarian power and control on a global scale, and on an individual scale, emotional blackmail sometimes backed up with a credible threat of violence. Those who comply are virtue signalling, going along with the herd, being kind/progressive or intimidated.
Reality will win in the end.

Every other month or so there’s a report of a natal woman confronted by someone mistaking her for a TW.

I’ve seen three such reports. One was the unconvincing film where a very obvious female had a weird interaction in a toilet with a woman who was either completely irrational or (more likely) reciting from a script written by a transactivist who hasn’t listened to women and doesn’t understand why women are objecting to men in their spaces.

The second was an obviously female lesbian, reported in several different outlets, who on investigation turned out to be a high ranking member of staff at Stonewall, who therefore has a vested interest in lying.

The third is the one you mentioned upthread, which I haven’t looked into, but if it did occur as described, it sounds like adrenaline might have played a significant part. When adrenaline is rushing through my body, I know I’m not always particularly rational.

So can you back up your sweeping statement that these reports are coming “every month or so” with evidence please? And no, I’m not going to look it up. You made a claim, it’s up to you to back it up or risk it being dismissed.

I can believe that a FtM transitioner might decide to change in the men’s on point of principal. Some of the most successful transactivists are FtM and there have been reports of them being turfed out of gay men’s spaces before. This isn’t all one way traffic, it’s that we talk more about how women are affected than men, for various reasons. Doesn’t mean there’s no effect on men.

So this thread has moved on, but I’d like to share MN’s response when I asked why I was deleted. It was because my post contained an acronym, often used in this sort of discussion, which rhymes with 'rim', in the context of me having seen lots of arguments along the lines of 'you can't tell, lots of RIMs[[term changed by me] pass, they've been using women's spaces for ever'.
I was told by MNHQ that this isn't 'civil language when discussing these issues' and they 'didn't feel the post was in the spirit of the site.’
I asked why the term ’TERF’ is commonly seen on MN despite the language in that term's full expression (specifically 'exclusionary’) arguably being less civil. In a quite admirable piece of deflection/disingenuity, MNHQ said 'When"terf" is used as a personal insult, we would indeed remove it. Please do report any of those posts to us.’
I pointed out that I didn't I didn't use ‘RIM' as a personal insult.
The response (in shortened form): 'context is everything – but our moderation team will most likely delete these expressions if we feel they're being used in a deliberately inflammatory way.’
I replied that I would struggle to understand how my post could be read as using the term in a deliberately inflammatory way. That’s where the discussion ended.
So I’m not really any the wiser as to why my post was deleted when other very much more insulting/inflammatory ones are allowed to stand.