20/20 vision

[Virginia]

Stephanie,
Thanks Hon, you get it! I was not looking to be "drawn and quartered" simply because of a quick observation of another human being and in my own mind quickly determining whether or not they happen to be of what gender. I was just asking if others had the same experience.
Virginia

[Stephanie W]

Virginia

Actually I think that was a great topic and hope that others see and understand what we are talking about. Definitely not something to be hung, drawn and quartered for my dear, so I would perish that thought. I think any topic that stimulates our thought processes is certainly worthy of discussion. Funnily enough, we all do it, (gender observation) whether we realize it or not. If we didn't, we'd constantly be using incorrect pronouns every time we opened our mouths to speak to someone. Think about it! Perhaps few people actually spend the amount of time we do in the ''deeper analysis' phase of the observational process? Hmm, perhaps it's time to go get myself a manicure!

Stephanie

[Bernice]

Forgive me if I came on too strong. I agree this is definitely not something to be hung, drawn and quartered for. I hope Virginia does not feel attacked, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Stephanie W wrote:

For those of you out in public, you will find that most folks take no notice. That's because they are so wrapped in their own lives to even be bothered or if they do give you a quick glance on the street, they will usually take you at face value. You are dressed like a female, so why wouldn't you BE one?

I think Stephanie quietly conceeds my point - which is that even though we are "sure" of a person's sex - with only a fleeting glance, we fool ourselves if we think we are "right" more than 85% of the time. All we are doing is making sexual assumptions, and then we move on without further investigation (thank goodness!). We merely assume we were "right" because the people that we subconciously labeled do not ever chase us down and prove otherwise when we were wrong.

We subconciously look for smooth skin, lack of hair in the wrong places, smaller hands/feet, smaller waist, larger hips, narrower shoulders, breasts, no bulge at groin, etc. These subconcious GenDAR observations really tell us very little about genetics or the persons birth sex. We merely assume we know, because we do not expect to be fooled. How can you claim to ever be "right" unless you bluntly demand that the person produce a birth certificate or genetic test results? How rude would that be?

For example, have only a very fleeting glimpse at some of the avatars here, those you do not already know. Cover up the names. Don't study them at all. Are you really sure who is GG/SO versus CD? I'm not. I get "fooled" all the time. I can guess better than 50-50 only because I know that more CDs have avatars than do SOs.

In fact, I believe that we fool ourselves if we think we are ever right! I believe this because the duality of gender is a myth. Ideally, I think perhaps we should begin thinking about trying to avoid making even subconcious assumptions about other people's sex/gender, as it is really none of our business, and it is pointless.

But no hangings for just being normal!

Hugs,

Bernice

[Paulie]

Bernice...
I have to agree, you are so right!
We do make our decision based on what we see, usually. And that is based on what we (society, etc.) classify as "female features".

So, I concede... I may be wrong sometimes when I think I'm right. And, you're correct.... I've never checked for conclusive evidence!

All I can say is... for those who've fooled me, that I said were GG and were not......

You go girls!!!!

[Stephanie W]

Bernice

I think Stephanie quietly conceeds my point - which is that even though we are "sure" of a person's sex - with only a fleeting glance, we fool ourselves if we think we are "right" more than 85% of the time.

I don't think I'm one to 'quietly' concede a point. I prefer to do it loud and proud. Perhaps we do share similar views, just articulated in different ways. My belief though is that most people are far too preoccupied to analyse a person to the detail you described as such..

We subconciously look for smooth skin, lack of hair in the wrong places, smaller hands/feet, smaller waist, larger hips, narrower shoulders, breasts, no bulge at groin, etc.

The reality is that we subconsciously only need a couple of indicators and are usually satisfied that person is what we think they are if those indicators 'fit'. Whether we are right or wrong doesn't really matter as they are but a stranger on the street. If, in that initial few moments, we see something that doesn't 'gel' then we might naturally look for further validation. If we find it, we move on, if not, somewhere in there our curiousity is peaked and then we may question that something is not quite right, assuming of course, we even care at this point.

If we can't validate that person to a the female gender, then we might peg them as a crossdresser with a thought that 'hey, you almost had me fooled'. Cool.

By the same token, if we see a person dressed as a female who happens to be tall and have big hands, then we are satisfied rather quickly that we have a 'crossdresser' in our sights. Now at this point, we might also be a little more curious about them for obvious reasons.

To use a car analogy (which is always good to describe anything) you see a pair of tailfins with double red lights poking out amongst a row of cars in a parking lot. Without seeing any more of that vehicle, you determine immediately that it's a 59 Cadillac. You don't need to see the grille or anything else because you just 'know'. ..assuming you know your cars.

What is happening is that when we see something, anything, we subconsciously process the information looking for something recognizable. If we see elements that point to a certain something, we identify it. male/female, Cadillac/Ford. When we have trouble recognizing something, we have a tendency to mentally fill in the gaps and/or make assumptions until we can satisfy ourselves we know what we are looking at.

A good example is the following that you may have seen on the net:

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Such a cdonition is arppoiately cllaed Typoglycemia - Amzanig huh? Yaeh and yuo awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.

In this example, there is just enough information for us to recognize each word, in this case by virtue of the fact that we have the first and last letters in their correct places. Interesting, don't ya think?

Stephanie

[Beauty]

[Absaroka]

Okay so yesterday it happened to me. This is something I have been thinking about and trying to be more aware of how I percieve people. I was in the store and a guy was standing in line to cash a check. I think.

Black dungarees and boots with black leather jacket. I don't remember the shirt under the jacket.Long flowing dark brown hair, very thick and not pulled back in a pony tail but instead framing the face nicely. Very clean face with no facial hair. Looked like a musician trying to look like a biker.

As I walked past the line I glanced at the line. And then because something just didn't seem right I looked again and realized that I DIDN'T KNOW!. So I came back a minute later and looked discretely and still couldn't tell. My main reason for thinking guy was that he was taller than the women in line but he was still not that tall, maybe 5 - 9 or so.

At the time my other thought was that he ( I keep calling the person him so maybe I guessed right-first impressions and all that) looked a little bit too clean to be a biker so that it was probably a biker old lady. Or more likely a woman biker. No patches or anything though, but then nowadays there are lots of respectable folks doing this. So here's another cue in the percptual struggle-personal hygiene.

I didn't even think musician till I started typing this. It doesn't help much since musicians are more often to be push the envelope types in either sex. But it would explain a few things that seemed out of sync.

An interesting moment.

[Virginia]

Yeah! for Virginia!!!
How many of us are now looking more closely at others?
And now Andrea, since you have alienated both bikers (me included and my Honda VTX 1800 and musicians) guess you better duck or be a woman and stand up and take your trip to the wood shed!!!
Just kidding!!!!!!!
You could have walked up to him/her, put your arm around their waist and said, "Hi, Hon, don't I know you --- Attica wasn't it?" Well at least you would now know??
Love ya,
Virginia

[Bernice]

Stephanie W wrote:

I don't think I'm one to 'quietly' concede a point. I prefer to do it loud and proud. Dancing Perhaps we do share similar views, just articulated in different ways. My belief though is that most people are far too preoccupied to analyse a person to the detail you described as such..

I'm sorry I assumed this about you. So if someone "fools" you to your satisfaction, then you are "right"? Are you only "wrong" if you cannot guess a gender for a person?

I am anal-retentive when it comes to detail, and I do refuse to claim that I am "right" unless I over-analyze and remove even unreasonable doubt. I don't over-analyze everyone I meet, but at the same time, I don't claim to know their gender on first glance with any degree of certainty. I've been wrong too many times to have such confidence.

I think I once saw a pair of 1959 Cadillac fins, and it turned out not to be a car at all!

So, I guess where we mostly differ is in our definition of "right"? If you are satisified, i.e. no longer hesitant to speculate - then you are "right"?

Andrea: Great story!

For the rest of you: though not a sports fan, I assure the you women's basketball team at KU is composed entirely of women taller and more muscular than I am, which is also definitely taller than 5'9"!

Hugs,

Bernice

[Stephanie H]

I think that when we make the judgement of female from a distance, we are looking at our femself and performing and evaluation of ourselves. Does the person meet our standards. How does she walk, Do I do it the same way, How about arm movement / hand movement do I do it in a similar way. The point that I am driving to, is that when we notice from a distance we are using the distance to view that person for a longer period of time so as to educate oneself on the femine form, movement and dress hopefully, to improve ourself.

[Stephanie W]

Bernice

You quoted me:

don't think I'm one to 'quietly' concede a point. I prefer to do it loud and proud. Perhaps we do share similar views, just articulated in different ways. My belief though is that most people are far too preoccupied to analyse a person to the detail you described as such..

..and you said:

I'm sorry I assumed this about you. So if someone "fools" you to your satisfaction, then you are "right"? Are you only "wrong" if you cannot guess a gender for a person?

Firstly, in my quote, that first sentence was meant tongue-in-cheek. Secondly, perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. In the normal scheme of things, when we are walking along a street or at a mall for example, we are usually there for a reason, perhaps shopping, or on our way to work, a restaurant, or a movie. Whatever it is, and as I stated before, most folks are usually too preoccupied with where they are going to spend a lot of time analyzing other people en route. That said, people watching is indeed a popular pasttime for many, but is most often practiced when one is seated somewhere, such as a coffee shop when taking a break from whatever we were doing that day. Then yes, we will spend more time in that analysis phase when much less escapes our attention.

However, when out and about, if at a glance I see a female and accept her as such, fine. If I see a crossdresser and am fooled into thinking s/he is a genuine female, that’s OK too. Why should I even care if I have been fooled? I won’t be any the wiser because I may not have seen any red flags to make me question that person’s gender. So I wouldn't even be thinking whether I'm right or wrong. But suppose I cannot figure out that person’s gender, why would I consider myself wrong? I may wonder for a few moments as I go on my merry way, but again, I don’t agonize about it simply because I ‘failed’ to reconcile their gender in my own mind. It really is no big deal. I just confine it to the “Oh well’ file and move on.

Stephanie H - Without contradicting what I said to Bernice, I agree that as crossdressers, we do seem to spend a lot of time looking at other women. However it's for a reason. Like you, I am always in 'learning mode', always looking for things I can do to enhance my own femme look and deportment. In my opinion, there is no better way to do that than by observing the experts. If you're also lucky enough to have female friends who know, then who better to ask for advice?

Stephanie

[Bernice]

I have suspected that Stephanie and I actually agree perfectly, except we may be arguing different points without realizing it, thus confusion continues. I agree with and identify with absolutely every statement and assertion Stephanie W has posted in this thread - except for the second and third sentence of the very first paragraph of her very first post in this thread:

This is something I have observed myself and have been facinated how it doesn't seem to make the slightest bit of difference what a female is wearing (whether a heavy coat with a hood or something overtly feminine), we just KNOW it's a female. It's our human instinct and our degree of accuracy is pretty well up there every time.

All I fail to understand is how Stephanie knows her accuracy is pretty well up there every time? Clearly Stephanie agrees that we can be fooled. If we can easily be fooled, and because we have other things on our mind, we don't even want to know when we are fooled, how can we claim such high accuracy?

I guess the subject matter of the thread advanced far beyond this sticking point, and I was just too slow to realize it.

I'll stop nit-picking now, and give my hugs to all.

Bernice

[Xenia]

Hi,

Hi,

100% of the time I can tell a bull from a horse. That's right 100% of the time.

LOL,
probably I am going to beat a dead horse, now. Ah, or dead bull, or dead whatever ...

I f we say that we usually recognize gender (re)presentation, then I think the accuracy is pretty high.
If it is about recognizing visible biological gender clues, the accuracy is probably way less.

Pretty much impossible to recognize by just observing would be obviously genetic, gonadal ... sex.
For gender assignment youl'd have to look in the passport ...

etc. etc.

Probably I am simply not good enough at this game of gender spotting, but I have often enough not been able to tell what the gender of some people might be (not to speak of "might have been", which would make it even much more complicated)

Best

Xenia

PS: For a dsissicuon of Stephanie W's txet in her pourevis psot, see
http://crossdressers-haven.com/forums/v ... php?t=5824

[Stephanie W]

Bernice

All I fail to understand is how Stephanie knows her accuracy is pretty well up there every time? Clearly Stephanie agrees that we can be fooled. If we can easily be fooled, and because we have other things on our mind, we don't even want to know when we are fooled, how can we claim such high accuracy?

OK Bernice, how many times would you say you've been fooled as to someone's gender? Once? Twice? Ten times? One hunderd times? Now, how many people (male or female) have you seen or observed out on a busy street on any given day? One hundred? One thousand, Two thousand? More? If we take the number of times you've been fooled and compare that to the amount of people you've seen on the street in a year, two years or longer, it's a very small percentage. So, by virtue of that, I think we can safely claim our degree of accuracy is pretty good. In addition to that, we have to remember, we are still viewed by society as an anomoly, because there simply aren't that many of us out there doing our thing. Then again, maybe the joke's on me and we're all getting REALLY good at passing.

Hope that explains where I was coming from.

Stephanie

[Absaroka]

So I was mistaken again the other night. (twice in a week. maybe this happens more than I realized) At a HS band concert there was a person sitting about 12 feet away a bit to the rear. I looked and thought based on the hair that she had really pretty long full brown hair. And a pretty face. Otherwise we were all pretty bundled up. Then he spoke and it was clear it was a guy.

I wasn't trying to figure out anything. Just happened. Made me remember other times it has happened including asking someone to dance once in a place where men definitely did not dance together. He said something, I frowned and he apologized and there was no harm done.

Made me think about how in the mid 60's people got so upset with boys looking like girls with long hair. Here I thought the fuss was really about rebellion. Maybe some of it really was about not wanting to be confused.

Andrea