Gotcha!

[Carol Ann]

Very very interesting but I think this person is male.
The face bones are very strong and the right hand is rather large.
But in true it could be a female or a male
Carol Ann

[Absaroka]

I would say a woman although if I was told it was a man I can see some feature that look sort of male.

Heres the thing. It's a partial photograph with the emphasis on photograph. It's also posed. That means that most of the cues aren't there in terms of movement, posture, and a whole bunch of intangibles.

I think VIrginias post awhile ago was about observing real people at a distance, unable to see any of the cues that are in the photo such as expression, dress, makeup or facial structure. And no, in a photo of a figure far away I often would not be able to tell.

Andrea

[Virginia]

Jenny and Elizabeth!!!!!
Well put girls, well said!!!
Virginia

[JeffCooks]

i voted male looks "strong" broader sholders strong facial features, but i'm usuall wrong about photos
i can hardly wait for the answer

[Carolynn]

Woman, no matter the birth certificate. I really couldn't see any obvious male clues, but my perceptions may perhaps be a bit blurred these days.

Love, Carolynn

[CJ]

Hi all,

Andrea,

I know, I know. This little game has little to do with Viriginia's post from a while back. It was simply inspired by that conversation. Just indulge me. Actually, I'm not really trying to go anywhere with this (i.e., although the person in the photo obviously is of either one sex or the other, there is no wrong or right answer to the question); I'm just hoping we'll maybe open up a discussion about our own perceptions of an individual's sex and/or gender and have fun while doing it.

Also, I realize I'm not really playing fair by quizzing everyone on a photograph where many gender cues (aside from the clothing and makeup) are veiled or hidden. Again, I'll be honest here and say that the site from which I got this photo didn't specify if its subject was a man or a woman so I had to do some hunting around in order to find out just because I, myself, wasn't sure of the answer.

By the way, if someone does, indeed, know the person in the photo, please don't spill the beans just yet. Let's let this poll run for a few more days; so far, with 25 votes in, the results are almost evenly split... quite intriguing.

Good luck in your guessing, folks.

Love,
CJ

[DonnaT]

I'll readily admit I really have a hard time telling the difference for a number of TGs.

So, I usually guess woman, and will do so again.

[Absaroka]

I got a chance to test my perceptions and abilty to spot male vs female tonight. I went to my daughters marching band competition.

Watching the bands perform I thought of this and Virginia's thread. I started trying to tell who was male and female on the field.

A few things to bear in mind. The uniforms are identical and for the most part constructed for a uniform look which means body shape differences are minimized. Movements are rigidly choreographed and many of the body language cues and movements are gone. Hair is tucked up under the hat. A few cues remain-the uniforms accentuate the shoulders so guy shoulders seem even bigger. And there is the issue of relative height.

From 40 yards or so I most mostly clueless. The majority of members I could not tell. My best cue was height and instrument (I have been around this along enough time to have an idea of who plays what but that is cheating) And I was completely aware that these were for the most part inadequate to make certain decisions. Okay, I know all the sousaphone players in my daughters band at least are boys. That is about it. At this distance it is also hard to pick out my own daughter even with the aid of knowing her position and instrument.

At 15 yards I could see faces clearly. I thought I could tell with one look about 70% of the time and expect I was wrong at least a few of those times. Once more, nothing but the face was distinguishable behind the mask of the very uniform appearance and uniforms. That's 30% of the time I couldn't tell. It didn't get much better when they were done performing and standing around in less uniform postures and so on.

As I left I decided to try to tell with other people. It was dark and I didn't count the ones I could see close up. From 30 yards or so in the dark without a clear look at a face I thought I could tell maybe half the time. What were the cues? Once more shoulders. And body language, which wasn't a cue in the marching bands. In a couple the man and woman seemed to have different postures towards each other. Subtle but noticable. It would seem that the woman would be oriented towards the man slightly as they walked, including him in her space. The male space was projected outwards, as if protecting her. Something I never really noticed before.

When the light was right glasses were another cue. Just a glint of streetlight on glasses and their relationship to the face seemed enough. I wear glasses myself and of course know there are mens and womens glasses but never quite realized what a difference it could make.

I didn't ask these people and in many cases didn't get close enough to be sure. (I am of course leaving out completely the question of the ambiguously gendered person here. The target of this little exercise was examinining my perceptions, not discovering the truth about others) It is entirely possible I was mistaken although in many cases I felt pretty certain about things. But there were quite a few cases where I couldn't even form an opinion.

Of course there is another cue. It was night. Usually a person walking alone at night around here is a man. But leaving a big event that was not the case.

Which brings up another situation. Some time ago I lived in a part of town where there would be plenty of women walking down the street at night. That slow aimless walk called the stroll. It was also the sort of neighborhood where you wanted to be aware of who else was sharing the next 20 yards of space with you and how you might interact or be interacted with. I hadn't thought about this in a while but if I was walking down the street and saw a figure loitering in my direction of travel or traveling towards me I focused considerable attention on who they might be as I approached them. As in I would I be solicited or panhandled and if so how aggresively. Muggers of course aren't trying to give any cues at all....The best cue here was speed of the walk-the whore's walk would be so slow and approachable. As opposed to a woman who was not on the stroll who would be walking terribly purposefully so as to let you know what she was not doing. Her space would likely be withdrawn to almost inside her, keeping everyone out but not challenging anyone as a guy would. Although plenty of men would have that space withdrawn air about themselves also.

What I realized was that in those situations no I didn't know right away. If I did then there would have been no need to focus my attention like that.

I also thought about our forums and photo gallery. One of the biggest cues I notice is forearms. They look like guys arms so often. Far more obvious than shoulders and hips at least in seated photos.

It was a fun little exercise.

Andrea

[Valerie]

Pretty funny poll,CJ. I studied the pic a while. Lets see,vote for woman.No make that a man. No wait a minute,woman?man? Oh well I took a guess and I think it is a man dressed up to pass as a woman. If I am wrong,guess I can't tell people from a pic,

[CJ]

Hi all,

Okay, it's been about a week now; time for revelations. But first, my own impressions.

When I saw the photo, I was immediately struck by my own inability to determine with pinpoint accuracy whether or not this was a woman or a man. This puzzled me. Moreover, the fact that this puzzled me puzzled me even more. It became a matter not only of discovering if the person is a woman or a man but of trying to figure out why the answer seemed to matter so much to me. Why would it even be important for me to know whether the person is genetically male or female? Would it change how I approached, related to, or interacted with the person?

At any rate, this is all "head stuff." Just looking at the sexual characteristics and gender cues offered up in the photo (and the more subtle ones are pretty meagre), I finally had to suppose the person was male. Despite the soft-looking skin; despite the rounded shoulder; despite the absence of a visible Adam's apple; despite all this, I concluded I was looking at a man. I reached that conclusion mostly because of the strong chin, the creases to each side of the nose, the powerful jaw, the fairly thin upper lip, the exaggerated costume, the almost theatrical makeup, and the funky, stylized hairdo. The picture fairly shouted, "stereotypical femininity of a man dressing as a woman" (and I don't mean "stereotypical" in the negative sense, just in the sense of "usual"). The fact that I got the photo from an online wig manufacturer and distributor only increased the likelihood (to my mind) that I might be looking at a man here.

By the way, Andrea, I have to say I tremendously enjoyed your analysis of your own perceptions. A cool post. Thanks.

Anyway, the photo is a publicity shot of actress/songstress Alice Ripley for the role she played in an off-Broadway production of Little Shop of Horrors (she played "Audrey") at the Miracle Theatre in Coral Gables, Florida, in 2003. Here are a few more shots of her.









I hope you all enjoyed the poll.

Love,
CJ

[Anita]

Thanks, CJ.
That last photo, I would say is a man. That picture brings out all her male characteristics, for me. The second photo would be a puzzler for me, too, though not as much.

It was fun to speculate!

Incidentally, I have been seeing advertisements for a woman realtor in a local GLBT paper, and I was sure she was TG, from the picture in the ad.
Last week I met her at a business seminar, and now, I'm not sure at all. Her voice is certainly very good, if she is a fulltime TG. The next night I was at my support group, and was happy to hear the other six people there (all fulltime) say that they are also very curious when they run into someone who might be transgendered.

[Xenia]

Hi all,

Okay, it's been about a week now; time for revelations. But first, my own impressions.

... I finally had to suppose the person was male. Despite the soft-looking skin; despite the rounded shoulder; despite the absence of a visible Adam's apple; despite all this, I concluded I was looking at a man. I reached that conclusion mostly because of the strong chin, the creases to each side of the nose, the powerful jaw, the fairly thin upper lip, the exaggerated costume, the almost theatrical makeup, and the funky, stylized hairdo.
...
I hope you all enjoyed the poll.

Hi
yes, I did enjoy CJ's quiz. I wasn't sure at all but voted finally male. The hair line / fore head in the dolled-up photos looked rather male. The last two pics you sent, however, wouldn't have left any doubt about the female sex.

Best

Xenia

[Virginia]

Law suit? what law suit?!!! did you call me a boy?? I look like what?? My attorney will be in touch! What do you mean with who?? I don't know she will just sue everybody! No, not me too! Well I guess she could!!?? Could she?? False advertising - Me??? No way!!!! well maybe just a bit!! Blame it on that stupid plant that ate everybody! I'm outta here!!!
ME

[Absaroka]

But what sex was the carnivorous plant? And I thought Audrey was the plants name.

More seriously I find it interesting that a woman in made up for the theater looks like a man trying to look like a woman. I realize of course that on stage things must be exagerated to look normal. But it made me think of something in another thread about women presenting as women still coming across as fake as in that is not what they really look like either. I am reminded that most of the centerfolds in Playboy and the like also don't really look like that in real life.

Andrea

[CJ]

Hi all,

Andrea,

In Little Shop of Horrors, Audrey is Seymour's girlfriend. In her honour, Seymour named the plant "Audrey II." (Trivia: Jack Nicholson had his first screen appearance in the 1961 film version of Little Shop of Horrors, where he played the dentist's masochistic patient. "Feee-EEEE-eeeed me," indeed! )

I agree with what some of you say, here. Were it not for the fact that Ms. Ripley's features are rather finely "sculpted," it could be possible to mistake her for a man. For me, a heavy nasogenian fold (the lines to each side of the nose going down to the corners of the mouth) is a masculine feature (I, myself, am "saddled" with such a fold... but I'll live). Just goes to show that any man or woman can, at the very least, have a tendency to look like either a man or a woman. Hence the addition of "accessories" (jewelry, makeup, creams, etc.) or even surgery to either highlight or "erase" this or that feature of our faces in accordance with our own gender self-perception. Women do it. Woman-identified men do it (uh, yes, that would be us, folks). More and more, non-transgendered men do it as well (the beauty industry is finally managing to convince regular Joes that mere nature itself isn't always quite forthcoming when it comes to the esthetic appeal of the male face... Vanity, thy name is, uh, er, ah, human being! )

Personally, although I understand the motivations behind what some here call "fakery," I'm no big fan of it, myself. Yes, yes, I hear those of you up there in the peanut gallery, shouting, "But, CJ, if that's true, then why do you work at changing your own appearance so much?" Two reasons. For one thing, I associate "fakery" (whether in appearance, in character or personality, or in life history) with presenting yourself as something you're not. No, I'm not a woman, for sure. But I am a man who needs to be like a woman. This is a need, not a whim. The only way for me to do that is by "accessorizing" (in the sense I used the word above).

The other reason I "change into CJ" is a little more complicated and I've been debating with myself about this for most of my adult life; it has to do with my own way of dealing with who I am--especially as a gender-variant person. There's a very powerful Stoic streak in me and there always has been. Here, I use the word "Stoic" in its classical sense of "one who finds happiness in living 'in accordance with nature' and who has the ability of not fretting about those things over which he or she has no control." And there's the rub. It's a difficult thing to do, figuring out what my "nature" is, so that I may best live in accordance with it. I have no real control over the fact that I'm gender-variant. In my entire life, it was always a given. Always. At some point, I came to an "existential" fork (one of many in my life): either I view myself as a man--as a male person--with a more or less "off" gender identity and accept that nature (or "nurture" or whatever the "etiology of the day" happens to be) made me thus and thus I must live with it, or I view myself as a gender-variant person who happens to be male--and, of course, this gender-variant person that I am is no less a product of nature or nurture--and must then learn to live with the fact that I'm gender-variant more so than with the fact that I'm male. I chose (and still choose) the latter. I know that Loretta, for one, has brought up this very issue at different times and in different ways and I've found the discussions generated by her posts on the subject to be some of the most fascinating, enlightening, and fruitful ones on the forum.

Having said all this, and for the very reasons mentioned in the last few sentences above, I choose to appear the way I do--to let "Christina" flower--as a way of aligning myself more truly with who I believe myself to be. I may need fake nails and wigs in order to do so, but there's very little "fakery" involved. When, like Ethel Merman, I sing, "I just gotta be me!" I'm constantly aware that this "me" I sing of is not the male me others around me see but the gender-variant me that too long has remained hidden from others because of fear and sorrow.

If we can suppose that God doesn't make mistakes (again, Psalm 139); if we can suppose there's a link between genetics (or endocrinology or neurophysiology) and behaviour; if we can suppose there's a cause-and-effect chain between early upbringing and adulthood personality or character; then, we can also suppose that we are who we are--that I am who I am--for some reason. And I intend, for the sake of my own happiness, to live in accordance with that reason, to not stray too far from my "true self" (for example, by repressing my need to relate to others as a woman).

What does all this have to do with Alice Ripley's nasogenian fold? Simply this: we sometimes choose to alter our bodies (permanently or otherwise) so that others may see us as we see ourselves. This is not fakery. It's truth. Though Alice Ripley may have a face that, to some, may look like a man's, my guess is that she doesn't feel any pressing need to alter it because the truth of who she is no doubt comes out in her professional life, through the songs she writes and sings and through the roles she plays up there on the stage. She has a broad range of possible (and socially acceptable) means of self-expression, one that many of us cannot lay claim to (with the possible exception of our good miss Anita, out there in California).

I used to be ambivalent about plastic surgery, for example. Why, oh why, I'd ask people who've undergone such invasive and traumatic procedures, can you not learn to live with who you are? The risks (not to mention the dollar amounts) seemed incredibly high, to me. Over the last couple of years, though, I've come to realize just how powerful this need is that we have to let others see us the way we see ourselves. Not because we're vain (although we can be); not because we're insecure (although we can be that, too); nor even because we lack the strength or courage to tend to our own "inner life" rather than to our "outer" one (although that's a distinct possibility as well). No, we need to let others see us the way we see ourselves so that we may know and feel in our very bones that we're relating to those others in as true a manner as it's possible for us to do. Yes, there's a hidden premise, here, and it's this: relating to others authentically--from the truth of who we are--is good for our mental health (and, Elizabeth, you can chime in any time you want, here). Ultimately, it's good for the health of others as well--even if it means that those others are then free to go elsewhere and be themselves should they not want to be with, or to relate to, us.

Anyway, here I go again, blathering on. I have too much time on my hands, I guess. Man, I should be crossdressing right now!

Love,
CJ