LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[Coidzor]

Weird question prompted by something I saw on tumblr today. Probably needs a TW tag.

Spoiler: TW: sex vs. gender, gendering genitals, definition of "transgender"

Show

I saw a post going around that says, "Gendering genitals IS trans erasure. There is no such thing as a biological male or female. That is trans and intersex erasure."

Leaving aside the question of what "male" and "female" mean in biology, for which I have several lengthy responses, I have to ask: If, say, a penis isn’t a “male” organ, then why would a woman experience dysphoria over having a penis? I’m not saying a woman with a penis isn’t a woman, I’m just confused by the reasoning that leads to insisting that the problematic penis in question is completely unrelated to the male sex organ of the same name. Like, "transgender” means that gender and physical sex don’t match up to some extent. If the penis is female, and the body is female, and the mind is a woman, then female body + female mind = cisgender, right? But then that breaks down the definitional difference between cisgender and transgender. Is that line of reasoning some kind of mental acrobatics to reduce dysphoria? I don't really understand.

Spoiler: TW: genital talk continued

Show

It's just another branch of the same school that insists that a trans woman's penis is not, in fact, a penis and that a trans man's ****oris is not a ****oris and should never, ever, EVER be referred to as such under any circumstances.

So, yes, I'd say it's a form of mental gymnastics and doublethink to reduce dysphoria that is employed by some people. It may also be related to those individuals who are so anti-binary that they want to erase the concept of male and female, at least linguistically.

Although I suppose it *is* interesting that this person or group apparently inadvertently made the claim that only intersex and trans* people exist.

I think it seems okay from my perspective to say the penis is a male organ, but that the presence of male or female is distinct from the presence of man or woman and that the latter is the more important category socially if not necessarily biologically. Just because someone's body is male doesn't make that a man's body, and while male body as a source of dysphoria is a valid reason to change that body accordingly that doesn't mean...

I prefer to avoid that avenue by just using AFAB and AMAB even when it takes a little bit more effort to structure sentences so they flow properly in context.

Aaagh. This sort of definition fight is the exact thing I hate.

Thankfully one rarely has cause to discuss someone's genitalia unless one is some kind of healthcare professional, sexologist, or their lover, so there's that at least, which makes it easy to live and let live.

[Mono Vertigo]

Weird question prompted by something I saw on tumblr today. Probably needs a TW tag.

Spoiler: TW: sex vs. gender, gendering genitals, definition of "transgender"

Show

I saw a post going around that says, "Gendering genitals IS trans erasure. There is no such thing as a biological male or female. That is trans and intersex erasure."

Leaving aside the question of what "male" and "female" mean in biology, for which I have several lengthy responses, I have to ask: If, say, a penis isn’t a “male” organ, then why would a woman experience dysphoria over having a penis? I’m not saying a woman with a penis isn’t a woman, I’m just confused by the reasoning that leads to insisting that the problematic penis in question is completely unrelated to the male sex organ of the same name. Like, "transgender” means that gender and physical sex don’t match up to some extent. If the penis is female, and the body is female, and the mind is a woman, then female body + female mind = cisgender, right? But then that breaks down the definitional difference between cisgender and transgender. Is that line of reasoning some kind of mental acrobatics to reduce dysphoria? I don't really understand.

Spoiler: Same TW

Show

I've had the same interrogations, and as already said, I think it's best to consider it as a sort of linguistic compromise that helps best the people most concerned by dysphoria when talking about their genitals.
Other than that? Let's use a simile: it's like I owned a shirt that's usually worn by men (let's say somebody gifted it to me and I wouldn't have bought it otherwise for this simile to make a modicum of sense). I'm a girl. From one point of view, this'd be a woman's shirt; it is my property, and just by virtue of it being mine and me being female does it became a woman's shirt. On the other hand, functionally, this is a man's shirt; it doesn't fit me very well, even though it's in the right size (as in it'd fit a guy with the same weight, height, and general build as mine), because I don't have the body shape necessary to wear it comfortably, and it was made with the average male shape in mind.
You've got a conflict between what I'd call "property" and "functionality" when it comes to choosing the proper denomination. As much as "property" and "functionality" apply when talking about someone's body. I'll have to invoke "you know what I mean" for this one.
Like most people who use terms such as "male/female genitals" would, I suppose. Depends where you hang out, of course, but it's rarely used in bad faith, and in the context of mismatched gender/genitals, it doesn't seem wholly unreasonable to talk about these bits that way. Like everything, it's a matter of context, and I imagine it's equally irrelevant to do the same when talking about non-binary people who are comfortable with their bits.
Last thing: I personally take most anything on tumblr with a grain of salt. Maybe it's just me who's a bad match with the site's general demographics, but I'm nonetheless tempted to suggest one does the same, because it's very easy to stumble on stuff that requires a lot of context (sadly unexplained) to be understood clearly, or that's kind of extremist in whichever direction. It's not the only social network where caution applies, far from it, but it's one.

TL;DR: depends on context of discussing, and who's talking about whose bits.

[JusticeZero]

Weird question prompted by something I saw on tumblr today. Probably needs a TW tag.

Spoiler: TW: sex vs. gender, gendering genitals, definition of "transgender"

Show

I saw a post going around that says, "Gendering genitals IS trans erasure. There is no such thing as a biological male or female. That is trans and intersex erasure."

Leaving aside the question of what "male" and "female" mean in biology, for which I have several lengthy responses, I have to ask: If, say, a penis isn’t a “male” organ, then why would a woman experience dysphoria over having a penis? I’m not saying a woman with a penis isn’t a woman, I’m just confused by the reasoning that leads to insisting that the problematic penis in question is completely unrelated to the male sex organ of the same name. Like, "transgender” means that gender and physical sex don’t match up to some extent. If the penis is female, and the body is female, and the mind is a woman, then female body + female mind = cisgender, right? But then that breaks down the definitional difference between cisgender and transgender. Is that line of reasoning some kind of mental acrobatics to reduce dysphoria? I don't really understand.

Spoiler: Words..

Show

That to me looks more like a strategy that someone who is trans is using to get through the day. "I don't have 'boy parts', i'm a girl, these are *my* parts.. Girls have all kinds of bodies." It also might come up with certain other things, such as the point that "abortion isn't a women's rights concern, because it affects anyone with a uterus". I really think it's a dead end trying to look for theoretical perfection when you're dealing with a set of definitions that have to be used for several dramatically different things.

[SiuiS]

Aaagh. This sort of definition fight is the exact thing I hate.

Aye, s'why I try to focus on what works at the time. So far it's done well. So far...

Spoiler: Words..

Show

I really think it's a dead end trying to look for theoretical perfection when you're dealing with a set of definitions that have to be used for several dramatically different things.

That is a much better way of saying what I wanted to and I wish I had been that succinct. :-/

[Ravens_cry]

What is a typical cost for electrolysis for a full beard? I'm saving as much as I can, but I know it's pretty damn expensive.

[Jeff the Green]

What is a typical cost for electrolysis for a full beard? I'm saving as much as I can, but I know it's pretty damn expensive.

I don't know from personal experience, but the consensus I'm finding is $2000–$20,000. Not very helpful, I know, but it depends on whether you're a candidate for laser first, the thickness of the hair, where you live, and a host of other factors.

---

I've got my own question. On OKCupid there's a question that's something like "If you could instantly and painlessly change genders, would you?" I said "yes" because it seems like it'd be fun to try it out for a while, and the question implies that switching back would be equally easy. I get a bunch of "incompatibilities" reported by the machine (though no actual rejections, as far as I know) for that answer, which is depressing, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone answer similarly. Is this a really uncommon attitude in cis folk, or am I just interpreting the question differently from most?

[noparlpf]

I've got my own question. On OKCupid there's a question that's something like "If you could instantly and painlessly change genders, would you?" I said "yes" because it seems like it'd be fun to try it out for a while, and the question implies that switching back would be equally easy. I get a bunch of "incompatibilities" reported by the machine (though no actual rejections, as far as I know) for that answer, which is depressing, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone answer similarly. Is this a really uncommon attitude in cis folk, or am I just interpreting the question differently from most?

I'm not sure what the question is asking...do they mean physical sex, or do they mean gender? And it's not clear whether it's temporary/reversible.

If it were easy and reversible I'd try out other options to see what they're like.

[Chen]

I'd read it as a permanent change, which might be how others are reading it and hence the incompatibilities. I don't think its meant to imply you could constantly switch back and forth (say just to try it out).

[Coidzor]

I've got my own question. On OKCupid there's a question that's something like "If you could instantly and painlessly change genders, would you?" I said "yes" because it seems like it'd be fun to try it out for a while, and the question implies that switching back would be equally easy. I get a bunch of "incompatibilities" reported by the machine (though no actual rejections, as far as I know) for that answer, which is depressing, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone answer similarly. Is this a really uncommon attitude in cis folk, or am I just interpreting the question differently from most?

I'd assume it was geared for determining trans*ness and thus would be permanent.

I wouldn't bother with answering the question in the first place since last I'd heard users can be openly trans* on OKC now.

[Ravens_cry]

I don't know from personal experience, but the consensus I'm finding is $2000–$20,000. Not very helpful, I know, but it depends on whether you're a candidate for laser first, the thickness of the hair, where you live, and a host of other factors.

Jinkies! The first is . . . well, I could *maybe* do it, but it's still a lot, but the last is beyond reach.
Fug . . .

[Lissou]

I've got my own question. On OKCupid there's a question that's something like "If you could instantly and painlessly change genders, would you?" I said "yes" because it seems like it'd be fun to try it out for a while, and the question implies that switching back would be equally easy. I get a bunch of "incompatibilities" reported by the machine (though no actual rejections, as far as I know) for that answer, which is depressing, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone answer similarly. Is this a really uncommon attitude in cis folk, or am I just interpreting the question differently from most?

I think I know the question you're referring to. If it's the same one, the question mentioned that there were no side effects and it was completely reversible. It was changing bodies, not genders, and it sounded like a "to give it a try" kind of thing. I don't know why you haven't encountered anyone who said "yes" to it. I don't believe I encountered anyone who didn't. The comments added were often along the lines of "I can reverse it at any time, who wouldn't be curious enough to want to try it out?"

I think saying "no" is more than being cis. It's a level of transphobia, possibly internalized. It's the person filling it out and thinking "I don't want anybody to think I might be trans" or something. Or people didn't read the question properly. That happens to.

[Serpentine]

I think I picked "yes" with a comment that I think they mean sex, not gender.

[Skeppio]

I think I know the question you're referring to. If it's the same one, the question mentioned that there were no side effects and it was completely reversible. It was changing bodies, not genders, and it sounded like a "to give it a try" kind of thing. I don't know why you haven't encountered anyone who said "yes" to it. I don't believe I encountered anyone who didn't. The comments added were often along the lines of "I can reverse it at any time, who wouldn't be curious enough to want to try it out?"

I think saying "no" is more than being cis. It's a level of transphobia, possibly internalized. It's the person filling it out and thinking "I don't want anybody to think I might be trans" or something. Or people didn't read the question properly. That happens to.

Or maybe they're happy the way they are and simply aren't curious about it? Not everything is that sinister.

[Lissou]

Or maybe they're happy the way they are and simply aren't curious about it? Not everything is that sinister.

True, but the level of "not curious" it takes just seems weird to me. It's something that isn't currently possible and they'd be given a never-before opportunity they can end after one second if they feel like it. The idea that they would never consider it just seems really weird to me since I've never met someone who didn't ever say things like "I wonder what X would feel/be like".

Anyway, I probably should have phrased it better. Jeff's post had undertones, to me, of "is this what cis people are like?" and I wanted to reassure them that as far as I'm concerned, that's definitely not the cis default, and that being worried about people's reactions or not reading the question properly are both more likely than "well duh, I'm cis", which may be a reason for some people but if so, they're probably a tiny minority.

[Ifni]

I'm not actually sure I would take that option if it was made available - if someone asked me I'd probably do it, but if I had to do it on my own initiative, I suspect I'd be apathetic about it. I'm curious about plenty of things, but not really about "how would it feel if my body was differently shaped" - I don't think it would tell me anything particularly interesting. I'd feel the same way about the ability to instantly and reversibly change my eye color, my handedness, my height or my weight - sure, I could, but why? ("A friend asked me to try it" would be reason enough, though - I don't dislike the idea, just don't feel much impetus toward it.)

For calibration, I've also never dyed my hair in my life , although that's a simple, reversible body modification that can easily be justified by "I was curious to see what it would look like". When I dream myself in a different body (including of a different gender), my mental reaction is pretty much always just acceptance / this-is-the-way-things-are. So I think my personal attitude to a sex-switching gun would be apathy, although in terms of societal impacts I'd be delighted

[noparlpf]

I'm not actually sure I would take that option if it was made available - if someone asked me I'd probably do it, but if I had to do it on my own initiative, I suspect I'd be apathetic about it. I'm curious about plenty of things, but not really about "how would it feel if my body was differently shaped" - I don't think it would tell me anything particularly interesting. I'd feel the same way about the ability to instantly and reversibly change my eye color, my handedness, my height or my weight - sure, I could, but why? ("A friend asked me to try it" would be reason enough, though - I don't dislike the idea, just don't feel much impetus toward it.)

For calibration, I've also never dyed my hair in my life , although that's a simple, reversible body modification that can easily be justified by "I was curious to see what it would look like". When I dream myself in a different body (including of a different gender), my mental reaction is pretty much always just acceptance / this-is-the-way-things-are. So I think my personal attitude to a sex-switching gun would be apathy, although in terms of societal impacts I'd be delighted

I mean, the question is offering, so it's not like you'd have to go out of your way.

I'm also basing this assumption off of TV, but wouldn't most straight guys jump at any opportunity that presented them with boobs they could touch all day with no repercussions?

[Lissou]

I did see the question as something you had to actively refuse rather than actively seek out. There are things I may not actively decide to try (especially the non-reversible kind, and even hair color for instance may be quick and grow out but you can't revert it right away if you actually don't like it) but if given a chance to try it, the question to me shifts from "why?" to "why not?" and apathy would lead to "sure, whatever" not "nah". But hey, I guess people work differently. There may very well be people who would require a reason to do it rather than a lack of reasons not to.

[Icewraith]

Maybe it's a subtle way to assess a person's affinity for a trans/gender fluid person? If you'd be interested in swapping genders painlessly, you're in theory more sympathetic for someone who may have gone to a great deal of trouble to do so.

In any case, if they stated it was reversible the question would probably lose whatever sorting property OKCupid uses it for, because otherwise there would be little reason to answer "no".

[JusticeZero]

I'd take it and keep it in my closet so I could at least trade off what strange misconceptions people had about me sometimes for a change of pace. Plus, so I can try some different clothes on without being policed over them or having the effect change because of what was underneath.

[SowZ]

I'm not sure what the question is asking...do they mean physical sex, or do they mean gender? And it's not clear whether it's temporary/reversible.

If it were easy and reversible I'd try out other options to see what they're like.

I've wondered what it would be like and would be more than willing to try out a biologically female body for a week or a month or whatever. If it was a semi-long period, like six months or a year, I'd be more wary even if issues of my family being confused were resolved. But I would still seriously consider it. I was dating an artist once, and she thought of what we would look like as gender swapped, and I was excited about the idea of what it would look like. She drew it with us gender swapped in underwear and it definitely turned me on. I used to be super into lucid dreaming and was even what is called a dream guide. I liked gender swapping in dreams. Done the drag thing, too. Have found that I like skirts and ladies underwear quite a bit, though I don't indulge with any regularity, and the rest I don't care for either way.

However, I still identify as cis. Just like I identify as straight even though I find a man attractive from time to time. It's all a spectrum and how you label yourself is going to be subjective. It's descriptive, not prescriptive, and personal feelings/instinct are vital. There's no perfect rubric for it.

[Icewraith]

I've wondered what it would be like and would be more than willing to try out a biologically female body for a week or a month or whatever. If it was a semi-long period, like six months or a year, I'd be more wary even if issues of my family being confused were resolved. But I would still seriously consider it. I was dating an artist once, and she thought of what we would look like as gender swapped, and I was excited about the idea of what it would look like. She drew it with us gender swapped in underwear and it definitely turned me on. I used to be super into lucid dreaming and was even what is called a dream guide. I liked gender swapping in dreams. Done the drag thing, too. Have found that I like skirts and ladies underwear quite a bit, though I don't indulge with any regularity, and the rest I don't care for either way.

However, I still identify as cis. Just like I identify as straight even though I find a man attractive from time to time. It's all a spectrum and how you label yourself is going to be subjective. It's descriptive, not prescriptive, and personal feelings/instinct are vital. There's no perfect rubric for it.

This is similar to answering the question "what do you do for work (assuming you work)?". You could give a long, rambling, thorough response describing each of the tasks you perform in your job, or you could say something that is a quick summary- i.e. "I'm a rocket scientist"/"I work at Denny's"/"I'm an [X] for [Y]".

Similarly, when a five-year old asks their parent what they do all day, and the parent happens to be a heart surgeon, they don't give their kid a blow-by-blow description of a surgical operation, they say something like "I fix people's hearts when they go bad." The level of detail determines the description.

[CoffeeIncluded]

So I've sort of been wondering this for a year because it's a bit awkward to ask, but what's the proper protocol if you're pretty sure someone you're talking to is transgendered but you're not absolutely sure which gender they're transitioning to because they're only partially through hormonal therapy, nobody called them he or she, and their name and so on is ambiguous?

I'm asking this because there's a girl (I now know she's female, specifically MtF, from other context) in my dorm who I've been friendly with this whole year. When I first met her at the start of the year I assume she wasn't as far along in her hormonal therapy because she wasn't as visually identifiable as one gender as she is now at the end of the semester. Because of that and a lack of other contextual clues I honestly didn't know if she was MtF or FtM and I ended up spending weeks to months dancing around pronouns because I didn't want to offend or hurt her. What should I have done? What should I do next time? Am I saying the wrong things right now?

I'll be honest, this sort of thing is distressing to me, not because I have an issue with transgendered people, but because I'm worried about saying the wrong thing and offending or hurting them, even if it's by accident.

[sktarq]

So I've sort of been wondering this for a year because it's a bit awkward to ask, but what's the proper protocol if you're pretty sure someone you're talking to is transgendered but you're not absolutely sure which gender they're transitioning to because they're only partially through hormonal therapy, nobody called them he or she, and their name and so on is ambiguous?

From the outsider-Using the proper name as long as you can - ask people close to them about the person (using proper name) and see what pronoun you get back (recommend roommates, close friends etc and try to do this a couple times before broaching it with the person in question). Or just ask. . ..served uncomfortably but reliably for years.

[Astrella]

I'd try to see if you can get the info from someone else first, but otherwise, I'd just ask what their pronouns are. I'd at least prefer someone being considerate and wanting to address me the right way and asking over just calling me male or such.

Being clocked (read as trans) like that might not always be fun (though depends on context of course) but is still preferable over potentially being misgendered I feel.

[Icewraith]

From the outsider-Using the proper name as long as you can - ask people close to them about the person (using proper name) and see what pronoun you get back (recommend roommates, close friends etc and try to do this a couple times before broaching it with the person in question). Or just ask. . ..served uncomfortably but reliably for years.

If they're dressed as a specific gender, treat them as such until corrected. If they are trans it's not your business unless they decide to tell you or they make a point of being known publicly as trans. If they appear to be androgynous in both features and dress (or are wearing work-related clothing or a uniform), it's probably best to stick to non-gendered terms and names. Whatever a person's appearance is, it's usually intentional, and unless they decide to share you don't need to know their reasons for doing so.

Edit: I suppose asking someone their preferred pronouns IS probably better than inviting them to "girls' night" and getting it wrong if you're not sure, but it's best to not have to force the issue in the first place. Awkward situations and mutant dinosaurs- two cases where no matter how good your system is, "life finds a way".

[noparlpf]

Try to figure it out from conversation first, like if somebody else uses a pronoun. Or see which restroom they go into. In the meantime use "they" when referring to them in the third person. If you still can't tell after a bit, you can ask them their preferred pronouns. It'll be awkward but not as bad as misgendering.

[Lycunadari]

If the person in question is someone you don't talk with or otherwise have little contact with, just stick to neutral pronouns (you're location is listed as New York, so I assume you mostly use English. With languages without neutral pronouns this is obviously harder).
If they are someone you interact with more often (like it sounds in the case you described), politely (and in private, you don't want to accidentally out them to others) ask them which pronouns they want you to use. Asking this is generally seen as the best thing, and while it may be a bit awkwards, it's definetely more polite than just assuming. While you'd probably be correct with assuming presentation = gender in most cases, there are still a lot people where it doesn't fit - non-binary people who don't present androgynously, binary trans people who wear clothes of their assigned at birth gender (like butch trans women and feminine trans men, or because they're going to meet someone they're not out to, or because it wouldn't be safe to be visibly trans or for any other reason), trans people who wear "neutral" clothes and don't pass so they get seen as their AAB gender, even crossdressing cis people... There are lots of people who would be hurt by assuming their gender/pronouns from their presentation, so if just using neutral pronouns is an option, risking misgendering them is just not worth it IMO.

[Icewraith]

If the person in question is someone you don't talk with or otherwise have little contact with, just stick to neutral pronouns (you're location is listed as New York, so I assume you mostly use English. With languages without neutral pronouns this is obviously harder).
If they are someone you interact with more often (like it sounds in the case you described), politely (and in private, you don't want to accidentally out them to others) ask them which pronouns they want you to use. Asking this is generally seen as the best thing, and while it may be a bit awkwards, it's definetely more polite than just assuming. While you'd probably be correct with assuming presentation = gender in most cases, there are still a lot people where it doesn't fit - non-binary people who don't present androgynously, binary trans people who wear clothes of their assigned at birth gender (like butch trans women and feminine trans men, or because they're going to meet someone they're not out to, or because it wouldn't be safe to be visibly trans or for any other reason), trans people who wear "neutral" clothes and don't pass so they get seen as their AAB gender, even crossdressing cis people... There are lots of people who would be hurt by assuming their gender/pronouns from their presentation, so if just using neutral pronouns is an option, risking misgendering them is just not worth it IMO.

Note that in a couple of the cases you list, using the pronoun they're presenting as is actually BETTER than sticking to neutral pronouns. The set of people who were raised to not use they/them to refer to singular subjects and the set of people that a trans person doesn't want to be out to for drama reasons (instead of just not being ready yet) are much more closely correlated than normal, I expect.

The "grammatical error" will cause crotchety types to pay more attention to pronouns, which is one of the last things you want when you're trying to not out someone. That's why I suggest using the gender the person is presenting as if their presentation is strongly gendered. It can be pretty obvious when people are explicitly NOT using gendered pronouns in a conversation.

For example, there's someone dressed all or mostly female, but there are signs that might indicate that person is trans. Maybe slight stubble, build, something.

Possibilities (not exhaustive):
Trans male, not out yet. "She" in public is kind of the point. Maybe he's not ready, maybe it's not safe.
Trans female, early-mid transition. "She" in public is still the point.
Cis female, bad luck with genetics and has heavier than normal facial hair, build or something. Probable mental trauma from puberty. "She" in public is probably a welcome relief.
Cis male, crossdressing. I know at least some crossdressers have a well-defined female persona they use when crossdressing, for this subset of people "she" in public is STILL the point.
Agender/binary/it's complicated, today is a "female" day. "She" in public is still the point.

I can think of very few situations where referring to someone making any kind of noticeable effort to appear feminine in public as "they" instead of "she" is helpful.

I'm not assuming that presentation is the correct gender. I'm assuming the current presentation is the gender they want to be referred to right now (assuming a public setting), acknowledging that some people may be going specifically for "they". It's not my business to know that a person is anything other than what they appear to be unless they choose to tell me otherwise.

[Ifni]

I can think of very few situations where referring to someone making any kind of noticeable effort to appear feminine in public as "they" instead of "she" is helpful.

I'm not assuming that presentation is the correct gender. I'm assuming the current presentation is the gender they want to be referred to right now (assuming a public setting), acknowledging that some people may be going specifically for "they". It's not my business to know that a person is anything other than what they appear to be unless they choose to tell me otherwise.

Clothing and other aspects of presentation can be an expression of personality, more than "gender I would like people to attribute to me today". I know butch women who rock a pretty masculine presentation but most definitely do not identify as men, and having people automatically refer to them as "he" without asking could (I think) be quite frustrating. I know a woman who recently changed her name to a male counterpart, as well as having a masculine haircut (short and spiky) and wearing exclusively neutral-to-masculine clothing; when she changed her name I asked about preferred pronouns, and she was clear that she wanted me to keep using female pronouns.

I'm not entirely sure how you tell the difference between "someone making a deliberate effort to be identified as the other gender" and "someone who feels most comfortable with a presentation traditionally associated with the other gender, while still identifying with their gender assigned at birth", just from appearance.

I don't think there's a perfect solution here - I think, if you guess, you're always going to get it wrong some fraction of the time, and in some fraction of those instances, you will make someone feel bad. I don't think using "they" is a perfect solution either. Just saying, I don't think it is quite as clear-cut as "anyone wearing a skirt will be fine with being called 'she'" (or "anyone wearing a men's suit and tie will be fine with being called 'he'").

[Icewraith]

Clothing and other aspects of presentation can be an expression of personality, more than "gender I would like people to attribute to me today". I know butch women who rock a pretty masculine presentation but most definitely do not identify as men, and having people automatically refer to them as "he" without asking could (I think) be quite frustrating. I know a woman who recently changed her name to a male counterpart, as well as having a masculine haircut (short and spiky) and wearing exclusively neutral-to-masculine clothing; when she changed her name I asked about preferred pronouns, and she was clear that she wanted me to keep using female pronouns.

I'm not entirely sure how you tell the difference between "someone making a deliberate effort to be identified as the other gender" and "someone who feels most comfortable with a presentation traditionally associated with the other gender, while still identifying with their gender assigned at birth", just from appearance.

I don't think there's a perfect solution here - I think, if you guess, you're always going to get it wrong some fraction of the time, and in some fraction of those instances, you will make someone feel bad. I don't think using "they" is a perfect solution either. Just saying, I don't think it is quite as clear-cut as "anyone wearing a skirt will be fine with being called 'she'" (or "anyone wearing a men's suit and tie will be fine with being called 'he'").

Yeah, it's always more complicated in real life.

I don't want to misgender anyone, but I also don't want to deny people a pronoun that some of them are going through a lot of trouble for. I also don't want to blow anyone's cover, and sometimes you can hear people putting effort into re-wording their sentences.

I also avoided references to particular gendered clothing because those are always context dependent. It's not just "anyone wearing a skirt" or "anyone wearing a suit and tie". That's like assuming all published opinion articles are serious. Some are silly, some are satire, some are serious, some have other purposes.