You aren't observing his sex; your using other information as a proxy.
No, you're moving the goalposts again. I have said slowly, clearly, and dear God repeatedly that I think I can identify a person's sex north of 95% of the time by sight, which is a pretty damned reliable standard. I have not claimed that I am observing their sex. Are you following now?
Of the hundreds and hundreds of people I have met, maybe a half dozen were genuinely androgynous and I couldn't accurately identify which sex they were by sight alone. Those are the ones I am radically inflating in my <5% guesstimate for error. Realistically it would be less than 1%.
Might I have guessed wrong and was not aware of it? Sure. But I have no reason to believe I have.
He's right but you aren't parsing what the argument actually is correctly. You claim you're assigning pronouns based on sex but you're in reality assigning them based on proxy data.
No, both you and he are rebuilding the argument on the fly to make it easier to attack, rather than addressing the argument as presented.
They're absolutely comparable. You haven't shown what the difference is that makes them so alien to each other. The largest one I can think of is that of third party enforcement, but whether you personally enforce them or someone else does, they're still comparable standards.
The discussions here are pretty casual and conversational in nature. At no point in meatspace does a third party excommunicate a participant for changing the subject or addressing the speaker. Or hotlinking. Or using mild profanity. Or mentioning personally identifying names. There is far less in common with the rules here than shared social rules with meatspace interactions. If you applied forum rules to everyday discourse you would quickly be alone, as brothers would generally be avoiding your weirdo ass like the plague.
'Can' and 'does' aren't the same. If you say it is 'simply' facetious, then it doesn't.
Yes in fact many people don't correct others when they misgender because it's exhausting and usually unimportant if random guy said the wrong thing.
And with a 95% confidence then you're wrong about 3.6% of the time.
No, you are extrapolating by using the parameters very wrongly. My claim is that I think you can generally identify someone's sex using your senses north of 95% of the time, in contrast to the rather silly claim that you can't, like ever (see the wisdom of Upchurch upthread). Might a fully or cosmetically transitioned person slip by? Sure. In fact, kudos to those who appear to be the sex they identify as that convincingly. I'll happily refer to them as the sex they are living as.
But the discussion is about whether visual ID is reliable
at all, which is the Boulder guideline, too (remember the Boulder UC guidelines? Seems so long ago). Upchurch is down with this too, saying you cannot assume gender/sex at all, ever. I say this is painfully stupid, and yes you damn well can upwards of 95% of the time, making it more reliable than many assumptions we use daily.
