PS. In addition to the generalized proportions you are quoting, also consider: how development and growth can affect appearances. A professional female swimmer for example, may well have a much greater developed upper body frame than the 97 pound weakling around the corner.

All biologically explainable but very possibly not obvious to the average layman.

Thanks Donny.

That's some concrete information, and a good place to start.

The problem is, however, is that the side of truth is actually under constant attack from disinfo operations, counter-operations that seek to poison and muddy the pool of truth. And, given that background, a higher level of care is required (imo) when dealing with things that under purely normal daily circumstances might appear simple.

For example, the ratios and characteristics you are citing here: what is their source? I'm pretty sure that, generally speaking, these are generalized. In other words, over a whole population of men and women, this will be the consistent norm.

But there are always exceptions to the norm. That also needs to be accounted for. There are some women whose facial features look positively masculine. In some genetic groups, women have facial hair that in the UK, for example, would be seen as extremely unusual.

In my view, this then would be the definition of due diligence and actual concrete tangible 'evidence': not only the 'standard' being considered, but also control groups, potential less than common and less than standard differences.

If the approach so often applied to this (and many other 'theories') were used in academic circles, doing a PhD or such, the theorist would be laughed out of bounds. Because actual, real study requires taking into account all those other factors.

But it seems to me, a LOT of people only consider the evidence that supports their chosen belief or idea (aka 'bias'), while ignoring all the others.

It's an unhealthy tendency that has been fostered deliberately under the propaganda machine and psychological operations of the last 5+ decades. It's hard to break out of. But it's critical to do so.

This is actually why a LOT of mainstream folks are NOT convinced of the core themes that the Great Awakening is attempting to expose; because although there is so much information out there, too many folks on our side present a less than solid approach to the information they have.

For a long time now, I've observed a certain kind of thinking and mentality when some of us are presented with "Oh, X person is NOT a female! Obviously a male!~" There seems to be a sort of psuedo-religious tendency to just accept and even believe anything that is presented along those lines. Which is so ironic, because we now have ACTUAL males masquerading as women and ACTUAL women masquerading (pretending to be) males, right out in the open. And the facts in these cases are usually very obvious, as far as I can see.

But in this current climate, a woman whose facial features or body proportions are less than the perfect idea of womanhood are ALSO being denigrated in the form of, "Gee, that must be a guy".

Like I said, too many people think they are experts (meaning they really do not know how to apply serious critical thinking to their own thought processes, and simply believe they 'know'.)

What you've presented here is good information. We need more of that. But for me, it's not enough. I'm looking at the macro-tendencies within our own community, and finding that in too many cases for my tastes, parts of our community resemble more and more a pseudo-religious group rather than hard, cold-nosed, critical thinking researchers and analysts...

Personally, I've VERy religious, but for that reason, I've made a LOT of effort over the years to critically analyse how beliefs work, how they are formulated, I and other humans are influenced by them (both positively and negatively) and the distinctions between belief and knowing, between theory and fact. These are all important things, but when the lines are blurred, they can become dysfunctional.

End of essay. :D