Quote Originally Posted by Iscah View Post
I honestly don't see the problem with it when we are talking about biology in a non-sexualised way.

They've made that statement that you can't tell them apart as children and without going to that level of biological detail there is no way to clarify - for the sake of properly understanding where the race is coming from - whether that just means they're dressed the same or whether nobody, not even the child themself, can possibly tell which gender they are.

They're not even giving a detailed description of body parts. I don't need to hear about that. But the question of "clothes-on or clothes-off identical" does need to be clarified if that's the concept they have of the race.
The problem is I don't think many in this community are just "talking about biology in a non-sexualised way", but I digress.

Anyway, it still makes no sense, as even still they hit puberty at a similar age as humans, meaning they have time to develop like humans. So, they should be easily distinguishable by their 20's, as males. They shouldn't look androgynous at all, and it shouldn't be used as justification for them to look androgynous, in my opinion.