|
|
|
|
|
by jghn
569 days ago
|
|
It's entirely possible that there's never any point where "observed gender" is even implied and my mind just filled in some blanks when it talks about passing for human. To be honest I never gave it an ounce of thought before this whole conversation. |
|
I'm pretty sure it's never stated it looks like either a man or a woman. I mean, if it can pass for human it must like either or at least androgynous, but Martha Wells never tells us which.