I voted not sure.I voted no ......but the more I study the image, the more I think it might be possible.
As @Karen Lips noted there is no indication of characteristic female breast development but it is possible that the chest was bound to disguise this feature. Although the facial features are quite refined for a male - specifically the nose, brows, and lips - I based my "no" vote mainly on the hands. The thickness of the fingers and the breadth of the nails and knuckles looks characteristically masculine to me.
Then I look at the thighs and think.....those are pretty big thighs for a man of this torso size? I think Ill change my vote to "Not sure." Since I am a female, its my perogative to change my mind.
EDIT: Ok @LoriAnn @7th Mississippi Infantry you clicked "like" on my answer so its your turn! What say you?
Then you start mentioning "thighs".
Could very well be . . . like I predicted, this should be an interesting thread.Maybe it is quadriceps instead of "thighs" (quads bring to mind muscle, whereas "thighs" make me think of fat)
I agree with you. Those look like man hands.I based my "no" vote mainly on the hands. The thickness of the fingers and the breadth of the nails and knuckles looks characteristically masculine to me.
Then again ~ Seinfeld, Man Hands.
Although the facial features are quite refined for a male - specifically the nose, brows, and lips - I based my "no" vote mainly on the hands. The thickness of the fingers and the breadth of the nails and knuckles looks characteristically masculine to me.
Everything about this soldier seems feminine to me: Take a close look at the hair, the jawline, eyes and eyebrows, and mouth, thighs... all very feminine physical features.
Hands look male, but narrow shoulders.Honestly, I;m not sure.