As a photographer I'm seeing the middle version as if it's lit with daylight blue, the yellow version as if it's overexposed with indoor tungsten, and the blue version as a cold underexposed flash shot.
What people see depends on monitor quality. Most monitors are nowhere close to neutral, and cheaper monitors still aren't neutral even after calibration.
But on top of that, colour perception is notoriously individual. Men and women have different colour perception, and many men are somewhat red/green colour blind.
FWIW, personally I have trouble seeing this as a white/gold dress.
I don't think that your monitor determines whether you see a white/gold dress or not. At first the picture looked blue to me, no matter where I placed the fader.
I left the fader on the right, continued browsing and somehow I forgot to close the tab. When I eventually came back to this tab I asked myself: "Why did I open a picture of a white/gold dress? Oooh..." However, when I then moved the fader to the left it quickly became blue again.
I could imagine that there are two effects at work.
1. My brain has some kind of caching-error when I slowly slide the fader to the right as it refuses to update all information necessary to see the real colors.
(not white and gold but the actual blue tone)
2. The bright white spot on the right hand side is sort of a focal point. When you look at it first it alters how you perceive the rest of the picture. (causing an afterimage-like effect)
if 1 doesn't happen (i.e you see the photo of the right hand side first) and 2 does happen, then the picture looks white/gold (to me)
What people see depends on monitor quality. Most monitors are nowhere close to neutral, and cheaper monitors still aren't neutral even after calibration.
But on top of that, colour perception is notoriously individual. Men and women have different colour perception, and many men are somewhat red/green colour blind.
FWIW, personally I have trouble seeing this as a white/gold dress.