Kir's Theories on the Rarity of Female Body Andros

[Kir]

Alright. I opened my big mouth, so now I gotta give my theories.

I've heard people before say that more male's transition to females than the other way around, although I don't think I've heard any sort of scientific sort of survey. You hear more about crossdressers that are male than female. And the survey about what body androgynes are on this forum has suggested that there are more males than females. So, I have always had theories about this. Completely unfounded hypothetical ideas. They may be completely wrong, and you can eat me alive if you think I am completely off base.

For a guy to dress as a girl and look like a girl, he has to do some pretty serious stuff. Bra stuffing, lots of makeup, shaving. And if people find out she's actually a guy, well, then bad things happen. Everyone will call him gay, regardless of his actual orientation. Gay might be hip right now, but that tends to break down when a guy says "Hey that chick is hot, oh wait, that's not a chick."

For girls, it's a tad easier to dress as a guy. Yes, if you have larger than A sized breasts you have to bind (or wear something really baggy). But wearing guy clothes helps you blend in fairly easily, and if someone realizes you are a girl in guy clothes, they don't really think it's THAT odd.

I know those are generalizations. but... Most folks think girls look good in a tuxedo, most folks think a guy in a prom dress is not normal. I don't know how many posters and calenders there are out there of girls wearing guy clothes in sexy ways (firewomen, policewomen, lab coats, etc... yes I realize those clothes are not gendered, but society still tends to think of them as 'guy clothes' even though they really aren't any more). There aren't that many calenders out there of guys in dresses (although there are some, and they are usually quite awesome IMHO).

So basically what I am saying is that I think that society makes it more okay for girls to be guys, but not so okay for guys to be girls. So that means quite of few of the gals out there don't even realize what they are, or don't think about it so hard, or can come to terms with it easier. But the guys, well, it's harder because society really beats on you. So you gotta go somewhere to look for folks to talk to.

So this would affect andros even more since it's easier for a girl to be a 'non' or a 'both', but much harder in society for a guy.

My other theory, which is even less of anything... I don't even believe it myself, but hey, I can have a theory I don't believe, right? Anyways... As unborns humans are more similar to females than males. So maybe it's more natural to be a female than to be a male?

And the last one, which I just thought up while I was typing this all... We were all born from women, and shared blood/food/hormones with our mothers before we were born. So maybe if there were people that were born from males then it all would be flipped around?

I dunno. Maybe I'm completely wrong. If nothing else, I bet this will spark an interesting conversation.

[NicholeW.]

The social reasons, I think, are that to 'leave' a dominant class voluntarily is never made easy. Instead the dominants tend to harshly enforce allegiance to and submission to the dominant group -- most especially among its own perceived members.

White people who attempted to live among blacks prior to maybe the 1940s were subject to rather harsh treatment by the white majority. I would imagine they were no more welcomed among the blacks than they were allowed to be among the blacks by other white folk.

OTH, to attempt to 'pass as white,' although discouraged, could more easily be 'understood' by whites.

My perception is that patriarchy is not different from other socially/culturally dominant groups. The punishments for 'leaving' that group must be dealt with, and often are, harshly.

Androgynous dressing would probably tend toward being more noticeable for a denominated male. A denominated female might not attract much notice at all. I suspect that there are more FTMs than are normally counted. Even the guys that are counted seem to be less obtrusive within the community than do the gals.

I think this is where I'll stop. I have some theories about that as well, but discretion in that regard may be best.

N~

[Louise]

So basically what I am saying is that I think that society makes it more okay for girls to be guys, but not so okay for guys to be girls. So that means quite of few of the gals out there don't even realize what they are, or don't think about it so hard, or can come to terms with it easier. But the guys, well, it's harder because society really beats on you. So you gotta go somewhere to look for folks to talk to.

So this would affect andros even more since it's easier for a girl to be a 'non' or a 'both', but much harder in society for a guy.

My perception is that patriarchy is not different from other socially/culturally dominant groups. The punishments for 'leaving' that group must be dealt with, and often are, harshly.

I could not agree more with both of you.  This only shows that androgyny is about gender not about sex.  I do a class on feminist ethics in my ethics course and I always have the students do the BEM scale test to get a discussion going on gender and androgyny.  While I do not require the students to give me their results, I always share my scores with the students and many of them share their scores with others in the class.  I teach both men and women (this particular class has mostly traditional age undergraduates 18-20 years).  Both men and women who report their scores are as likely to be androgynous. 

I am old enough to remember the days before civil rights and before the feminist movement when society was much more rigidly hierarchical regarding both race and gender.  Nicole makes a very perceptive point when she says that it is always easier for a member of the supposedly "lower" group in a hierarchy to move up than for someone to identify with a "lower" group.  In particular it has become easier for women to move into a more equal role in society (not that we have reached either racial or gender utopia yet).  What is not as easy is the more profound revolution which involves doing away with the whole notion of hierarchy built on gender or race.  Just as interracial individuals like Tiger Woods and Barak Obama are showing us the artificiality of concepts like "race", androgynous individuals can show society the artificiality of gender.  But just as many people will still call Woods and Obama black because they have darker skin than the majority, most people will still want to classify us as either male or female based on appearance.

[Pica Pica]

I'd agree with a lot here, though I do have the one point to clarify...as androgyne are considering themselves both or neither - is this going up or down the hierarchy - where does it stand? And also, an androgyne who identifies as such does not seem to be moving up or down, they are staking the territory in which they were born.

[Luc]

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are about equal amounts of male- and female-bodied androgynes on this site!

S.D.

[Kir]

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are about equal amounts of male- and female-bodied androgynes on this site!

S.D.

You very well might be right. I'm fairly new here and haven't met very many people yet. Plus the fact that I have no idea for the most part if someone is male bodied or female bodied if they are androgyne (and it doesn't really matter to me either way). But there was the poll I saw earlier and the scores were 14-3 (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php?topic=27095.0). Of course that isn't scientific at all. I'm just trying to understand why the score is that way.

I've heard other unscientific studies that suggest roughly the same ratio.

...(snip)  Both men and women who report their scores are as likely to be androgynous.  (snip)...

But this suggests that there actually are an equal amount of men and women (and I've heard similar things that suggest if you do an actual SCIENTIFIC study the numbers are about 50/50).

So why is it that in an unscientific study you get more males showing up, but in a scientific study it's the same?

I'd agree with a lot here, though I do have the one point to clarify...as androgyne are considering themselves both or neither - is this going up or down the hierarchy - where does it stand? And also, an androgyne who identifies as such does not seem to be moving up or down, they are staking the territory in which they were born.

Ah, I don't think they move up or down. I think they move sideways 

[Jaimey]

I think I've talked to more male bodied androgynes than female on here, but then again, unless we specify, it's pretty hard to tell (which I LOVE).

I think that women have a lot more opportunity to express gender fluidity.  I think that women may not feel the need to question their identity as much because their is more room.  That's just one theory though  . 

I've also thought about the possibility that every child "starts out" female, technically.  I've heard that anyway.  It could be a factor as well.


Bring on the theories!  I love trying to figure these things out!