Quote from: Nicky on March 25, 2009, 04:45:58 PM
I get the feeling androgynes are not that well suited to the regimented life of an army, navy or airforce. I imagine that we would likely be found in supporting roles, kitchen, entertainment, supplies, camp whore, or the protesters, the defaulters that sort of thing. But I don't really know.
I think that's kind of an odd comment. It seems to be making a lot of assumptions about "androgynes" having some kind of overarching, uniting character beyond their androgyny. Why the kitchens, why entertainment? Because we're all too feminine to get our hands dirty? Because we're little kids who want to play dress up? I don't get it.
All cultures make war, and lots of cultures have more than 2 genders. Ergo lots of cultures must have fighty-fighty androgynes. If you look at some cultures, people with androgynous traits are regarded as more dangerous in battle because they are seen as transgressing conventional social mores, or as imbued with some kind of magical power or significance.
Personally I don't see myself in the conventional military because I'm too mentally erratic to fit in well. I do badly with institutional irrationality. However I can definately see myself in battle, were I physically capable. I know what it is to fight for my own life and I could certainly do it again; fighting for the people I care about would be fairly natural for me.
