• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Men wearing dresses

I've had a silly-looking but semi-serious question for some time. This thread gives me an opportunity to ask it.

Why do men wear trousers, while women wear skirts? Wouldn't the reverse of this be more practical?

I'm thinking of the differing packaging needs. Trousers, especially if they're tight, flaunt a man's junk. And just as parting one's hair on the left or the right is a cosmetic decision, so men may need to decide which pant-leg to park their convex appendage in. (I've not had these problems since middle age.) Women, being more concave, do not have such issues.

Not-entirely-joking...

Men wear pants so they can ride horses without chafing their balls. Women wear skirts so that men can more easily rape them.
 
I've had a silly-looking but semi-serious question for some time. This thread gives me an opportunity to ask it.

Why do men wear trousers, while women wear skirts? Wouldn't the reverse of this be more practical?

I'm thinking of the differing packaging needs. Trousers, especially if they're tight, flaunt a man's junk. And just as parting one's hair on the left or the right is a cosmetic decision, so men may need to decide which pant-leg to park their convex appendage in. (I've not had these problems since middle age.) Women, being more concave, do not have such issues.

Okay. I'm being humorous, but I do think that generally speaking men's legs aren't something that look good in dresses. Perhaps all you men could wear maxi dresses, as they were called in the 60s. They went down to the ankles. Anyone else old enough to remember that style? :D

Oh, I dunno. For some strange reason, I've always found a well-fitted priest's cassock to be very sexy on a man. And kilts... oh goodness kilts are hot.
 
Oh boy. This should be contentious.

It is defined as either plural or singular, and, more importantly, you are not automatically entitled to personal information about others just because you're used to having it embedded in words.
I agree that nobody is entitled to personal information about others. That said, in the real world, humans are highly sexually dimorphic, and we can accurately identify the sex of another post-pubescent human well over 99% of the time. A person's sex isn't something that can be hidden, unless we force all people to wear muumuus and masks all the time. It has nothing to do with entitlement, it has to do with observation and the scientific realities of secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics. Pronouns don't refer to a person's internal gender identity, they refer to a person's apparent sex, based on the perception of the speaker.

I'm fine with using whatever basic pronoun set a person likes, within reason. Even though it rubs me wrong grammatically, I'll even use "they". But that's a matter of courtesy, not because a person's sex is somehow magically transformed or hidden by their adoption of a nonbinary identity.


This issue has real consequences in the real world that we live in
What consequences does it have?

So, yes, the community of people who are experiencing a great level of freedom to exist openly due to technology connecting them around the globe and who do not meet their society's standards of sex, appearance, body parts, sexual preferences, relationships, etc., are going to be forming new language around that, around those layers upon layers of real experiences and relationships and a dynamically changing environment, because the existing language in common usage is derogatory, condemnatory, and dehumanizing. It's a language that tells them that if they express themselves freely, they will pay for it in some way that hijacks their animal brain fear of losing the protection of the group at the very least and often fear of brutality and murder.

I'm sorry, but the existing language of "he" and "she", "woman" and "man" is not derogatory and dehumanizing. I understand that it's a touchy subject for some people, and I'll try my best to accommodate their feelings.

On the other hand, being referred to as a "uterus haver" or a "menstruator" or a "birthing parent" or a "person with a cervix" is actually extremely dehumanizing - it literally robs women of their humanity and reduces them to body parts. All in the name of "inclusivity".
 
^^^ That. Although I will acknowledge that since biologically non-binary persons do actually exist that there's reason enough to come up with a workable solution.

Biological sex in humans is strictly binary. There is no in-between, and there is no third sex.

Also, none of the people in the news expressing a non-binary social gender identity has a disorder of sexual development. None of them are intersex people. And the vast majority of people with DSD conditions do not consider themselves to be non-binary.
 
I will make a comment about the use of they

Before I came online I didn't know that people didn't use it in singular situations.

All my life in the North of England I've used it.

Examples

"I saw your Uncle Fred today"

"Oh What were they doing?"

"I saw Sue Smith at the train station"

"Where were they going?"

I assume I picked it up from people around because I done this all my life.
 
In Seattle there is a uni-kilt store. The first time I heard of it I had a good laugh.

I do not think you would want to go into a pub in Scotland and start calling men who wear kilts wimps or something like that.

Are men and women the same? No. Different hormones. Expression with clothes is cultural. The 90s metro sexual look was sexually ambiguous, masking differences.

Gays dressing like women piss off hard core heteros in my generation because it conflicts with identity,.
 
^^^ That. Although I will acknowledge that since biologically non-binary persons do actually exist that there's reason enough to come up with a workable solution.

Biological sex in humans is strictly binary. There is no in-between, and there is no third sex.

Also, none of the people in the news expressing a non-binary social gender identity has a disorder of sexual development. None of them are intersex people. And the vast majority of people with DSD conditions do not consider themselves to be non-binary.

Are you certain that there is no in-between or intersex?

Sex assignment at birth usually aligns with a child's anatomical sex and phenotype. The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported to be as low as 0.018% or as high as roughly 1.7%, depending on which conditions are counted as intersex. The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%. Other intersex conditions involve atypical chromosomes, gonads, or hormones.
 
Evolution is a slow process. Apart from white people losing some of our skin pigment, not much have happened to our bodies since we left the Rift valley in modern Kenya. Hunter/gatherers from that area don't need clothes for protection. And that's what we've evolved for. Black people actually still excellently adapted for just that climate even if naked. And that's the climate our instincts have evolved for.

Also, it's a question of what you're used to. Humans are highly adaptable. Swedes spend a lot of time in the cold. We go skinny dipping in the winter and so on. WE get used to it. Once I went diving in Egypt in the winter (10 degrees Celsius). After hours of diving our bodies were severely chilled. When we got out of our wetsuits and were going to dry off, the Egyptians, Americans, French, Vietnamese and Korean in our group looked like they were dying from the cold. The Norwegians, Russians and me were all fine.

Genetically we're all the same. So it's not genetics. It's just a question of what you're used to.



What's possibly more practical than being naked? It requires zero effort to get ready in the morning. After we've been swimming naked there's zero wet swimming clothes to bother with.



I can assure you that this is a cultural artifact. It's a weird hang-up. I'm from Scandinavia. Northern Europeans (Germanic tribes and Viking regions) have cultures very relaxed about nudity. I regularly go skinny dipping in the Copenhagen harbour during the middle of the day. It's smack in the center of Copenhagen. Nobody cares. Nobody has a problem with it. Nobody is offended. Nobody stops to stare. And more importantly. I'm not alone. Lots of people do it.

You don't need to spend a lot of time naked together with your family and grand parents in a sauna to get relaxed about it. I'd argue that it's the healthy thing to do. Young people would have a hell of a lot less hang ups about their bodies if they were surrounded by normal people, letting it all hang out.

South Europeans and Americans are noticeably more neurotic about sex and intimacy than Northern Europeans.

I don't think this cultural obsession about covering up and hiding your eyes from public sexuality is healthy. It seems to make people really twisted and weird in the head. With all kinds of weird hang ups about sex and sexuality. It seems to make people fearful of both other people as well as their own bodies. From a Scandinavian perspective their behaviour around sex is very odd.

Me personally, I've stopped having sex with Americans and Italians. Too much weird hang ups and fucked up ideas about what sex is and should be. It too often feels like having sex with a child in an adults body. Even Arab women are more relaxed about their sexuality than Americans. Just my impression from decades of being a slut.



Sure. But the face is no less at risk than the rest of the body, and no culture has issues about letting our faces be exposed to the sun. So it's clearly not that.

There may be lots of bearded men with dresses in your neck of the woods, but I promise you that won't happen in my very conservative American city.

Copenhagen is extremely liberal. Berlin, Amsterdam and Copenhagen is the three most liberal cities I've ever been to in the world. That's why I chose to move to Copenhagen.

Yeah, we have a lot of bearded men in dresses. It wouldn't get any reaction in these parts. I have a Danish friend here. And ex soldier. An absolutely massive guy. Well over two meters tall and a mountain of muscles. And a big beard. Always wears West African colourful kaftans. So a dress basically. Nobody has ever looked twice. Nobody cares over here.

I am not offended by nudity. I just think that most people look better wearing clothing. It's about aesthetics, comfort and protection.I grew up in a climate that had cold winters. By the time I was about 12, I hated the cold and was always cold. We are all a little bit different when it comes to how we are able to tolerate extremes in temperature. Enough. We have different opinions. No problem.

So you don't think the culture we live in has an impact on our preferences for what we wear?
 
Here's a fun fact: in Italian, the word for dress (vestito) is a masculine noun!
 
I am not offended by nudity. I just think that most people look better wearing clothing. It's about aesthetics, comfort and protection.I grew up in a climate that had cold winters. By the time I was about 12, I hated the cold and was always cold. We are all a little bit different when it comes to how we are able to tolerate extremes in temperature. Enough. We have different opinions. No problem.

So you don't think the culture we live in has an impact on our preferences for what we wear?

Sure it does. But I don't think culture tells the whole story.

I'm less inclined to believe that culture is responsible for the whole story of how we view nudity or how comfortable we are naked. That includes religion, btw. I was raised more religious (but not very religious) than my husband but I've always been less shy about walking around unclothed. My sisters were scandalized when we were kids so I dressed more quickly than I would have otherwise. Looking at my kids, two were naked little kids that you had to chase to get clothes on after a bath and to teach not to open the door unless you were wearing clothes. The other two? They were happier dressed. Difference in temperament? Personality? I honestly don't know. I hated the dressing room during gym class but at home? Not a problem to walk around naked. My husband spent a lot of time playing sports so had much more time in locker rooms so one would think he'd be less shy about nudity.
 
Are you certain that there is no in-between or intersex?

Sex assignment at birth usually aligns with a child's anatomical sex and phenotype. The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported to be as low as 0.018% or as high as roughly 1.7%, depending on which conditions are counted as intersex. The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%. Other intersex conditions involve atypical chromosomes, gonads, or hormones.

YEs, I am 100% certain. "Intersex" doesn't actually mean that they're in-between the sexes. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but each individual is still ONLY male or female. There is LITERALLY no alternative among humans - a single individual cannot produce both egg cells and sperm cells. It's not possible.
 
YEs, I am 100% certain. "Intersex" doesn't actually mean that they're in-between the sexes. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but each individual is still ONLY male or female. There is LITERALLY no alternative among humans - a single individual cannot produce both egg cells and sperm cells. It's not possible.

I'm not sure it's impossible. Suffice it to say, that true hermaphroditism, where both types of sexual tissue are present, is quite rare. The successful production of both types of gametes has never been observed in such individuals, as far as I know.
 
YEs, I am 100% certain. "Intersex" doesn't actually mean that they're in-between the sexes. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but each individual is still ONLY male or female. There is LITERALLY no alternative among humans - a single individual cannot produce both egg cells and sperm cells. It's not possible.

I'm not sure it's impossible. Suffice it to say, that true hermaphroditism, where both types of sexual tissue are present, is quite rare. The successful production of both types of gametes has never been observed in such individuals, as far as I know.

I'll accept that as true, since it's well beyond my ability to know for sure. Nevertheless, I still see the need for a third category pronoun. That is unless we decide to eliminate gender pronouns entirely. But that's not going to happen. (IanSYK's experiences in the North of England notwithstanding. What were they thinking =/ what was he thinking.)
 
YEs, I am 100% certain. "Intersex" doesn't actually mean that they're in-between the sexes. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but each individual is still ONLY male or female. There is LITERALLY no alternative among humans - a single individual cannot produce both egg cells and sperm cells. It's not possible.

I'm not sure it's impossible. Suffice it to say, that true hermaphroditism, where both types of sexual tissue are present, is quite rare. The successful production of both types of gametes has never been observed in such individuals, as far as I know.

Mmm... even in cases of true hermaphroditism, a person won't have two ovaries and two testes. They can't - ovaries and testes start out as the same tissue, and diverge during fetal development based on the chromosomal signals sent.

True hermaprhoditism is extremely rare - 0.0012%. Most commonly among that incredibly rare population are people who either have two ovotestes (a sterile tissue formation stalled halfway through differentiation) or they have one ovary and one ovotestis. These are female people (XX chromosomes, other internal reproductive organs are female) and they frequently have a malfunctioning SRY gene. This formation is somewhere around 3/4 of the cases. These female people are only fertile if they have one functioning ovary.

The remainder of the cases involve disorders that occur at conception: a single ovum ending up fertilized by two differently-sexed sperm, two ovum that fuse prior to being fertilized by a single male sperm, and vanishingly rare - two separate ovum, fertilized by two separate differently-sexed sperm that fuse after fertilization resulting in a true chimera.

In none of these cases will the individual produce both ova and sperm. In the majority of cases, they produce neither and are sterile. In no cases does a person have both a fully functional penis and a fully functional vagina. And in all cases, the person with the disorder is still only male or female.

One of the more common misunderstandings* is that "intersex" means the person is in between sexes, and thus that biological sex classifications in humans is a spectrum or is bimodally distributed rather than being binary. This occurs because people tend to conflate sexual characteristics with biological sex class.

As a reminder...

Biological sex class is based on gamete type, and is strictly binary. Disorders are possible that result in incompletely differentiated formation of the gametes, but they are vanishingly rare. In the very rare cases that it occurs, the person may have ambiguous external primary sexual characteristics, but don't have ambiguous internal primary sexual characteristics.

Primary sexual characteristics are based on reproductive anatomy, and are technically binary from before birth. This includes penis, testes, as deferens, and prostate in males. In females this includes ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vaginal canal, and pelvic bone in females. These structures are binarily different in males and females in normal formation. Medical disorders of sexual development can occur that interrupt or falsely trigger the sex-based differentiation process in utero in some very rare cases, resulting in external primary sexual characteristics that are ambiguous: formation of penis halted partway through development resulting in a structure that is either a very small penis (on a male) or a very large clitoris (on a female), or partial formation of scrotal sacks resulting in features that aren't standard formation labia or scrotum, or occasionally the urethral outlet doesn't transition into the penis and retains an secondary external opening near the base of the penis. Size and shape of these characteristics show variation among members of each sex, but there is no overlap between sexes, as the characteristics are sexually differentiated.

Secondary sexual characteristics are sex-linked features triggered by hormones that begin at puberty. These mark the transition from immature to sexually mature individuals. This includes the onset of menarche, growth of breasts, and widening of hips in females. In males, this includes the descent of the testes, elongation of the penis, growth of facial hair, virilization of the vocal chords and adams apple, and the accretion of dense muscle mass. These characteristics show considerable variation among members of each sex, but virtually no overlap between the sexes. Overlaps that do occur are invariably the result of a medical disorder, although not necessarily a DSD. For example, hirsutism in females isn't considered a DSD. It can result from a variety of conditions, including PCOS, adrenal tumors, and rare genetic disorders like congenital general hypertrichosis (I had to go look that one up :)).

Tertiary sexual characteristics are sexually dimorphic features. These are features that vary between males and females, but are not directly tied to either biological sex class or to hormonal triggers. These tend to be evolutionary developments, and there's reason to believe that they are largely the result of sexual selection. This includes things like height difference, size of hands and feet, shape of eye socket, shape of jaw, etc. These are genetically determined and inherited, but there's a large variation within members of the same sex and considerable overlap between the sexes. For example, while it's generally true that males are taller than females, it's not rare to find a male who is shorter than an average female, nor to find a female that is taller than an average male.
 
I'll accept that as true, since it's well beyond my ability to know for sure. Nevertheless, I still see the need for a third category pronoun. That is unless we decide to eliminate gender pronouns entirely. But that's not going to happen. (IanSYK's experiences in the North of England notwithstanding. What were they thinking =/ what was he thinking.)

Can you make an argument for why a third category of pronouns is necessary?
 
YEs, I am 100% certain. "Intersex" doesn't actually mean that they're in-between the sexes. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but each individual is still ONLY male or female. There is LITERALLY no alternative among humans - a single individual cannot produce both egg cells and sperm cells. It's not possible.

I'm not sure it's impossible. Suffice it to say, that true hermaphroditism, where both types of sexual tissue are present, is quite rare. The successful production of both types of gametes has never been observed in such individuals, as far as I know.

Mmm... even in cases of true hermaphroditism, a person won't have two ovaries and two testes. They can't - ovaries and testes start out as the same tissue, and diverge during fetal development based on the chromosomal signals sent.

True hermaprhoditism is extremely rare - 0.0012%. Most commonly among that incredibly rare population are people who either have two ovotestes (a sterile tissue formation stalled halfway through differentiation) or they have one ovary and one ovotestis. These are female people (XX chromosomes, other internal reproductive organs are female) and they frequently have a malfunctioning SRY gene. This formation is somewhere around 3/4 of the cases. These female people are only fertile if they have one functioning ovary.

The remainder of the cases involve disorders that occur at conception: a single ovum ending up fertilized by two differently-sexed sperm, two ovum that fuse prior to being fertilized by a single male sperm, and vanishingly rare - two separate ovum, fertilized by two separate differently-sexed sperm that fuse after fertilization resulting in a true chimera.

In none of these cases will the individual produce both ova and sperm. In the majority of cases, they produce neither and are sterile. In no cases does a person have both a fully functional penis and a fully functional vagina. And in all cases, the person with the disorder is still only male or female.

One of the more common misunderstandings* is that "intersex" means the person is in between sexes, and thus that biological sex classifications in humans is a spectrum or is bimodally distributed rather than being binary. This occurs because people tend to conflate sexual characteristics with biological sex class.

As a reminder...

Biological sex class is based on gamete type, and is strictly binary. Disorders are possible that result in incompletely differentiated formation of the gametes, but they are vanishingly rare. In the very rare cases that it occurs, the person may have ambiguous external primary sexual characteristics, but don't have ambiguous internal primary sexual characteristics.

Primary sexual characteristics are based on reproductive anatomy, and are technically binary from before birth. This includes penis, testes, as deferens, and prostate in males. In females this includes ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vaginal canal, and pelvic bone in females. These structures are binarily different in males and females in normal formation. Medical disorders of sexual development can occur that interrupt or falsely trigger the sex-based differentiation process in utero in some very rare cases, resulting in external primary sexual characteristics that are ambiguous: formation of penis halted partway through development resulting in a structure that is either a very small penis (on a male) or a very large clitoris (on a female), or partial formation of scrotal sacks resulting in features that aren't standard formation labia or scrotum, or occasionally the urethral outlet doesn't transition into the penis and retains an secondary external opening near the base of the penis. Size and shape of these characteristics show variation among members of each sex, but there is no overlap between sexes, as the characteristics are sexually differentiated.

Secondary sexual characteristics are sex-linked features triggered by hormones that begin at puberty. These mark the transition from immature to sexually mature individuals. This includes the onset of menarche, growth of breasts, and widening of hips in females. In males, this includes the descent of the testes, elongation of the penis, growth of facial hair, virilization of the vocal chords and adams apple, and the accretion of dense muscle mass. These characteristics show considerable variation among members of each sex, but virtually no overlap between the sexes. Overlaps that do occur are invariably the result of a medical disorder, although not necessarily a DSD. For example, hirsutism in females isn't considered a DSD. It can result from a variety of conditions, including PCOS, adrenal tumors, and rare genetic disorders like congenital general hypertrichosis (I had to go look that one up :)).

Tertiary sexual characteristics are sexually dimorphic features. These are features that vary between males and females, but are not directly tied to either biological sex class or to hormonal triggers. These tend to be evolutionary developments, and there's reason to believe that they are largely the result of sexual selection. This includes things like height difference, size of hands and feet, shape of eye socket, shape of jaw, etc. These are genetically determined and inherited, but there's a large variation within members of the same sex and considerable overlap between the sexes. For example, while it's generally true that males are taller than females, it's not rare to find a male who is shorter than an average female, nor to find a female that is taller than an average male.

I know all this, and we've probably discussed it before, largely agreeing on the facts, if I recall correctly. My point is simply you should be very careful to declare something as "impossible" in biology.
 
I know all this, and we've probably discussed it before, largely agreeing on the facts, if I recall correctly. My point is simply you should be very careful to declare something as "impossible" in biology.

Except that it IS impossible for a single individual to produce both ova and sperm. It IS impossible for a single individual to be both sexes, or to be a third sex. It IS impossible for a single individual to have both a normally functioning penis and a normally functioning vagina.
 
I know all this, and we've probably discussed it before, largely agreeing on the facts, if I recall correctly. My point is simply you should be very careful to declare something as "impossible" in biology.

Except that it IS impossible for a single individual to produce both ova and sperm. It IS impossible for a single individual to be both sexes, or to be a third sex. It IS impossible for a single individual to have both a normally functioning penis and a normally functioning vagina.

Ok, then we don't agree. None of those things is impossible, at least, we cannot make that claim. You can claim, correctly, that they are unobserved. But they are not impossible as in contradicting some fundamental aspect of reality. That a species could use echolocation was unobserved, until it wasn't, and claiming it was impossible would have been unjustified. This is the thing, with biology, you are working with systems whose properties are contingent. That might make things highly unlikely, but impossible is almost always too strong of a word, unless you mean something like the property of the biological system would contradict some fundamental physical law. Then it might make sense to say "it is impossible".

Until then, you do yourself a great disservice by saying "impossible" instead of "unobserved". That word by itself speaks volumes in the context of biology, especially human biology.

Take it as a piece of advice for how to make your arguments stronger. You don't require impossible, so why use it?
 
I'll accept that as true, since it's well beyond my ability to know for sure. Nevertheless, I still see the need for a third category pronoun. That is unless we decide to eliminate gender pronouns entirely. But that's not going to happen. (IanSYK's experiences in the North of England notwithstanding. What were they thinking =/ what was he thinking.)

Can you make an argument for why a third category of pronouns is necessary?

Yeah I already did. Assuming we are going to keep using "him" and "her", and based on my explanation for why I believe singular "they" is improper grammar. But if wanted to we could eliminate him, her, and they and just refer to everyone as "the person" or "the persons".
 
Back
Top Bottom