Printable View
Just a crazy thought experiment.
How do you think the various flavors of gender expression would feel or think if all gender identity was masculine? Would we feel like something is off or we needed something more. Or would we never miss what we never knew existed.
If I had never seen feminine things (on females) I would have never developed the curiosity of what it felt like to dress that way. Nothing would have been forbidden, so any style would be appropriate. I would probably dress much the way usually do, focusing on comfort rather than style.
There would be nothing to know that had a difference if there was only one gender. I look at it like this, if there was no ice cream how could you feel you were missing something?
A really good read is Ursula K. LeGuine’s ‘The Left Hand of Darkness’. An SF novel about a world on which human beings have only one sex/gender.
Can not quite picture a masculine bra?
I can wax on this all day lol but here's my short opinion...
There are no feminine things. Including clothes. Boom! Check out the history if clothing... Men assuming the act of putting on girls clothes is some approximation of genuine femininity is probably a masculine trait. Doesn't mean they dont feel different doing it. And I don't mean to insult transfolk who may emit genuine femininity from their core.
Femininity is innate and is described in behaviours. Google what is femininity... you won't find wearing specific clothes and staring in mirrors anywhere near the top. Although it is important to females that they attract a suitable mate.
Males typically gravitate towards mechanical interests and females social. Note I say typical and the extent of typical is on a sliding scale and pretty much dictated by in utero hormonal exposure.
Without any specific assignment of behaviours, most born humans will fall into the typical motions.
2 defined groups would always present with some outliers as well.
With difference there will also be the taboo of becoming or playing out the other part which will excite and stimulate some.
So in short, whatever females are up to, some of us were born for it more than others and some of us would always want a piece of it.
Ummm I think one of has to re-read this book. Is it me?Quote:
Originally Posted by JennyMay
As I remember it, the people on that world were flexible in gender and could take on either role (or neither). In fact, those that stayed in ONE gender were considered as some kind of freak.
I always thought that it would be a good way to live.
Am I wrong?
But back to the OP - I figure that I wouldn't know WHAT was wrong, but I'd still feel out of place and a misfit.
I think our love of "feminine things" (assuming you mean clothes, shoes, nails, hair, etc.) is mostly learned. Wanting what we see on beautiful creatures, and being told "no", that is not for you. And driven, changing over history and culture, by societal norms.
But, feminine things, before there were these "things" was just behavior, attitude, comportment, thoughts, etc. That existed before the "things" and is the root of us wanting these things.
Julie
Bullseye, Julie.
That basic female difference with males that long, long ago involved only behavior because everybody was hairy and there were no clothes. But those female-like behaviors can still be present in males as a result of genetic errors. And the reverse is also true. Therein lies the root of gender variance because gender is a large collection of behaviors we exhibit naturally that are generally useful in serving your biological role in daily life. So, there are the basic genetic behaviors and then there are the learned behaviors that are part of culture. The basic behaviors are largely set by genetics; the learned behaviors are set by culture. The final result is a blend of the two that create a complex lifestyle. The proportions of the two tend to regulate just how much of the other gender is present in a particular person.
If you want to see something along those lines look for an older movie called "The Lathe of Heaven".
I put it badly. Yes, in the book people move between male , female and non-gendered.
If the women's fashions of the 1950's and very early 60's had never happened. Let's say the women's movement happened back in the 1920's so that by the 50's women were already without dresses or skirts and blouses and of course all the strict foundations and garter stockings that went with those outfits would be gone as well. I am from that era and pretty much saw it all and will say without a doubt that if women back then dressed like today I would have ZERO interest in women's clothing, none! The cotton panty type, the cotton slips devoid of lace, no nylon stockings and so on would have evolved into pants, stretch pants, sweaters and the like, with all the fabrics being the same as men's clothing albeit being cut for a feminine form. For me there would have been no impetus for me to try any women's clothing on.
The main thing I see is how society was in those days. How we all wore better clothes and possibly since men invented women's looks back then it could have been men's idea of how a woman should look. However nearly all women back in the day had no problem in looking feminine. Then there is the fact that there are no tailored clothes anymore, everything is off the rack, stretch to fit and the range of fabrics are gone as well, no more taffeta, acetate satin, rayon or silk or nylon to speak of rather only more generic fabrics that simply get the job done. And few dresses or skirts are lined anymore, and when they are lined it's usually in a cheap polyester type generic fabric.
Women for the most part do not wear high heels anymore. True shoes are still sought after and admired by women but most now get by with tennis shoes or flats or flip flops. Women wear little to no makeup anymore and in talking to a women's hair stylist years ago she said she was going to retire as none of the younger women were getting hair sets anymore. Women of today are now far more "butch" and "macho" trying to be more like men to the point most men are losing interest. Even the "tough guy" hero in most movies are now women!
I'd say the times have indeed changed.
If I am reading your question correctly you're asking "what if" everyone wore the same style of clothing. No? Totally unisex? I am not reading your question there would be only males. I am reading it as gender expression. Male and female wearing the same clothing. Unlike many on this site I had absolutely no interest in girls as a little kid. Girls just did not do the things I liked. Only one girl I knew played baseball. Girls wore dresses and I could not care less. I suspect puberty brought on a sexual awakening. Mother nature's programming.
I think any animal is programmed to reproduce. If humankind was to have no clothes there would still be someway to attract a mate to reproduce. If modern man and woman wore the exact clothing there would still be that programming. I have visions of my neighbor's cat in heat with several males fighting amongst themselves wanting to claim her. It had nothing to do with the color of the fur. It was programming. It is scent. I suspect somewhere way back when there had to be developed some mechanism to attract a male. Historically, there always seemed to be a lack of males due to warfare and defending the herd. There herd needed to reproduce. Perhaps, the female had to adopt some sort of plumage to attract the prize male?
If there was no boy or girl or men or women sections in the clothing store everyone would grab off the rack something that appealed to some inner sense. Perhaps it would be pants one day because I was going to go out horse back riding and pants makes more sense that a dress. But, if it was hot and humid and I wanted to wear something loose, then I'd choose a dress. I like colorful clothing so I'd buy a floral print over a solid color.
If I view your question in this context what does it say about me when I buy all these garments society has declared to be for women, only? Your questions drags me back to the big, "Why?"
I resemble that remark, Bynna! :straightface:
To the extent that it NEVER OCCURRED TO ME TO TRY ON WOMEN'S THINGS until I was 50+!:eek:
Before then, I simply thot of women's clothes the way most males do, as things I wanted to get them out of!:devil:
Other than that, your thread is pure fantasy, but food for thot.:daydreaming:
Along the lines of: What if u could take a pill and look like Marilyn Monroe!?:heehee:
Brynna you can't ask these kind of questions. The mere thought of them is bad. It is like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters. It can open a portal to a black hole millions of light years away into which all earthly matter will be sucked and blown to smithereens at the other end (other theories mention the black hole leaving filthy socks and undies on the living room table the first time you invite your new girlfriend at your place, but lack confirmation by ocular witnesses so far. At any rate they all share the mention of a one-legged duck quacking at an eyes-rolling platypus at some point, but the experts opinions diverge about the exact signification of that particular cue). Anywhere else, but please, not on a crossdressers site.
wow, thanks for all the interesting thoughts. The conversation drifted more toward sociology and astrophysics (im looking at you Diane :) ) than i expected.
Shiny, You are spot on. I am from that era, too, and could not have said it better.
I think the outcome could be predicted by giving an example of where the kind of categorization you suggest has an equivalent...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brynna M
How would various flavors of homo-sapien species expression would feel if all homo-sapien species identity was human ?
If the word masculine had the all encompassing defining power you suggest then every expression would be no different from "all human expression is part of it's own identity". Individuals and groups would have or find differentiating aspects that fall within the category of human (or masculine as your supposition suggests). Human nature being what it is, I'm not sure there would ever be a better or worse situation just by redefining the words.
We don't know what we don't know!
Vikky
hello Brynna,
that is an interesting thought.
As a cross-dresser I wish to wear feminine clothes. Probably cause by nurture rather than nature. If both genders wore the same clothes there would be no attraction to the clothing for me.
If I was transgender I would wish to be female. Probably nature rather than nurture. I would know that I had the wrong anatomy.
stay healthy!
Luv J
If all clothing was "genderless" and everyone wore the same thing it wouldn't take long for someone to decorate their attire to stand out.
We hate being just like everyone else and have an internal need to be individual.
Perfect examples are militaries and prisons. The first step in having an efficient military is to convert the individual into a team. The first thing they do in prisons is give all inmates the same uniform to subjugate them and take away individuality. It works to some degree in those settings but would never last in society and the large scale.