The ambiguity of man (or woman)
Posted on
I feel I must apologise in advance for what might be a sensitive subject. I mean no offence. In all the years I've been using public transport, I've seen all kinds of characters, many of whom have, at some point, been regular fellow passengers. I could probably write a book, albeit a short one, on their variety. Over the years, however, there have been a very small number of individuals who, for politeness, have escaped my blogs: those who, even in the singular form, I can only safely refer to as 'they'.
I would class them as 'people of ambiguous gender'. By this, I do not mean to infer transsexual, transgender or even transvestite, each of whom occupy their own distinct and acceptable niche. I simply mean that from their appearance alone, I have no easy way of knowing for sure whether they are male or female. Often they are so neutral in appearance, attire and attitude that I would struggle to offer anything more solid than a guess.
There are several differences between males and females. The most obvious defining ones are usually concealed in civilised society. Much as we may sometimes wish this wasn't the case in the company of one whom we admire, this is something we are perhaps unknowingly grateful for in the company of those we don't. Even beyond those very specific anatomical differences, there are, of course, other ways of telling gender.
For hundreds of years, artists have been able to draw, paint and sculpt figures that we can identify as male or female. Even in some of the most basic sketches and paintings from ancient times, the artist had ways of defining gender. In the face alone, for example, the position of the cheekbones and the shape of the eyes and chin can often betray the gender even before seeing rest of the body. In much the same way as we are able to subconsciously pick up on these differences when we see people in real life, artists are able to accentuate them to achieve their intentions.
Sometimes, however, those differences become blurred. In these cases, we look to other traits. The shape of the body (particularly the chest and hips) can provide the easiest clues. Where this still doesn't help, the individual's attire or grooming habits (hair style, facial hair (if any) and hands) should help decide matters one way or the other. But sometimes, even this isn't enough. In the individuals about whom this blog is written, none of these items shed enough light to provide a satisfactory resolution.
One such individual, for example, is a regular feature of my journeys to and from work. This individual is in their twenties and, to be polite, just portly enough to obscure any defining features. They wear their hair short and in no particular style. Their attire, since I only see this person on the way to or from work, always takes the form of smart trousers and a shirt, often with a plain woollen jumper when it is cold. The cut of these clothes is such that ascertaining if they were made 'for him' or 'for her' is near impossible. Even the shoes are simple, functional and ambiguous lace-ups. There are no obvious signs of makeup, but similarly there is no hint of facial hair.
Put on the spot, I'd probably say this person was a female. But there is room for me to be wrong. I don't know this person and there's a good chance I never will. Were I to speak to them, they may tell me their name and, barring some androgynous moniker (e.g. Chris, Leslie, etc.), all may be resolved. Since this is unlikely, however, it probably shouldn't' even matter. And indeed it doesn't really, but it always makes me think.
Several of the characters on my journeys stand out for a variety of overt reasons. Some stand out because of precisely the opposite.