Unlike some species, humans have pretty mild sexual dimorphism: men and women are only a little different, beyond the obvious (but hidden) bits. Not like the sage grouse, for example.
But we do what we can. For example, I always thought the bathroom icons were the same except for the dress they put on the woman.
But on closer inspection, their bodies are a little different, too.
She has skinnier legs, and his shoulders and torso are broader. Plus, her arms are angled out, as if she has wider hips under that dress.
Are the different bodies necessary? I think if they just put the dress on the man’s body, and angled his arms out, he could pass as a woman.
Or, if you prefer, take the dress off her, and let her arms hang freely:
In other words, I think it’s all in the dress and the posture. The different body types are gratuitous. They do contribute to the total effect — but only if the figures are shown side by side and with different clothes. In isolation either body would do as long as the clothes were different. That means the clothes and posture are teaching us about the body types, not vice versa.
The man is the generic “person,” and the woman is a variation. That view of sex differences goes back to (the story of) Adam and Eve, and was also the dominant Western medical model till the 18th Century or so. If fact, everyone starts out as a female fetus, before some people are made male.*
(Of course, this kind of subtlety is only necessary since we’re not willing to use exaggerated body-type differences as symbols – that’s a different website.)
If just putting the man in the dress doesn’t do it for you, how’s this?
Or, for those who prefer to exaggerate clothing differences instead of body differences, there are these (h/t Scott):
* In recent days we were reminded that there are “suicide bombers” and then there are “female suicide bombers.”
I like your last picture. That’s brilliant. And it works up side down too, right?
Great article, great thought. The body is nature, the dress is nurture. Really love it!
I like the last picture too. It’s brilliant.
[...] seems comparable to the dimorphism found in [...]
[...] seems comparable to the dimorphism found in [...]
[...] hegemonic — group being anointed to the linguistic throne of invisible deference. As when the icon for person is the same as the one for man, while the one for woman is different. Race is another [...]
[...] person could be anyone (even if it does not have a skirt, it also does not seem to be overly-broad. See here, and I prefer pants). It is not particularly masculine or feminine. The design is clean, and there [...]
[...] So what about same-sex and opposite sex? That doesn’t work, because the sexes aren’t opposites. They are narrow variations on a theme — much more alike than the different sexes among many other animals. Sure, they play complementary roles in biological reproduction. But they are still more similar than different. The construction of opposites is more useful for socially differentiating men and women — or boys and girls — than it is for biologically identifying them. So, “same-sex” is OK, but “opposite-sex” is not. Same- and opposite-gender is probably an even bigger illusion. [...]
[...] Neurosexism Create Difference, by Cordelia Fine, due out soon. Feeding my interest in the issue of sexual dimorphism in humans — which we work so hard to teach to children — the book is described like [...]
[...] union or marriage types (homogamy and heterogamy), on the one hand, and sexual dimorphism / gender on the other, made me sensitive to my first lesson. In it, I learned that to make good, you need [...]
[...] 2. The bathroom icon has no clothes [...]
[...] sort of like the little man and woman icons they use in the chart (a recurring issue). The bodies are the same, but the clothes are different. I can get behind that, what with the [...]
[...] just shows you how nothing is really sacred to vandalism. Here, some clever clogs has defaced a public service icon in such a way, that the man’s icon has become a woman’s icon. The actual sign is made [...]