Mens High Heels

Is there an evolutionary reason for crossdressers to exist?

I have this theory that crossdressers exist because they would hang out with the women when men went off to war and to hunt. If the men did not come back, they carried on the blood line. Anyone think this theory is valid?

Public Comments

1. Nice theory. I always thought they existed to wear the really horrible clothes no other women will wear!
2. Well, cross-dressing is about gender-identified clothes, which is only a recent invention compared to the long evolutionary history of humans. But your theory is similar to one of the theories of the evolutionary advantages of homosexuality called the 'sneaky male' theory. This theory applies not just to humans but to many species that exhibit homosexuality ... which is a *lot* of species. [Incidentally, I do realize that cross-dressing is not the same as homosexuality. There are cross-dressers who are not gay, and gay men who are not cross-dressers. The point of my first sentence is that there is probably NO evolutionary advantage of cross-dressing itself ... it is too recent a phenomenon to have any evolutionary "purpose." My point here is that your theory nevertheless does have some validity.] To quote Richard Dawkins description of the 'sneaky male' theory: "In harem-based species, like some seals and deer, a minority of males monopolises the females, leaving a surplus of bachelors. Those supernumerary males that have no hope of displacing a harem-master sometimes specialise in an alternative, 'best of a bad job,' strategy: sneaking quick copulations with females while his back is turned. Genes promoting sneaking skills are passed on, in parallel with genes promoting the dominant male skill of bashing up other males. "You can tell harem species by their sexual dimorphism - males larger than females. Humans are less dimorphic than elephant seals (a dominant bull typically outweighs 14 females) but dimorphic enough to suggest at least some legacy of harem-based history. Clandestine matings with females may have provided the only route for surplus bachelors to pass on their genes. Their skills may have included lulling harem masters into a false sense of security, and now here is the point. A genuine preference for other males might well carry more conviction than a simulated indifference to females. By analogy, women frequently remark that they feel 'secure' in the company of homosexual men, and monarchs have staffed their harems with eunuchs. ... In any case homosexual men are not eunuchs and they can fertilise women. According to the sneaky male theory, their homosexual orientation gained them privileged access to women and a minority stream of homosexual genes prospered." This is similar to your theory in that certain males gained an advantage from identification with females to the point where they were so non-threatening to alpha males that they are left alone (or behind) with the females. There are many other theories as well (see source), but this is a good one.
3. If you're talking about primitive man, like a "cave man", I don't think there was any "crossdressing" because they all wore pretty-much the same thing: fur wraps, cloaks, maybe a breechcloth, and headwear. They didn't have furs for girls and furs for guys. Evolutionarily, look at most animals: it's always the male who is more colorful, pretty, or with a big mane or brighter feathers, than the female. This may be to help females blend in more with the surroundings for safety, where the more colorful males can use that color or mane or plumage to intimidate enemies. Men, from the times of Egypt until the early-1800's, dressed much more flamboyantly then women of the time, especially during social functions. So, maybe certain men feel an animal, genetic, deeply natural need to be more flamboyant, but in our society they are only allowed to if they do it in the restricted context of "crossdressing" or being a "drag queen."
4. If you have not already, I think you need to read : Evolution's Rainbow ", by Joan Roughgarden. It is a rethinking of Darwin's sexual selection theories. I have not read it, so I can not evaluate it's arguments. She is a evolutionary biologist in good standing, though.
5. think of different theory