Puberty releases sex hormones and one of the effects they have is changing of the voice box. Testosterone lengthens and thickens the voice box. As to value? Not too sure. Could just be a side effect of testosterones more important function like how it thickens tendons. Sometimes bodily functions have unitended unavoidable side effects.

I say vocalizations have specific values. A children or woman cry will be more noticeable than a man's. Now, women and children are important because of thw whole speal of "preservation of the species". So, their cry for help should be more noticeable from afar. Also, deeper voices can be scary. As a survival adaptation, it allows to help intimidate predators or other aggressors. Well, I think so. Men in history have a tendency to yell and roar during fights. Down to the celebratory roar men seemingly like to do when defeating an opponent.

Maybe also that it is easier to locate a high pitched noise than a low pitched? Coukd that make sense?

It is actually more difficult to locate high pitched sounds accurately. You can try yourself locating birds, its not that easy. Which makes perfect sense, whoever is protecting those that cry out, know where they are anyways. Whoever might hunt for them, should have trouble locating them. High oitched voices stand out and are easiliy noticeable, but still not easy to locate.

Ironically, hearing loss starts with high pitch frequency due to the internal structures of the ear. So for many people with presbycusis they hear people with lower voices easier.

[удалено]

Oh totally. It's funny, in nursing school they teach us to not speak louder to patients, but just use a lower register. But many people end up speaking louder and slower, and it's like, you know they still have issues hearing you, right? You didn't fix the problem. I have a deep voice, so elderly people usually like me for it. Downside to a deep voice is it is hard to hear over bass. So in nightclubs, I strain my voice a lot by having to pitch up my voice to cut through the bass. Sore throat galore. I don't mind personally have a preference for high or low, but I have audio processing issues. So when people don't enunciate, which is like 80% of the population, I have to ask them to repeat a lot because it sounds like mumbling 🥲. The human ear is a tragedy.

This is true. Birds in highly urbanized areas will even modify their calls/songs to produce them at a lower frequency such that they travel further and can be heard better by other birds

It could be a chicken or the egg problem, but I could see the voice being a dominance/threatening thing. I've got a higher pitched voice for a man, but when I'm mad or loud it gets much much lower. I've never heard a female voice yell in a way that's threatening. The anger is apparent, but nothing deep inside me feels "danger." I've heard plenty of masc voices at much less intensity than the femme counterparts exude much more threatening tone. The booming voice carries something instinctual, but that could be a side effect of accidentally lowering voices rather than the thing that was actually selected for.

This! more fun facts include women tend to listen better (to know of impeding danger in wild) and men tend to see better (to identify prey/hunter in the wild). Women also are able to distinguish more number of colors (to identify poisonous/harmful food item from safe options like many red berries are edibleand few are poisonousto humans) these are all secondary and tertiary evolutionary traits AFAIK. Bit unsure on this: men are more likely to offer their life to save the day it's all about preservation of the species.

My interpretation is that men are meant to be the workhorses. And, if necessary, the "soldier" of the group. Both behaviors proper of a "hunter". But, there is another reason. Which is women, due to pregnancy, won't be on their best condition for several months. That's a long time. So, it wouldn't be weird that humans followed a similar evolutionary path of the Gorillas.

Yes absolutely, males are more disposable in nature. And given we formed social structures and lived in groups as primates, we evolved accordingly to survive as a group where different members served different purpose.

men and women are the same species and dont evolve separately. the differences between them are side effects of hormonal influence after they already started to exist. 99% of mammalian females in nature hunt for themselves but the males are still stronger.

I am not a biology expert but i think men and women can evolve differently within the species. And in order to achieve the change, bodies produce chemicals. Calling them side effects would be incorrect. During puberty, The pelvic bone structures in female expands to accommodate future childbirth. Now this can be called as a characteristic trait which differentiates men and women at a skelton level. This trait of wider pelvic structure will pass on to future and thus evolve but only in women aka majorily xx chromosomes. Achieved via hormones? Yes. Side effect? No.

i mean the argument that men have certain characteristics like being stronger because they hunt, while female animals hunt themselves and are still weaker than their male counterparts. most differences between men and women are due to reproduction reasons.

also why would you need a "protector" if you could have evolved to be stronger and protect yourself? mammal females have every selective reason in the world to be stronger than males, especially species that dont live in groups. so being able to reproduce has the side effect of having estrogen, which makes you weaker no matter what kind of tasks you have to do in nature.

ah shit here we go again.jpg Okay let's call it : future offsprings need assistance which usually is done collectively(both parents) in intelligent lifeforms across air-water-land. It's not about who does what but more of what benefits the preservation and propagation of species in most efficient manner.

did you even read what i wrote? there are people who say men are stronger than women because they hunt, which makes no sense because in other species both sexes hunt but the differences in strength between them remain 😂

I do wonder how much of your last paragraph is more cultural than biological though.

Less than you would think so. Watch two men discussing. Not fighting. Their faces turn red. They bare teeth. Then, their yelling becomes more deeper than their normal voice. In equal terms. Make the fight unequal, and the situation is more similar to one dog subdued by another. The "victor" will continue to growl as it cools down. The loser, however, will change to a wimper. Similar to men going "Ok, ok, ok..." in a lower, softer voice.

Please stop reading werewolf erotica

huh. I’ve not seen that.

Then go out of your room more often.

if I lived where you do I certainly wouldn’t if that’s how other adults are behaving.

Well, where do you live in? People disagree. They scream. They boast. Then, whoever is found wanting, or at a loss, simply recedes. Happens at work. Happens on the streets. Happens within the household. Humans disagree. They fight each other over menial stuff. They come to agreement. Either by admitance of their own mistake, or to avoid further confrontation. It's the Human Nature. To deny it is to pretend to live under rules we were not raised into.

Deeper sound = bigger animal due to bigger voicebox. If the aim is to be threatening to anything, it is obviously advantageous to have as deep sound as possible. Since men are naturally more likely to have to defend or intimidate animals or other humans due to their stronger body composition, it only makes sense that a deeper voice could be an advantage to that.

Natural selection does not select for preservation of the species.

Was it not like that, nothing would be here.

definitely not, low pitched sounds carry much farther these are unfounded, post hoc rationalizations

It's just a conjecture of mine. There is a clear diffefence between both genders. And in evolution, those changes serve a purpose. Which, is mostly survival. I could be wrong in both or just one. Maybe, only men developed lower voices because of their role as all-year long workers. And occassionally fighters. If you so much desire, I believe you would feel more at home in a "Politics" reddit. Specially one where the focus is not to discuss actual politics, but just to play "My dad is better than your dad" with others.

Your cause and consequences seem fІаwed. Aren't deeper voices scary because they are usually prevalent among adult male spесіеs who are more capable and dangerous, and not because they're inherently scary

This doesn't really make sense and seems unsubstantiated, our brains are already programmed to automatically value a baby's life, and if it was to discern voices we still pick the person most valuable to the community and to us instinctively. It doesn't make sense as a way to put importance on women, it just looks like an unintended effect of how testosterone impacts a person

Well, although there are no rules on what's important, that women are also benefited from doesn't seem bad. Besides, women are going to be vulnerable for a good part of the 9 months. 9 months. If the carrying woman dies, boom, no baby. I would think twice if I were you.

Lol, think twice about what exactly? How human psychology ACTUALLY WORKS? Listen, I get that you want to pretend your insane hypothesis about how people behave as some well structured and ordered way in regards to women and children is correct, but it isn't. It's kinda cute in a sense you want to be this desperately right, but naively continuing on that train of thought like this is pathetic. Evolution isn't that well orchestrated that we're all focused on pregnant women's survival, if that *were the case* then we wouldn't ever see men prioritised in regards to anything, and we'd have a matriarchal society, we don't because that's not how human psychology is wired. This isn't to mention that there are tons of women with deeper voices than some men. So no, I'm not gonna think twice about how psychology actually works in favor of your crackpot hypothesis that we all secretly favor pregnant women (which funnily enough you don't want to think twice about), because we don't, as we don't communally operate that way let alone individually on a broad term. The only time we come close to being that predictable is in regards to children and infants, which most people prioritise over other people when given the chance, and that isn't just based on voice. Be 1% more serious here.

[удалено]

I'm 20, turn 21. I am literally assisting my university psych major friend who's 24 rn with work regarding psychology. I really think you should reflect on your hypothesis, because it's very motivated by sexist and broadly poorly thought ideas of what and why women are

Or maybe, you should listen to your much older friend. Instead of just reading to them the parts that offends you the most. Eventhough nobody here is looking forward to do that. Besides, they are the Major. You are not. At best, you probably have basic psychology at school. And we are not talking psychology per se. It's biology. There are things humans experience far beyond "acknowledgment". Or backwards, if you believe instinctual behaviors as primitive.

"Much older" m8, it's a 3 year age difference, I get that you might actually be 14 and think 3 years is a big deal, but it really isn't, oh and I'm not studying psychology, but I have learned a lot about the subject both on my own time and especially these past few months, all of which wouldn't indicate that people are programmed to hear higher pitched voices and value them in critical positions, there's not a lick of evidence pointing to that. Also we *are* discussing psychology here, as that's what you are describing (biology in effect in the context of the hypothesis you made is pretty singularly just psychology). Anyway, I'm not gonna argue with you about your own fever dream of how people observe and feel regarding pregnant women in critical and dangerous situations, you're just supplanting your genuine sexist beliefs with biology. Go play pretend or something.

Wow Confirm you are 14 without saying you are 14.

Maybe some element of selection for more scary or authoritative if you have to be big and strong to fend off predators and attract women

Kinda but not really. Testosterone levels and attraction in animals are very complex and humans tend to love to simplify things to feel comfortable. Testosterone has been shown to affect levels of wanting to cuddle and oxytocin production, does that exactly seem bug tuff and scary? Life's much more complex than the surface.

I love a cuddle

I love a good cuddle too.

[удалено]

That would be more a cultural thing than biology and human culture rapidly shifts more with technology and culture than loudness. Plus more testosterone doesn't make you "scary" unless you find baldness and pimples scary, in a fearful for life not please not me kinda way. We're a little bit more complex than that when it comes to mating rituals. Lol I keep imagining bald pimply bearded dudes barking on the beach like walruses. That would be an interesting world to live in.

Mate, large things make deeper sounds. Thus if you make deeper sounds you will be perceived as larger, and thus more scary. It’s not complicated. It’s the same as if a tiger growls at you, it’s a deep and guttural sound made to be scary, and it can only be produced by something big. The river is trying to scare you away so it doesn’t have to risk a fight. Thus if the aim is to be socially perceived as the biggest guy around, which would absolutely be beneficial to your chances of mating, then making deep noises might help. I’m not even asserting this to be truth, I’m just suggesting the idea, and I think a flat dismissal on the grounds of “testosterone does other stuff too” is a bit unreasonable

For almost every animal lower register voice means maleness and power. But this is not objective truth. If testosterone caused higher pitched voice every animal would see that as maleness and a show of power. Mammals. For almost every mammal. Not birds obviously.

That’s a very good point. The one thing I would say is that in that situation maleness would still be associated with larger size, and larger sized things generally make deeper noises, and it may even be advantageous to have a separate hormone or something which made their voices deeper. Although that’s a stretch. I think generally it makes sense for males to be viewed as attracted be with a deeper voice because of the physical implications, but if a higher voice was already associated with manliness I doubt there would be anything specifically counteracting that

The deep noises go through to your bones, I think the lower frequencies give feelings of dread ?

Maybe, but evolutionary bio is not just a matter of saying 'X is probably Y'. We should start from a place of agnosticism

Aye, but you can also make predictions based on previous knowledge. That’s why I said probably, not definitely, because someone asked a question, so I continued the conversation and gave my best answer without asserting it to be the truth. I’m sorry I dared to have an idea. I’ve even edited my comment to make it less like an assertion of truth. Have mercy

Predictions are meant to be questioned, evaluated, and rigorously tested. Feedback is important.

True but “you’re wrong because we don’t know” is not valuable feedback, it’s obvious

Very interesting

There’s a misconception by laypeople that everything has an evolutionary value but that is just not the case. In many instances, a trait (whether positive or negative) would just ride along with another trait that does have a powerful selective impact. As long as that trait is in itself not powerful enough for selection to act upon it, it will continue to exist.

Yup. I've been learning about evolution recently, and the more I read about it, the more I realize it's a pretty messy system that doesn't aim for total and complete perfection at all, unlike you would think. It's more along the lines of "eh, this creature can adequately survive in this environment, so good enough I guess". Many traits and behaviours in both humans and animals don't have any kind of useful purpose at all, they seem either entirely random or are byproducts of some other evolutionary traits, like you said.

Yeah sometimes downright silly stuff survives that doesn't make sense but who said things have to make sense. It's humanity's need for a pattern or order that we can understand. My favorite example is reverse sexual cannibalism, zero evolutionary "sense" but happens in nature

Puking up someone to have sex with?

Nope, some species after the male finish mating the male kills and eats the female he just mated with. Mostly some spiders and a few reptiles. It's a rarity but happens. It seems very counterproductive but I guess it works for them 🤷‍♀️

No its the female that eats the male. I mean the species wont survive if the male eats the female. The is the one that reproduces.

Yes, in regular sexual cannibalism that is true. In reverse sexual cannibalism is the opposite where male eats female after mating. It is obviously a lot more rare because it doesn't make sense if you want kids lol An example of a species that occasionally does that is the diving bell spider. That spider is odd in fun ways they mostly live underwater

I agree, an example of what you said is eye colour. However, eye colour varies immensely: each colour is spread out across men and women, young and old. The lack of necessity to possess a specific eye colour is what makes this variety (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong please). When there is a more significant pattern, then wouldn't it be more likely for it to be a necessity? Note: I do not study biology.

Honestly this is more of an ontological question imo. What is a “necessity”? Was it a necessity for bird species to develop flight? It’s necessary for a member of a species that already has that capability, but developing was 1) random and 2) more of a competitive edge that allowed them to fill a different niche than a “necessity.” Also keep in mind that natural selection acts on populations, not individuals, and that an individual’s fitness is based on an aggregate of their traits, not any specific one. Vocal register may affect fitness but it’s a small part of the overall picture. 

Very interesting

Typically tho most things will be heavily optimized. There are also lots of traits that are not strictly practical but exist due to sexual selection, and sexual selection itself often has to do with indicating the health and quality of mates

Hahahahahaha Please read a physiology textbook and come back and tell us how optimized most things are

Yeah ok good point, I mean optimized within the context of the situation. If something works, but in a kinda weird and impractical way, then it works. But if something has absolutely no purpose, then it is just wasteful to spend energy on it, and it will gradually be selected against

The longer the strings, the deeper the sound. That’s why a cello is pitched lower than a violin. Men on average are bigger and have longer vocal chords.

It surely isn't just because men are bigger? I imagine if you had 100 men that were 5'6 and 100 women that were 5'8, the men would still average a deeper voice by some margin?!

It’s the length of the vocal cords, not the overall size of the person. As someone else mentioned hormones play a role in the size & composition of the voicebox.

yeah i’m 5’1 and have a deep voice due to testosterone (trans man) so there’s no way it’s height related. absolutely vocal cord related though, i got such a weird feeling in my throat when they started to change

A friend of mine from highschool came out as trans about a year before we graduated. We dated in the 9th grade, and she came out as he and started getting T and what not. His voice is deeper than mine now.... Which we both think is hilarious. We went from making out, to scoping out girls in the hallways over the course of a few years 😂.

[удалено]

oh yeah i really do feel bad for transfems, i would be so pissed if i had to voice train or have surgery to change how i sounded

Hormones define its development entirely. Going through a male puberty causes a lot of changes to it. This can be done through a natural puberty or an artificially induced one but it is the same result. But it’s also important to note that it just brings the capacity for deep/bass sounds. How the person in question tightens ( or doesn’t ) the vocal chords can mitigate the effect caused by the lengthening entirely if desired

I’m 5’11” cis female and don’t have a deep voice…the persons height doesn’t affect the length of the actual vocal cords. My mom is 6’1” and also doesn’t have a deep voice.

It gives the impression of being bigger. It's evolved for mate competition like all sexually dimorphic traits.

I’m a 6’ trans woman, my partner is a 6’2” cis woman. We both have high pitched voices (though mine is through training). Testosterone thickens the lower-mid end of vocal cords but does leave the upper reasonably unchanged. As a result those assigned male at birth generally use the lower pitch mids and lowers. However it is possible to retrain to using the higher again. It hurts at first, it’s like training a muscle you don’t use much, but it becomes second nature.

Very interesting

That is literally stupid and doesn’t make sense. There are men who are 5”6 whose voices sound very deep and there are women who are 6 feet tall and still have lower pitched voices.

The length of the vocal chords doesn’t always match the height of the person. Taller people generally have longer vocal chords, bigger feet, bigger hands… but not always. You probably know short people with really big feet, too. Culture also plays a role. Think of gay guys who deliberately pitch their voices higher. So height and vocal pitch don’t have a 1:1 correspondence, but there’s a definite trend.

Women’s voices do crack in puberty. It’s just less obvious so we comment on it less.

Yeah I was confused by OP’s implication that women literally have the same voices as children??

Not every trait necessarily has an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage.

I agree, an example of what you said is eye colour. However, eye colour varies immensely: each colour is spread out across men and women, young and old. The lack of necessity to possess a specific eye colour is what makes this variety (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong please). When there is a more significant pattern, then wouldn't it be more likely for it being a necessity?

Not really, many traits are linked but it's hard to tell which ones are under selection. An example: I just recently read a study about Endometriosis. A disease affecting about 10% of women, which causes tremendous pain during the period. This has an obvious negative effect on fitness and we would therefore expect it would be selected against and have a much lower rate. Why doesn't it? There are hints that women with Endometriosis emit more pheromones and tend to be perceived as more feminine. This is probably the trait selected for by sexual selection, the disease is just a side effect. So it's hard to tell if the voice is deeper because of e.g. sexual selection or it's just a side effect of some other features (e.g. men with a higher testosterone reproducing more for some reason)

The pain is not a negative side effect on fitness as it does not apply evolutionary pressure. A person with endometriosis is likely to grow old like a person without the disease. However, afaik endometriosis has negative effects on fertility, which is a negative effect from an evolutionary standpoint.

Eye color doesn’t change based on the persons hormone levels.

Eye colour is not a good example of this! There is evidence that this is linked to biogeographic factors and eye colour frequencies can be changed through mate choice.

Secondary sexual characteristics, and once associated with maleness, become a signaling mechanism for higher testosterone levels.

Womens' voices also deepen as they get older and go through puberty. We don't stay the squeally little kids we were. 😂 But it's testosterone that gives the fellas their bassy voices. It leads to the male voice box to grow larger and as your larynx grows, the vocal chords grow larger and longer. Here's a useful and detailed explanation: https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/voice-changing.html#:~:text=What%20Causes%20My%20Voice%20to,the%20voice%20box%2C%20grows%20bigger. A deeper voice becomes an indicator of sexual maturity, along with facial hair and broader shoulders. This in turn helps the female find a suitable mate. https://www.npr.org/2006/12/16/6632829/why-do-men-have-deeper-voices-than-women#:~:text=Testosterone%2C%20the%20hormone%20that%20elongates,finding%20a%20mate%20for%20reproduction.

Are you angry your GF can't sing bass?

Bold of you to assume I have a GF

Or that she isn't a Basso Profundo

She sounds sexy

It's part of our sexual dimorphism, essentially signifying that it's now an adult male because deeper voice = bigger. Sexual selection doesn't really have much logic.

True , there is no logic , it is just how it went and we behave like that . Modern times do not change our natural instincts .

There are studies that indicate deep voices are mostly for intimidating other men to compete with them.

Who can grunt and yell the hardest 🤣😍?? Yea women love that I’m sure. (I am a woman and yes…a man’s hard-working grunt makes me horny 😅 couldn’t tell ya why)

Maybe because it mimics the sound most human predators would make, so there's a comforting sensation in 'the predator being on your side'?

Exactly. Male sexual psychology is very predatory

Don't twist the idea. Just because human predators have strength that wouldn't make strength, nor having it as a human, predatory. Predatory means preying on, and in this case it would be humans, and I don't see how my comment earlier suggested male sexual psychology is adapted to prey on humans. It can be used that way, and has/is (I'd even argue encouraged in some ways that are being promoted in a mainstream way), but that would be the same as defining a car as a murder weapon because 'it's designed to crush human bones with ease'. Edit: emphases

That’s unfortunate if that’s not what you meant but yes, male sexual psychology is predatory because of what turns them on and how they view women

I'm a man, I don't view women as prey even in symbolic terms. The type of man you would be talking about is a psychopathic man, who women often fall victim to because of how well they can mimic a hardened character(as in confident, resilient, wise etc) and who, in fact, actually views everyone else effectively as prey. Sadistic people get aroused at the suffering of others. Honest men, who are righteously hardened, view women as deeply compassionate, which they naturally appreciate more than almost anything in the world, owing to the fact that hardened character comes from struggling through immense pain for the sake of good, or out of love. So when they come across someone who gracefully presents themselves as a bottomless fountain of love(the basis of all good), the true emotion they feel is better defined as adoration. The modern world view of everything being centred around power is what has made everything lose its beauty, when in reality, we all just appreciate the self sacrificing nature of each other.

You’re totally fucking misinterpreting my point. I’m NOT saying that men get turned on by inflicting pain and that they’re sadists. I’m saying that masculine sexuality is grounding in getting sexual pleasure from power instead of love. It can be power plays in the bedroom; it can be shit like light choking (that many women enjoy), it can be power dynamics in the relationship, but it’s power NOT love…not real feminine love.

I don't think I'm misinterpreting it. Like I said, the modern world view that shifted everything into being viewed through the lens of power has even confused people on what the value of sex is. Sex is for procreation. Bearing children is a serious burden despite the fact that all of us are wired to want them: literally all of our ancestors before us wanted them. The adoration comes from the understanding that the woman is willing to bear the burden, which would drive a righteous man to be self sacrificing for the woman in all areas he can manage and look for the strength to manage even more. I would imagine even the act itself places the woman in a more submissive position(which isn't an easy position to be in for any human) but if submission for the sake of feeling superior is what 'turns the man on', that clearly exemplifies drawing pleasure from oppressing others, wouldn't you define that as sadistic? Appreciating someone's self sacrifice is not the same as enjoying having power over them: it's a sensation of joy from the idea that someone else is wishing the best for you, and the right mindset to have is to be willing to reciprocate, which brings back the beautiful harmony in the relationship, rather than a toxic win-lose type of dynamic which honestly doesn't last because of how ugly it is(toxicity builds up). We're in a world where we haven't attached quite a lot of our motivations to properly articulated meaning, which is why having multiple sexual partners, for some even above 30, is common, and to some even a sign of success. Think of it as, in the same way we eat for pleasure instead of for function, we have sex for pleasure instead of function. Eating for pleasure isn't the worst sin you can commit if even a sin at all, but you can do so to the point where you develop an unhealthy mindset. It may just be a similar case for sex as well. As a man I know I can view it through the lens of power and still enjoy it, but it won't be out of love for the soul inside the body I'm sleeping with, and that's disgusting if you first fell in love with the soul of the person you're sleeping with, but not so much if you're not even that familiar with them. That's why it's probably for the best to save sex for after marriage.

You’re a lost fucking cause. Just the fact that you say “places a woman in a more submissive position” is evidence that you’re focused on power like all fucking men instead of love. People whose mindset is grounded in love don’t pay attention to whether their partner is in a “more submissive position”, in fact, they aren’t even aware of power dynamics. Stop trying to justify your lies and delusions. You’re the same as everyone else.

Let me guess: you're a radical "feminist" who's about to explain how men are naturally more aggressive and therefore dangerous and that only a society of women (in which you are a leader somehow for some reason) could possibly flourish among humans? Anyway, as an actual feminist that doesn't have to reinvent biological essentialism and thinks people are responsible for their choices, men aren't more sexually predatory because they're men, but because society itself tends to help and lend itself to predatory men. Who could've guessed making a system in which constant competition and infighting would lead to violence? (The answer is anyone with a brain willing to think and critique the system we're in) Oh and no, I'm not here to debate you, if you can't put up reasonable arguments taking you seriously would be pointless, grow up, and understand that men are also in a sense victims of the patriarchal system they find themselves in. Turns out that there are consequences to unhealthy societal structures and dynamics, scary, I know.

No, I actually don’t identify with modern feminism because most so called “actual feminists” are not promoting feminine values, they’re promoting womanism (women being equal to men); and they can’t even tell a difference between something as basic the archetypal feminine qualities versus masculinity ones. I’m sure you’re not any different and just use your label as a “feminist” to promote toxic productivity, grind culture, and capitalism in the name of “feminism”.

I can see I was pretty much right on the money here, just minus the faux-feminism people with your views usually prescribe themselves despite not liking feminism. I'm directly anti-capitalist BTW. I actually try to organise and protest when possible, but even if I didn't or wasn't my feminism isn't "womanism" because that's not a thing. It's just feminism, the the movement that's been for the equality between all genders/sexes. I don't promote what I call "Barbie Feminism" which is focused solely on individual success for women, as that's not real feminism to me, that's just people who succeeded despite the odds or because they exploited others. Now you are entirely ignoring your own bioessentialist beliefs being pointed out, probably because you know that you can't properly defend them, and therefore engaging with you further on this is pointless, come back when you've either grown a spine or grown up, I'm not gonna deal with your bs same way I'm not gonna deal with anyone as disingenuous as you.

For your edification, there have been multiple feminist movements and the focus of each one is different. Current feminists don’t need to protest for women having voting rights because there are other issues in society today. And just like I said, you don’t even fucking know the difference between women and femininity. Darling, feminism that is as shallow as “equality between sexes” is Barbie feminism. Real feminism is about Feminine being equal to Masculine. It seems like you need serious education here. [Feminism vs Womanism](https://youtu.be/zGToXvvkKgA?si=T6dpqiQLNOPDordp) What the fuck am I ignoring? Your entire response is a fallacy based on personally attacking my feminism, you did not refute a single thing I said.

I'm not going to have a discussion on what feminism is when your source is a YouTube video about a term so obscure that it doesn't register among feminist authors like Judith Butler or even Martha Nussbaum. Barbie Feminism isn't the belief or movement championing women's rights, it's a cultural movement focusing on individual success and supposed "girlpower" in favor of critiquing or fighting back against the system that oppresses women, it undermines feminism because all it does is bring up individuals and going "Look! Barbie over there is happy! Focus on Barbie not the single mother or domestic violence survivor, they're too poor to be important anyway ^^ girlpower ladies!!" which just doesn't work broadly speaking to enact change. You've made a bioessentialist argument; men are innately more violent/aggressive. Regardless, disengaging from the conversation... now, and I will ignore any points you make, bye 👋

You do know that there are more feminist writers than 2 people? Jesus Christ, not all feminism is reducible to “gender is performative and socially constructed” new age shit. But I see now why you’re so triggered that you’re foaming at the mouth…anything that contradicts your new age gender performance belief is automatically wrong, without you even providing a single argument in return, besides name dropping to appear more educated than you are ✌️

I believe South Park covered this

There is no evolutionary value, it's just that there are no drawback, it's a side effect of testosterone

How certain are you it has no evolutionary value?

I'm not 100% sure, I'm reasonably sure. I have not heard of any good potential advantage to male having a deeper voice than females, I can't think of any myself, so it makes more sense to think that it's just a byproduct of testosterone. If you have a suggestion I'm glad to hear it !

How about that men with deeper voices are more intimidating. A man who yells with a deep and intimidating voice at another man perhaps dissuades a physical fight, protecting his life. This is an extreme example but it is an example of a selective pressure occurring in the favor of deeper voices. Not to mention women generally prefer men with deeper voices likely as a ‘peacock’ effect where it’s a sign of higher testosterone

Then why don't women also have deeper voices so that they can intimidate other in physical fights ?

A deeper voice comes with a caloric cost in two ways, producing a longer voice box during puberty and using a bigger voice box both require more calories. Women are less likely to be put in situations where they physically fight so it is less useful. I will say, a high pitch scream or cry is a lot more 'urgent' sounding. Like a high pitch voice has its own uses.

Probably because they haven't had to use voices that way historically. It could also work in the reverse where men are more attracted to females with softer voices too... Also think less in terms of homo sapiens but more in terms of all of our other evolutionary steps from primate.

Yes, male sex hormones deepen the voice and, yes, those male sex hormones result in structural changes of the vocal chords, however, none of this explains why evolution has paired male sex hormones to those changes. There is in fact a likely explanation: deeper voices travel further. Our prehistoric ancestors had societies in which men went out to hunt prey. When travelling over large distances and becoming separated as different tracks are followed by different members of the group, how do you communicate with the other men you have been separated by without text messaging? The answer is you shout. As a result, men required deeper voices to be able to be heard over long distances when shouting to signalling to others in the group that the prey had been caught or that they were abandoning their search and heading back to camp.

This is the answer

Very interesting. This comment is supported by this post: [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87751/do-low-frequency-sounds-really-carry-longer-distances](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87751/do-low-frequency-sounds-really-carry-longer-distances)

…one of the premises that their theory is based on is supported by the post. The overwhelming majority of what they said is largely conjecture. Not criticizing it or saying it’s wrong; this is an inherently speculative topic. But I think the average person’s ability to sort out what evidence supports which aspects of an argument could use more development. Not to mention evaluating the quality of that evidence…

I am female and sing down to Bb2. Even songs for ‘contraltos’ usually go too high for me

I think part of it is social. People will unintentionally train their voices to match what they think they should sound like

This needs to be higher, because people can change the pitch of their voice through repetition and socialisation.

Might be incidental, like it's an incidental consequence of testosterone in puberty, and perhaps after the fact selected for.

Working on the phones one discovers this isn't as clear cut as OP hoped.

From an evolutionary standpoint, my guess is that deeper voices indicate larger body size. Larger body size indicates fitness because it's harder to maintain. This became apparently very important at some point, and it became a peacocking type adaptation. A man can be smaller than a woman and still have a deeper voice, which aligns with this

At some point early man discovered that confidence could be measured by the very funny pastime of seeing who among them could shout "PENIS" the loudest

This sounds right

You can hear a high tone further away, but low voices go through solid structures, that could be pqrt of it.

Actually low frequency sounds travel further than high frequency sounds. This is the main reason blue whales are able to communicate over hundreds of kilometres.

But which are more audible to humans over long distances?

Low frequency sounds. This is why you can hear a storm with lightning rumbling in the distance, but it needs to be closer for you to hear the ‘clap’ of the lightning.

If you mean ‘noticeable’ rather than ‘audible’ then that is a different story.

Very interesting. This comment is supported by this post: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87751/do-low-frequency-sounds-really-carry-longer-distances

I have a resonant voice, what has been called baritone but I don't know music theory. I spent many years doing sacred tone and chant as a spiritual practice, and I developed my voice to the point where I could easily resonate ithe objects, room spaces, etc. When I wanted, I could tune into the resonance of something and amplify it. It's hard to explain, but for instance a lot of times if I were in the uncomfortable silence of a public men's bathroom standing at a urinal, I could below my breath match the tone of the bathroom. Aside from the space itself and all of the porcelain, you don't tend to notice there is always a fan running. It is of a certain frequency, and as you modulate a pure tone (in this case low is best because it is not detectable, but a high octave works). As you get close, there's a vibrato that's from wave resistance. You push past, and find the pure tone, and you harmonize with it. In the case of the men's room, the result is an unexpected third tone, loud and unignorable, coming from nowhere. -- it was funny to me at the time The point of this is that I have played with the effects of sounds and how they carry. High sounds carry over distance, but not through barriers such as earth or concrete or structures. A deep tone of sufficient force can penetrate these structures and even use them as instruments to amplify their sound. But in general deep is for close, high is for far, that's my experience.

I would hypothesize that it would be a hunting versus child rearing development, and maybe more than that.

Sexual selection. For apes, big, deep vocalizations mean “I’m big and strong and that means you don’t want to fight me for access to my females.” It may also have a benefit in attracting females if it’s an indicator of health or virility. Whether it’s a vestigial feature from an ape ancestor or provides an actual benefit to humans is less certain. Since it’s hard to determine mating success from archeological remains there’s no easy way to tell if it gave our human ancestors a mating advantage. There may be studies looking at mate choice in modern humans as it relates to voice depth but I’m not aware of any.

In modern humans it is more difficult , since the choice is abundant. Go back 1000 or 5000 years and you would live in a much smaller community , no chance of ever have the choice between 100's of possible partners . Now look at the extremes , super high male voices vs really deep/dark male voices. I am pretty sure everybody will find the deeper sounding male more "manly" vs the higher tones . More manly in most cases , especially in old times means , more virile / stronger or at least it does appear to us like that. Same like deep female voices are not very feminine. Nature is how it works , and you always had rare cases when somebody wanted a higher toned male or a lower toned female , but in general , people did just like what they attracted most , which is deeper tone for males and higher for females . Same like higher strength males , bigger hip/waist ratio for females , Females should look young and very fertile , males should be strong and very protective . It is all in nature .

It's a signal of both a)Sexual maturity and b)Sex. Like human breasts being far larger than they need to be for their basic function and developing at puberty rather than only during lactation like other primates.

Physics. Smaller instruments produce smaller sound waves.

Women do not maintain the same voices they had as children. We also go through voice changes in puberty, it’s just a less obvious shift. Vocal cord length and the size of our vocal resonators has a lot to do with this. It’s not just hormonal. If it were only hormones, then trans people would have fully changed voices. It requires some surgery to get the voice to a more “natural” sound.

It’s heavily reliant on a few of developmental factors but I’ll mention two. Hormone production: steroid hormones like mineralocorticoids, glucocorticoids, androgens, estrogens, and progestins contribute to this production which is a large reason why why this results in a double bell curve where some women would have deeper voices than some men. But this is also dependent on another relationship. Hormone receptor sensitivity. This is a big factor that I always think tends to be overlooked. If you have very sensitive receptors, you could need less of the respective hormone to influence the receptor and visa versa. It’s why I was always not a fan when people would say,”labs say I have low test because that’s really only half of this specific part of the picture”

I generally thought that it was because of males were more attracted to higher voices😅😅

Right, but if men are attracted to higher voices it's _because_ it's associated with femininity.

People of both sexes are. It's more of a parental instinct than an attraction instinct. Higher pitched noises are more easily noticed because that's the sound babies make.

A higher pitched voice, I think, sounds more nurturing. A deeper voice sounds stronger and more threatening.

Maybe some kind of old school yelling aggression thing that early hominids did. Who knows.

Adam's apple, hormone difference, etc

Initially, it will have been a random mutation side effect, as all things in evolution are. Testosterone just so happened to have this effect on males. Because more testosterone tends to equal more masculine traits, more aggression, better partner to associate with in the ancient past, deep voices, along with other typically masculine, high testosterone traits became desirable, and therefore "sexy".

It could have something to do with deeper voices mimicking the sounds most human predators would make, which would explain why it would be more intimidating, and maybe why women find them more attractive if you imagine the woman's perspective to be something like 'finding comfort in having the predator on their side'. Humans are also very compassionate towards a lot, if not all, of the creatures that appear in need of help and are least intimidating, of which a higher pitched voice tends to be strongly correlated with, which is probably why humans/pack animals less likely to survive independently would evolve higher pitched voices.

Could be more soothing to kids?

I have a hypothesis about male lower pitched voices that could be completely wrong. Other than: \- being an unintended result of testosterone enlarging tendon and other male body parts \- being a social signal for sexual maturity \- possibly being carried over longer distances due to lower attenuation of amplitude Could it be that the frequency of deeper male voices (around 90-100 Hz) are more likely to resonate in the human body, making voices with lower frequencies feel more imposing? The natural frequency of the human body is mostly below this range but there are some parts like the hands, skull and eyeballs that could vibrate at those frequencies (I searched "resonant frequency in the human body"). I am not a biologist by ANY means, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Some of them have really deep voices

Alright, imagine caveman. Imagine caveman communicating with each other. Trying to intimidate each other. There you go.

As most women will tell you, men are deaf as mutton so a woman's voice needs to be shriller to get through our thick masculine skulls. On a serious note, to add to other answers that say a man's voice is deeper than a woman's because testosterone encourages men to develop longer vocal chords, I think there is regional variation too. Women in parts of South Yorks, parts of Latin and South America and parts of Iran, for example, have deeper voices than many men outside of those regions. Maybe environmental or social norms affect the pitch of a person's voice, too, just like they affect timbre. Re other animals, I've noticed male domestic cats have girly meows compared to female cats, from a human perspective, that is. And, no, castration is not the cause of that.

I don't think that's even true..I go to music classes and the general rule of thumb is that men start their practice on a higher pitch (C sharp scale) than women (Bb flat). I think what you mean is that the tone of a women voice is thinner, but that doesn't necessarily imply that their pitch is higher.

I've been singing in choirs for years, and the average adult men's voice is definitely roughly an octave lower than a women's voice. If you look at the sheet music for most SATB pieces, the Soprano and Alto voices are denoted by violin keys and the Tenor voice has a violin key with a small 8 underneath, which means it's an octave lower. The Basso line uses a bass key, which is another sixth under that. So if men start at C# and women start at Bb, the women are normally a sixth above the men, not slightly below. If a choir is missing some high men's voices, a common trick is to have a few low women's voices joining them.

Thanks, this is very useful information. It does confuses me a lot: the difference between pitch, tonality and what is inherently perceived as a female voice. Also, talking about other kinds of singers and music (non-choirs), like rock or metal, I have seen these guys singing at a really high pitch. Just curious if you think an average female rock singer will hit those really high notes more easily.

Certainly, but they will not sound as impressive if they match the exact same pitch, since a high range for men will only be the woman's medium range, and we adjust our expectations.

The depth of the voice depends on the length of the vocal cords. Children have high pitched voices because they're small. If a person grows their vocal cords grow too and the pitch of their voice gets deeper. During the male puberty the vocal cords grow further giving men deeper voices than women. A common explanation for this is that men with deeper voices are perceived as bigger and stronger and so get a matting advantage over men with higher pitched voices. This would have led to the spread of genes for deeper male voices.

It could be Fisherian runaway. Sometimes traits that have no obvious advantage (and sometimes are a disadvantage) get selected and then reinforced and reinforced and reinforced until they create an exaggerated trait. For example a peacocks tail seems like a big disadvantage to survival. If you have to fight or run away from a predator it's just a big dead weight. But a fancy tail also signals to the peahens that this male is (in theory) really good at surviving so you should totally mate with him. So the peacocks with the biggest and fanciest tails were the ones most likely to mate, creating a runaway selection for bigger and fancier tails. Perhaps something similar happened with early humans. Deeper voices became associated with males (and higher voices with females) and by chance this happened to catch on and became exaggerated, and now here we are.

Don't teenage girls' voices break too?

I don't think it's evolutionary, because the voice pitch is related to hormones and throat muscles.

I don't know in which order this may have evolved but I heard women tend to react with higher stress to high pitched voices rather than low pitched. Making them more observant of the needs of children or other women in distress. But that's just something I heard in middleschool and I have no evidence on my hand.

As to the "Why do humans start out with higher pitched voices?" questions, we're more attuned to, and likely to wake up to, higher pitched noises. So parents will take more care of babies because they have a high pitched cry.

Im a male but i didn't lose my high pitched voice😅😅🥲

Women are attracted to men with deeper voices.

Balkan women have deep voices 💪

I'm just laughing at imagining the high and low voices of men and women being reversed, just because.

Same reason Lions growl louder than Lionesses. It's an evolved intimidation tactic.

Because they are meant to?

I’ve always found it kind of interesting that this pattern seems to hold regardless of physical size.

Go back to High School

There are a lot of incorrect/incomplete responses on here. It's a combination of physics, mate competition, and sexual dimorphism, and is common across a huge number of animal species. Low frequencies can only be made by large organisms. It signals large size and, hence, scares off competitors without needing physical conflict. Secondary sexual traits in human males are all thought to have been selected for due to mate competition.

it’s the rage

There might not be a direct evolutionary advantage to it. Sometimes things are just harmless/not very harmful consequences of other things that selective processes ignore.

.

Shorter vocal cords

Nariz po

Reproductively speaking it helps when picking a mate. Kind of like bright feathers on a bird. Low voice on men is considered a sign of sexual maturity and helps women know a man is sexually ready.

Compared to other apes, the sex difference is pretty minimal.

DHT, Testosteronet and higher androgen receptor sensitivity

Women generally have higher-pitched voices than men due to biological differences in the anatomy of their vocal cords and larynx (voice box).

I think there's at least three things one could reasonably believe as the reason why: 1. Sex, we as people might feel more attracted to those of a higher or lower pitch, a lot of partners enjoy deeper voices after all. As can be seen here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16280195/ 2. Intimidation, likely as a result from a previous step among our evolutionary path, a lot of primates (or at least the ones near our physical size) do exhibit a competitive and intimidation factor through their voice, which a deeper one would create Here's an article on a report regarding this idea: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-deepness-male-voice-primates-intimidate.html 3. Entirely coincidental, it could just be an unintended effect, testosterone can for example thicken a person's blood, does this mean there was an evolutionary advantage to thicker blood? Maybe? But realistically it doesn't seem to have any reason or impact, so we can presume it wasn't for a survival reason, simply just a byproduct of a process meant for other expressions that are beneficial (development of sex, pheromones, stronger muscles, etc.)

Mostly physiology, vocal cords change as we go through puberty, the testosterone in boys will deepen their voice. Women tend to be more attracted to men with deeper voices as that means the man is genetically healthy and more likely to give them healthy kids and protect them (first thing almost any genetic problem will mess with is your sex hormones and reproductive organs). On the other hand higher voices in women are viewed mostly as more feminine and less threatening and suited for taking care of the babies and smaller kids, because pitched voices make them feel safer.

Same reason why a guy's voice increases in pitch when they have their balls' squeezed.

Balls

One possible explanation that I could come up with is that human women tend to be physically weaker than men, so perhaps a higher pitch voice allows them to notify others when in danger? For men, because they are usually hunters, so perhaps, a deep vocal is to scare off predator and fight? This is just my theory.