A tiger is not a chicken
yes! it took a long time for me to reach this conclusion. and i know you have your doubts- but it is true; tigers are not chicken. lemurs are not house- flies and hippos are not raccoons. now after you sit down, and take this assumption to be at least partially true, we need to answer the great question of our time: suppose all these animals, and many more , had decided to take up living together, only with bipedal locamotion and antropomorohic charachteristics, how will they solve the question of pants?
to be clear , this is not some weak symbolic attempt at multiculturalism, or ethnic tolarance. that is Disney stuff.
we need to delve into practicalities.
so: how would a vast pan-speceies society deal with pants and specifically, what to do with the tails?
well , let’s take the problem from two extremes: a siberian tiger, and a peacock.
siberian tigers have a long, magestic tail. it is well adjusted to the extremes of the Siberian climate and serves a vital part with keeping balance and agility. the peacock has a redundant tail, something that is there today only for display, it is often a hinderence to the animal, but crucial nonetheless for mating purposes. both a siberian tigers and a peacocks have tails that would be a great challange for them, when assimilating in a pants-wearing culrure. a culture which most likely be intolerant to non-conforming members.
so now, a dillema. what to do? while everyone must make some sacrifices to be integrated within the mass of people, the sacrifices that are asked of these animals, would be biologically hazardous. without a rixh dosplay of his tail and feathers, a male peacock will not be able to attract females, and while the tiger is not asked to give up procreation, it is still left without much of a choice with regards to the tail, and will lose much of its flexibility in motion. these are only examples of entire families of animals that would find pants an existential crisis.
sadly, there are but a few options for them to take:
1) redesign pants- if we define pants less narrowly, then possibly there would be an accomodation possible. perhaps a third sleeve could be added, one which will allow the tail to protrude horizontally, below the belt line. in the case of animals with a significant appendage, or an important need for the tail regarding movement or a particular function, the entire backside, or at least a large portion of the pants may need to be removed. this hole will undoubtedly be uncomfortable, and unless tailored to a great degree of precision and taste, very cumbersom to manipulate the tail into, while dressing.
2) it could be possible for the tail to be carried above the belt line. in effect, the aforementioned hole in the backside , will migrate to the lower , rear part of the shirt. while this solution may seem the more comfortable, it shall necessitate the belt line to be lowered somewhat, giving the individual an untidy appearance. this will be most difficult in certain professions, where formal attire is mandatory.
3) skirting the back side- foregoing the relative luxury of pants and accepting clothing that will fit loosly around the tail. while this could be a possibility for some, social taboos will be prohibitive of such a solution.
4) hiding the tail - some animals may opt for a complete concealment of their tail. either inserting it into one of the leg pants, or tucking it somehow behind the back. these solutions may cause great discomfort or even long-term damage to the tail, as it is held vertically. some tails would possibly require shaving , to reduce the volume they take , and prevent an undesired bulge.
5) amuptation- it could be possible for individuals to accept a surgical option, of a partial or complete removal of the tail. with some species, treatment in early childhood could prevent a tail from even developing. this solution is most likely to be quite painful, and even require repeated treatment as the organ regenerates. the original functionality of the tail will be lost, with all that it would mean for the individual.
6) going without pants- some may proudly hold their identity and the biological purpose of the tail above that of the mere need to conform. perhaps attempts to conceal some elements of the lower portion of the body , for modesty’s sake will be taken, but the individual will draw a red line, when it comes to the rejection of physical needs and discomfort. this attitude may come at a cost, as these individuals who shun conventional pantaloons, may suffer social repercussions. however, a unified front , may drive governments to negotiating , possibly reaching a limited clothing compromize. should that fail to occur, the rebels could draw upon the French revolutions' Sans Culottes ('the breachless') who proudly protested the choice of lower body clothing of the aristocracy. with their moral outcry, they will finally force their rights to avoid pants alltogether.