Often people inquire if I have "one of each" when they see the twins. It seems an odd assumption, but upon reflection I realized it's the safe question. It saves the curious person from guessing the sex of the babies. You know, if they don't see the pink hand-me-down outfits with frills. That's my assumption at least.
The other assumption I encounter often, that lacks any logic, is that Claire must have been born first (i.e., is the "eldest") because she is larger. If one stops to consider twin births, there's no reason to assume this. Whichever baby is closest to the birth canal will emerge first, regardless of size. Or, in the case of a caesarian, whichever baby is grabbed first by order of convenience or necessity (in case of fetal distress) is first born regardless of size. I'm pretty sure those extra 17 minutes (in the twins' birth) would not make a difference in size even had Claire been first to emerge.
I'd heard about the funny assumptions parents of twins encounter before. It really is quite entertaining to encounter them. I do wonder why so many folks make so many silly assumptions - the same silly assumptions. I wonder if any psychologists or sociologists have studied this... what is it about twins that evokes these responses?
The other difficulty I face with our twins is trying to explain that the twins are identical - when they currently look so dissimilar in size. It inevitably requires that I explain how "identical" and "fraternal" (technically, monozygotic and dizygotic) twins develop.
