here's an entirely pointless point:
imagine a graph, X axis is the gender with masculine and feminine as points -1 and 1, Y is how intensely you are that gender with an average at 1.
now of course the two points are placed arbitrarily, that's why it's *socially constructed*.
now add a dimension Z repeating that process for every way of expressing gender
nonbinary conventionally means it's not in some radius around (X/Y) -1;1 and 1;1, or inconsistent in Z, but really everyone is some of it.
now honestly, do that make sense to you? relatively to the equivalent typical sociology text? would you read/share more of it?
@CobaltVelvet I like it, but you are right that people will have an easier time if you add a visual component. Even just a set of still images. My experience is that most people have a hard time visualizing spaces. Is your intended audience STEM types? Or are you making something intended to be more general?
@Vanessa i'm trying to find a use for a skill i get when especially high, but also proving skeptical STEM-types that psychology and sociology can be perfectly rational and represented with math. But maybe just people who understand more easily logical links that way than with a long text.
@CobaltVelvet oh! That's makes sense. And yes, a lot of it seems to be about classification and labelling. I wonder if there are already nice examples out there about binary (or discrete) categories failing when a continuous variable is more appropriate that you could get ideas from. I mean, it seems like the issue is both that it isn't binary/discrete and that it is multidimensional.
