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, and of course a lot of people are going to assume the values on the y axis in the first part art inversely related, when that doesn't at all need to be true. Hmm. Or I guess it is more that they are trying to define the two labels as having an inverse relationship in Y but there is no thing to measure that achieves that. Just a bunch of nebulous and ever-shifting stereotyped descriptions. And thus your ever growing set of axis.
