So it's back to this, is it?

[Taka]

[...]
So, gender has to be at least six dimensional to accurately visualize it.

But then again, I probably have no idea wtf I'm talking about.



(Edit: I feel like I should point out that I was half-kidding. Sort of intentionally overthinking it. But it was just so much fun to think about, I couldn't help but share! But IDK, maybe there is something to it?)

well....

i think i deleted a whole paragraph from my post about how i wanted to find a way to make that 3d color cone expand to become a cylinder and then wrap itself into a klein bottle. you'd definitely need at least four dimensions to do that.

it's related to this funny thought experiment that i found in a manga, i think it was. take a normal circular band, bend the edges towards each other and attach. what you get, with some elasticity, is a torus.
now, in your mind, take a möbius and do the same. the answer is a klein bottle, but can you visualize wrapping a möbius like that in your mind? it's really difficult, just the same as with trying to wrap your head around the idea of gender not being the binary we're used to hearing it is.

[ativan]

But then again, I probably have no idea wtf I'm talking about.

Oh, but you do. Like I said, I think you're gonna like it here...

[ativan]

it's related to this funny thought experiment that i found in a manga, i think it was. take a normal circular band, bend the edges towards each other and attach. what you get, with some elasticity, is a torus.
now, in your mind, take a möbius and do the same. the answer is a klein bottle, but can you visualize wrapping a möbius like that in your mind? it's really difficult, just the same as with trying to wrap your head around the idea of gender not being the binary we're used to hearing it is.

A ring torus is how I imagine the universe.
We perceive it from the inside surface.
To travel beyond time, to defeat having to surpass light speed, it would be something like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Inside-out_torus_%28animated%2C_small%29.gif
Sure, we are now on the outside, but move a little and turn it inside out again...
This done repeatedly would be time travel, or defeating the space-time continuum.
You just need to keep turning it inside out from the same perceived place when looking at it when away from it

A klein bottle works in much the same way.
Yet it is static on the surface as well.
A hollow Mobius strip.
No matter which direction you go, you will eventually end up at the starting point.
Now turn it inside out as well.
If you see it with gradient or blending colors, along with black and white, you have infinite variations within reach.
Hard to visualize, but possible.

You could look at gender this way.
If you start to back that up, turn the bottle back to it's start, take out the space inside to the mobius and then disconnect that, you have the common spectrum strip.
Which we don't perceive gender as non-binaries.
So connecting the strip without the twist and put space inside it, you are at a ring torus.
Which you can turn inside out.
As non-binaries, we perceive it in one state, and binaries see it in the other state or inside out from our viewpoint.

But I really love the klein bottle, especially full of color and not just on it's surface, turning forever inside out.
Always full of blending colors and blending with black and white.
To be a spot of color, floating around inside would be a wild ride.
Now you have me thinking of gender in terms of not only two sides of a torus, but a rainbow filled klein bottle, forever turning inside itself.
Ativan

[JillSter]

well....

i think i deleted a whole paragraph from my post about how i wanted to find a way to make that 3d color cone expand to become a cylinder and then wrap itself into a klein bottle. you'd definitely need at least four dimensions to do that.

it's related to this funny thought experiment that i found in a manga, i think it was. take a normal circular band, bend the edges towards each other and attach. what you get, with some elasticity, is a torus.
now, in your mind, take a möbius and do the same. the answer is a klein bottle, but can you visualize wrapping a möbius like that in your mind? it's really difficult, just the same as with trying to wrap your head around the idea of gender not being the binary we're used to hearing it is.

I have trouble wrapping my head around a klein bottle as it is. I can't figure out how to imagine it without it intersecting, which I assume only happens because it's the only way to illustrate it. But I'm no physicist.

Gender as a self-contained landscape? Is that what you're saying?

How about this: Gender expanding in every direction with no central point. So where ever you are at any given moment, you are the center. And the "landscape" around you is subtly different depending on where you are; but it's all just the intricate fabric of your gender. It's the cosmos of identity. Complex, unique and amazing!

Oh, but you do. Like I said, I think you're gonna like it here...

I think I will.

[JillSter]

So connecting the strip without the twist and put space inside it, you are at a ring torus.
Which you can turn inside out.
As non-binaries, we perceive it in one state, and binaries see it in the other state or inside out from our viewpoint.

That's an interesting way to look at it. It kinda knocks me off my high horse of feeling like I'm beginning to see something that most people can't see. But when you put it this way, it's not about lack of vision so much as perspective, which I think is more fair. Certainly the color spectrum is more diverse and elegant than a grayscale view point, but it doesn't devalue the perception of those who haven't yet flipped it around and had the opportunity to see that there's so much more than they ever knew.

I like that.

Now you have me thinking of gender in terms of not only two sides of a torus, but a rainbow filled klein bottle, forever turning inside itself.

That's a beautiful image!

[ativan]

"Gender expanding in every direction with no central point."
As is our universe, or so the theory goes...
The universe is full of black holes. If they are indeed wormholes, they could be reconnected back to our universe.

Try this out. An Alice Universe is somewhat what this is alluding to.
The idea of opposites exist, but only in a local sense.
Gender depends on which handle your holding.

"In theoretical physics, an Alice universe is a hypothetical universe with no global definition of charge. What a Klein bottle is to a closed two-dimensional surface, an Alice universe is to a closed three-dimensional volume. The name is a reference to the character in Lewis Carroll's children's book, Alice Through the Looking-Glass.
An Alice universe can be considered to allow at least two topologically-distinct routes between any two points, and if one connection (or "handle") is declared to be a "conventional" spatial connection, at least one other must be deemed to be a non-orientable wormhole connection.
Once these two connections are made, we can no longer define whether a given particle is matter or antimatter. A particle might appear as an electron when viewed along one route, and as a positron when viewed along the other. If we define a reference charge as nominally positive and bring it alongside our "undefined charge" particle, the two particles may attract if brought together along one route, and repel if brought together along another - the Alice universe loses the ability to distinguish between positive and negative charges, except locally.
As with a Möbius strip, once the two distinct connections have been made, we can no longer identify which connection is "normal" and which is "reversed" — the lack of a global definition for charge becomes a feature of the global geometry. This behaviour is analogous to the way that a small piece of a Möbius strip allows a local distinction between two sides of a piece of paper, but the distinction disappears when the strip is considered globally."

But yah, it's really about perception.
Simple and beautiful, or elegantly complex and beautiful in it's own way.
No matter how you slice it and dice it, you can see binary and non-binary.
At some point they overlap or connect in one way or another.
However you perceive it, it's only fair to perceive a constant connection of some sort.
I don't want to use the obvious positive-negative, matter- antimatter kind of vision.
Gender doesn't have polar opposites, it has perceptions of that depending on point of view, but not when it is taken in as a whole.
Locally, it can 'feel' like opposites, binary and non-binary, or male and female, but that is a false perception.
They share too many characteristics for that.
Gender is a blend, with different blends depending on your local point of view or perception.
It's difficult to justify a global perception of gender when we perceive ourselves as a type of gender.
Much like the observable gender. It exists if you look at it, only.
It's unfair to consider gender to ever be actually static.
It's an ever evolving process that can have distinctly different routes, but overall, it is still gender, regardless.
We talk about our routes that we take.
Binaries talk about the two cities of male and female and the highway that connects them.
Non-binaries talk about the paths in the forest.
Yet there are side roads off that highway that lead to the forest, as well as paths from the forest to the cities.
Where you are at any given moment, determines your perception of gender.
Ativan

[JillSter]

No matter how you slice it and dice it, you can see binary and non-binary.
At some point they overlap or connect in one way or another.
However you perceive it, it's only fair to perceive a constant connection of some sort.
I don't want to use the obvious positive-negative, matter- antimatter kind of vision.
Gender doesn't have polar opposites, it has perceptions of that depending on point of view, but not when it is taken in as a whole.
Locally, it can 'feel' like opposites, binary and non-binary, or male and female, but that is a false perception.
They share too many characteristics for that.

That makes me think of quantum entanglement. (I keep going back to physics, but I don't know what else to apply it to.) Binary and non-binary are essentially the same thing? Like entangled particles in two different locations. Perception is just a matter of which you're observing. But the connection between the two is instantaneous regardless of how far apart they are. It defies the standard model. It doesn't obey the speed of light. My assumption is because there's no actual traversing of space between the two. They exist together, but are only perceived as apart. They overlap basically. As do binary and non-binary is your description. It's a little mindbending, but it feels true.

I'll have to read more about the Alice Universe. It combines two of my favorite things: the universe and Alice! (I love those books so much! I have The Annotated Alice, with so much more than just the stories. I should read it again. )

[Lo]

I prefer to stay with the axis model of gender, in that we occupy a single point along countless axes, and when we move, we navigate through countless 2-way spectra that create a multi-dimentional space/self.

So, something like a tesseract.

Like this:

You start off with two points, the binary. Connect them to create a spectrum, a line. Extend the line parallel to itself to create a field (binary and nonbinary), extend the field parallel to itself to create a cubic space (binary, nonbinary, and neither?), extend the cube parallel to itself to create...?

[Taka]

the only problem i have with a spectrum, is that i often occupy more than one spot at a time. i'm definitely a quantum particle that looks like two just because their one-ness isn't visible. and that is why i like to talk about things that bend in impossible ways. i get this weird feeling that my gender's existence is reliant on the possibility of an alice universe being more than just an abstract idea.

the klein bottle is more of an illustration of how difficult i find it to wrap my head around the idea i know i have but can't even express clearly to myself. time to try some zen meditation...? all is nothing, nothing is all. we miss the whole picture because we focus on details. i need to think some more, and try to make it about gender this time, not just illustrations..

[ativan]

So, something like a tesseract.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Tesseract.gif

I could look at this all day... 

We use what is familiar to ourselves to define perceptions that don't have an accepted definition.
Yes, it is like multiple parallel lines creating cubes and such.
It is like blending colors.
It is like the forest and the cities.

It's a lot of fun looking at the finer points in abstract ways, indeed.
At the end of the day though, it's all just gender as a whole.
Binaries have more of a tendency to be somewhere along that spectrum line.
It's generally defined by male at one end and female at the other.
Simplified version that works very well, as it's accepted that way.
That somewhere of any individual consists of characteristics that are usually grouped close together. But not always.

Non-Binaries on the other hand use points from all over that line. But not always.
We even recently speculated on the possibility of something beyond those ends of male and female.
In different combinations and number of points. Rarely having a close grouping.
Sometimes our definitions give that impression of such groupings.
I think that's carry over from Binary language of a sort.
We don't have words that convey what those groups really are.
We have descriptions that use Binary words to describe Non-Binary.

So it's useful to designate one from the other by using separate groups.
But both groups have the same characteristics, each group just uses them differently.
In the Non-Binary group, those characteristics don't line up in any particular fashion.
We don't put male and female at the ends, they don't carry any more weight than anything else.
That screws the line idea of a spectrum up.

So being who we are, we try to make sense out of it by defining the perception.
That perception comes from those many points, used in many different ways or combinations.
A unified description is for the time, out of our reach. But we inch closer all the time.
It's difficulty lies in the way we each utilize those characteristics.
It's difficult to even define subgroups. Binaries can use male and female.
We can use those two groups too, but they carry no more weight than any other group we can come up with.
Also why labels are such a nuisance. Even descriptions get in our way.
But we do use descriptions, they just tend to be abstract in nature. But not always.

*Redundancy alert...
There is Gender, which can be divided in a simple way into two groups.
The group Binary can be, in a simple way, subdivided into smaller groups.
Male and female.
Beyond that, I don't pretend to know the finer points of Binary.
The Non-Binary group isn't so easily, in an agreed way, able to be subdivided simply.
There are just too many possible groups on that next level.
While I do understand how that works, I don't have the words to explain it.
*Alert over, glad you made your way through it... 

This is what defines the two groups, not the differences, because we use the same things.
Each group just uses them differently. You can count that as a difference, but that's a fine line.
You could look at water molecules and say that binary is more like ice and non-binary is more like a liquid.
Same stuff, just used differently.
Same words, different story.
And we have a story to tell.
Meanwhile, back at the perception ranch,...
Ativan

[Taka]

i'm the vapor in the water analogy. both in the water and outside it, might be trapped in ice, but never perfectly constant. pretty much all over the place, never able to recognize a regular flow of anything.

[Lo]

I got a tattoo symbolizing genderlessness when I decided that this was something I was going to actually live and not just think about. It's the alchemical symbol for gold and the astrological symbol for the sun. I've also fancied it to represent a free neutron, since the neutron is one if the things I most strongly associate with the feeling of having no gender; having no charge, but is capable of being part of every element in existence without turning into something other than what it is. And then there's neutronium, which, though theoretical, just sounds like an amazing and beautiful substance. *A*

[Shantel]

Taka and Lo,
     I love your descriptive symbolism but I prefer to just not over-think this for my own part as it would surely drive me crazy. 

[Taka]

Taka and Lo,
     I love your descriptive symbolism but I prefer to just not over-think this for my own part as it would surely drive me crazy. 

i just like to over-think things. part of my nature, or maybe it's rooted in a need to identify. so when i can't identify with male or female and there are no other subcategories to choose between in the set, i'll try with a whole different set where there are more subcategories than just two to choose from. my experience is that every time i try with traditional and untraditional gender terms, the idea of a binary still follows all of these words.

lo's analogy works really well for making me understand what place they find themselves comfortable in. i'll insist on being a comet, but the experience of not being like mars or venus while still sharing some qualities, isn't all that different when society insists that everyone needs to identify with one of those two planets.

[Jamie D]

Mobius strip? Klein bottle? Ring torus?

May I be excused?  My brain is full!   

[Shantel]

i'll insist on being a comet, but the experience of not being like mars or venus while still sharing some qualities, isn't all that different when society insists that everyone needs to identify with one of those two planets.

+1 Amen to that!

[MadeleineG]

I often think of gender in terms of orbits: some relatively stable, others highly chaotic; some near-circular, others predictable, yet highly eccentric; all bodies' orbital trajectories influenced by every other, sometimes subtly and sometimes acutely.

Maddy

[JillSter]

Taka and Lo,
     I love your descriptive symbolism but I prefer to just not over-think this for my own part as it would surely drive me crazy. 

Overthinking is fun. I love to look for patterns and associations in everything. I guess I have a need to explain things to myself. I always sucked at math in school because when it became more complex I couldn't follow the curriculum. I had to be able to visualize the problem to solve it. Geometry was a breeze, but algebra was a lot harder to visualize. (I never made it to pre-cal because I was a trouble maker and didn't stay in any one school for very long. ) So I consistantly got 50% on my tests because I'd be able to solve the problem, but I couldn't show my work. Half credit. And the occassional accusations of cheating. Luckily I found a tutor who understood how I think, and he taught me how to do equations backwards from the answer to the problem and I learned how to show my work.

So I think I'm pretty much hard wired to have to try to visualize things I don't understand. But I also enjoy it! Something as elusive as gender is just so much fun to ponder!

I often think of gender in terms of orbits: some relatively stable, others highly chaotic; some near-circular, others predictable, yet highly eccentric; all bodies' orbital trajectories influenced by every other, sometimes subtly and sometimes acutely.

Maddy

I like that imagery. That's sort of what I was trying to say earlier, only you did a much better job of it. The idea of other people having an influence on your gender. That who you are inside doesn't exist entirely within. People have a very strong effect on one another. Generally we don't think of other people being an influence on something as personal and fundamental as gender, but if it's ever-evolving then you have to account for external influences -- especially other people.

[ativan]

A common thread here is the visualization of gender.
Visual thinkers account for somewhere around a third of people.
Is it more common with Non-Binaries?
Ativan

[Taka]

Luckily I found a tutor who understood how I think, and he taught me how to do equations backwards from the answer to the problem and I learned how to show my work.

So I think I'm pretty much hard wired to have to try to visualize things I don't understand. But I also enjoy it! Something as elusive as gender is just so much fun to ponder!

i just like abstract ideas and stretching my mind to try to visualize what can only be represented through formulas. i was also hopeless at maths, but lucky enough to learn early enough how to create the formulas backwards. my way of explaining how i solved problems would probably be through an instinctive recognition of how things are connected, so i know if i do this and that i'll get the right answer, but i can't show why. getting a proper understanding of what formulas are and how they relate to the real world was a powerful experience to me, it gave me a tool to explain my perception of the world in a way that others who know those same terms can understand (mostly related to linguistics).

but we don't have any good formulas for gender. nobody knows the right equation, the answer exists but is yet to be described. i just use the closest analogy i can find to my own experience of gender, and hope that through comparing this and other people's analogies we can find what they all have in common and ind the answers hidden within.

i'm not sure i'm much of a visual thinker. i think in words or pictograms (i count chinese characters as pictograms more than words), and visualize abstract ideas in an imagined 3d space. i recognize connections mostly instinctively, and that's probably why i use analogies so much, i often lack the whole thought process that many think should be behind getting from problem to answer. i need to see as much as possible of the whole picture and all details before my mind can suddenly point at one thing and say "there's the answer", and then i just have to start with the answer and go through everything until i get to the problem. backwards thinking in order to explain to others, not that easy all the time.