I say that there are three dimensions to 'gender' in people. They are not binary roles, they are on a scale. Just for the sake of discussion I'll say it's on a scale of -1 to +1, with any level of decimal points being welcome. (I am going to say that the 'female' end of the spectrum is going to be the + side since the symbol for female happens to include a + under the circle. I am in no way saying female is superior, I am just picking a simple way to easily remember which end is the + side. +1 is 100% female, -1 is 100% male, 0 is 100% androgenous).

First off, there is sex. Being what biological sex are you. I was born male, however I am rather small frame, and exhibit a few physical characteristics that make me mostly seem male. So I would say I am roughly .8 to the male side (making my sex -.8 )

Next, there is gender identity. That would be what you feel like you are. I feel ever so slightly more male than female, but it is very slight. I would say I am .1 to the male side (making my gender -.1)

Lastly there is sexual preference. I really like both, but I like girls more. So I would say I am .25 for preferring girls (we'll go ahead and make the statement that preferring sex with females is a male trait, and preferring sex with males is a female trait). So that would put me at -.25.

So if we put them in this order, Sex,Identity,Preference, I would be: -.8,-.1,-.25

I'll go ahead and be arrogant and call this the "Simplified Kir Scale". If you want to play "pin the social stereotype on the donkey" you could even take an average of the scores and say I am -.38 male, so society would probably view me as "a third male".

But let's up the complexity just a tad. Different people are more or less heavy on the different axis. Some people identify VERY strongly with a gender, and don't really notice their body at all. Some people LOVE sex with ANYTHING, and some people don't want sex at all. So let's add a strength rating to each of the axis. For the strength score we will go for 1 through 0, 1 being you are very something, 0 being not really at all (example, if you want to have sex really bad, that's a 1, if you don't want any sex at all, that's a 0).

Body wise, I am pretty strongly male, and pretty strongly female, both (whereas some folks don't really exhibit attributes of either gender). I would mark the strength down for .75

Identity wise, I am not so strong, I would say better than half though, so we'll go with .6.

Preference? Yes please. Mark me down for a full 1.

So on the "Extended Kir Scale" I come down as -.8(.75),-.1(.6),-.25(1) Now, we could average the strength scores to say that my total identity has a strength of .78. It get's betters! Let's take the strength scores times their values and average those... ((-.8*.75)+(-.1*.6)+-.25*1))/3 = -.3... Meaning society would view me as LESS than .3 male (less than a third male).

So in recap, I am:
SKS: -.8,-.1,-.25:-.38
EKS: -.8(.75),-.1(.6),-.25(1):-.3

(modified to fix a number that decided it should be a smiley face)

Are you including your appearance on the sex scale?
Otherwise, I don't see how you would be a .8

er, that's supposed to be -.8, not .8

Apparently the forums decided to turn my numbers into smiley faces and confuse things further.

I am mostly male due to the fact that I actually have the parts for male, and the fact that I grow facial hair at a very fast clip, plus I have a strong tenor voice, shoulders are square, and a complete lack of a butt.

I would probably say your body looks classify mostly under the sex portion, and the look that you portray (hair style, clothing, etc) would classify under identity.

I like the idea, but I can't assign numbers to those things without them being extremely arbitrary.

Perhaps that means that the strength scores on them would be very low?

but i am not a number person anyway.

Interesting. What does it mean though?

I think society decides to treat you as an either or, there are no half's in the eyes of society i.e. a binary. Perhaps you could say that 30% of the time people treat you as if you were a male. Is that what you mean?

I think it would make more sense to just have appearance (the way you look) and behaviour (the way you act). These are the only things that matter as far as society is concerned in it's interpretation of your 'gender' with more weight on appearance, though you could also include bureaucracy (what you are on paper)...

and does appearance really count? I imagine  most people feel much different to how they look.

Quote from: Pica Pica on March 18, 2008, 06:59:36 PM
and does appearance really count? I imagine  most people feel much different to how they look.

including you?

I feel suaver, more impressive. Less of a slob.

appearance matters when you talk about how society considers you which is what Kirs model is about isn't it?

i thought it as a way of working out about what you thought about yourself.

Quote from: Pica Pica on March 18, 2008, 07:02:52 PM
I feel suaver, more impressive. Less of a slob.

No, no baby.

Quote from: Kir on March 18, 2008, 05:51:49 PM

....so society would probably view me as "a third male"....

... Meaning society would view me as LESS than .3 male (less than a third male).

This is what made me think we were talking about how society considered you.

but most of society would view it only from appearance, most of society couldn't give a flying one about the gender identity or sexual preference.

Quote from: NickSister on March 18, 2008, 07:05:52 PM
appearance matters when you talk about how society considers you which is what Kirs model is about isn't it?

Quote from: Pica Pica on March 18, 2008, 07:08:10 PM
i thought it as a way of working out about what you thought about yourself.

Exactly! It is BOTH!

If you strictly wanted something that just said how society perceives you, then the model would include factors including overall looks, voice, paperwork (which is greatly dependent on if anyone actually SEES the paperwork... a random person I pass by won't see the paperwork so it won't matter. But anyone who checks my ID (such as if I write a check or something like that) will see the little mark saying which I am), name (the name you USE, and the name you legally ARE, depending on which you give out), and the way you carry yourself (do you swish your hips or square your shoulders?).

I think this model I came up with is more of a "What you are" than a "What you think you are" or a "What others think you are", because it takes into consideration both your view of yourself and your clothing, style (identity) and you actual physical appearance (sex) as well as your sexual preference. If nothing else, figuring up the numbers for myself helped me rethink about who or what I am.

I'm a scientist. And a witch. I think I'm an alchemist more than anything. Which means that I am always trying to find the philosopher's stone of situations, or the Master Equation. So I try and break everything down to math so that I can analyze the numbers, and try and find some meaning in them...

I wish I was more as I perceived myself too. I'd have an inch or two less around my gut, and less fuzz on my face. That would get me a little closer to pure 0.0

The only problem I see is that with your scale, the only way to hit zero or above is if you are close to mtf or at least bi/pan. You have no way to offset appearance without putting too much emphasis on the other things.

I don't mean to tear it apart, I kind of like what you are trying to do with it, but I think combining everything just does not really work.
Like Pica Pica said, society only sees what you present for them to see. Unless you wear your gender and sexual preference on your sleeve it is irrelevant to them. Whereas internally, it is an entirely different matter.


A good example is try to apply your scale to a transsexual or homosexual. Some would have a much easier time hitting a zero than an androgyne while others would show some very odd numbers.

First of all, this appeals quite a bit to the scientist in me. That said, though, I'd consider a couple of points.

One, the three axes you propose can each be sub-divided further into more detailed features. This doesn't mean they are useless, but it does imply that there are other ways to look into the issue. For now, just keep in mind that this is not the whole truth (even if it turns out to be nothing but the truth).

Two, adding up the three scores to a single number simplifies the issue a bit too much for my comfort. Studying a multidimensional phenomenon can be a complex task, and it usually is not a good idea to project it to just one dimension. Frankly, I'd consider the set of three scores more informative than the single end result.

Also, at the moment we don't know all that much about what the really relevant dimensions of the gender/sex complex are, let alone how to quantify them. Because of this, I'd rather switch my scientist hat to the humanities one and run a couple of laps around the hermeneutic circle.

Still, this sounds way cool.

  Nfr

Quote from: Seshatneferw on March 19, 2008, 01:00:59 PM
First of all, this appeals quite a bit to the scientist in me. That said, though, I'd consider a couple of points.

One, the three axes you propose can each be sub-divided further into more detailed features. This doesn't mean they are useless, but it does imply that there are other ways to look into the issue. For now, just keep in mind that this is not the whole truth (even if it turns out to be nothing but the truth).

Two, adding up the three scores to a single number simplifies the issue a bit too much for my comfort. Studying a multidimensional phenomenon can be a complex task, and it usually is not a good idea to project it to just one dimension. Frankly, I'd consider the set of three scores more informative than the single end result.

Also, at the moment we don't know all that much about what the really relevant dimensions of the gender/sex complex are, let alone how to quantify them. Because of this, I'd rather switch my scientist hat to the humanities one and run a couple of laps around the hermeneutic circle.

Still, this sounds way cool.

  Nfr

Yeah, I think you are right there. It's too complex of a thing to simplify down to one number. I still like the idea of the three scores (as well as the strength of the scores). Turning anything involving humanity into numbers does indeed make them less accurate, but that's the point of scales, to try and figure out how to more accurately express human things into mathematical systems. Math is the most universal language, so breaking it down to math is great.