I'm trying to come up with a theory of gender. I'm borrowing some ideas mainly from QM but I'm not sure how it will work out. So far I considered (hidden) gender to be a complex state vector, and you may find your real ("apparent') gender by taking its modulus like usual. Obviously, different state vectors should be able to interact with each other (being around certain people changes your gender evolution) and external fields (heavy oppression, for example).
Genderfluidity should somehow be some parameter describing temporal evolution of the state vector. Under no external fields, someone who has no genderfluidity will always view themselves as the same gender, but for someone with high genderfluidity it may vary drastically from time to time.
I'm also not sure what the dimensionality of my gender space would be. Obviously it should at least incorporate masculinity/femininity/agender/queerness as perpendicular components.
Thoughts or ideas? Any references I should look into to further develop this?
I'm trying to come up with a theory of gender...
not science
It's a mathematical/physical formulation of gender, so I'll stay here.
Which genders are commuting and which are noncommuting?
I think you can define genderfluidity as a type of current analogous to probability current, so the time derivative of the gender modulus squared.
Our genders form a basis so obviously they all commute. You're free and encouraged to come up with another basis however (your own set of genders!) and work out which commute.
You should be careful when using non-hermitian operators, or else you might end up with imaginary genders. Oh, wait...
It's very very simple. One is positive and one is negative. This is why homosexuals use imaginary numbers.
The real question is, given two points in your gender vector space, can we have a meaningful notion of distance? And are all points path-connected? Is the transition-function [math]\tau: [0,1] \rightarrow \mathbb{Gender}[/math] that corresponds to the transition from a gender [math]\tau(0)[/math] to a gender [math]\tau(1)[/math] always continuous?
I conjecture that there are genders for which [math]\tau[/math] is not continuous (at the so called "cut my balls off"-jump).
So any suggestions for the sexual energy operator in vacuum? It should be positive definite but other than that I'm not sure.
I clicked on this thread thinking I wouldn't like it, I was wrong.
I think only 2 genders exist
and traps and MtF trannies are essentially female
>Obviously it should at least incorporate masculinity/femininity/agender/queerness as perpendicular components.
by this do you mean that there's a masculinity&femininity axis that's perpendicular to agender&queerness axis, or that all four are perpendicular to the other three? I think it might be more practical to not think of masculinity and femininity as the negations of one another and instead as their own axis. It sounds weird but in the long run I think that would cover more of the phenomena with a more manageable model. So something like a vector with an M value and an F value, where a 1,0 is totally male, a 0,1 is totally female, 0,0 is completely devoid of gender, 1,1, is lots of both, and something like 0.5,0.5 might be half and half or something.
I kinda figured fluidity would be a rate of change you'd measure off of those numbers over time, and that things like "butch" were just terms for "females who usually do dude stuff" that are more dependant on comparing a 0,1's hobbies to the hobbies of a typical 1,0 or something, as opposed to an actual aspect of gender. Though there's some stuff on the image that I sure as hell don't recognize, so beats me how much I'm missing. I'm also just a philosofag who works with truth systems, and while I've worked with systems that incorporate uncertainty within their truth vectors, the QM analogies kinda fly over my head.
>I think it might be more practical to not think of masculinity and femininity as the negations of one another and instead as their own axis
Yes exactly, that's the idea.
You need an agender component or else normalization of the state might not be possible. E.g. if you are half masculine that would in your example be (0.5, 0), but this is not a normalized state. I'm assuming here we're working with gender "fractions", which need to sum to 1. The solution is to assign the other half to the agender component (or maybe "gendervoid" would better describe this).
So you just need a third value that ensures all three add up to 1? Whats stopping you from doing just (A, B, 1-A-B)?
-and furthermore, wouldn't that value be redundant? I'm not getting that the benefit is from having them add up to 1 because I guess I'm a brainlet.
>not getting that
not getting what*
at least I got trips
Fuck off SJW. Stop trying to astroturf.
This is the true theory of genders: Male corresponds to positive, female corresponds to negative.
Now suppose x were negative and y is positive. Homosexuals want something "in between" positive and negative. So they define it in a way such that neither is neither yet both is both. How, precisely? Something like this:
[eqn]
x' = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x + iy)
y' = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x - iy)
[/eqn]
This is why you see so much crap about imaginary numbers here. Imaginary numbers is literally the science behind homosexuality.
So, since you got completely BTFO in this thread you decided to change tactics in how you shill your ideological bullshit. Sorry brainlet, this is the science board.
You cant btfo a question user
>everyone I don't like is the same person
I derived inspiration from the thread but I actually didn't post in there once, nor was I the OP.
It's just to formalize things a little. It's not entirely necessary at this point but it keeps things neat.
Wether you're the same guy or not doesn't really matter in the end. You're part of the same clique of anti-science imbeciles. Gender is sex phenotype. It is binary. We already have a theory of gender. If you want to discuss science fiction, you're on the wrong board.
But at the very least its observable that there are people who're MtF and FtM, qs well as other things. Unless you're going to pull the "psyc is not a science" card.
Could it be any less obvious that this is just an astroturfing attempt?
>I'm borrowing some ideas mainly from QM
What you should be interested in is evolutionary biology and sexual reproduction, not quantum mechanics.
Wouldn't it be easier to just make sexuality and gender seprate vectors? I'm neither of the posts you quoted.
The fact that some human organisms (an extremely small minority, more importantly) are dysfunctional doesn't mean that gender/sex phenotype is not binary.
Where are you faggots organising this raid from?
I don't get why masculinity, queerness, etc should be perpendicular components. The quantum gender state vector should obviously encode information about different observables. I would treat masculinity, etc as the observables. So for eg, masculinity and queerness would be non-commuting observables and obey an uncertainty principle
>the fact that the model can't contain certain datapoints does not mean the model can't contain all datapoints
right
10/10 hilarious, you should pull a sokal and try publishing it
>The quantum gender state vector should obviously encode information about different observables. I would treat masculinity, etc as the observables. So for eg, masculinity and queerness would be non-commuting observables and obey an uncertainty principle
I like it, but what should be our basis then?
Man, I knew Veeky Forums was full of autists who don't understand obvious sarcasm, but you take it to a whole new level. I bet your mom thinks you're a 'special child'?
>I think only 2 genders exist
and traps and MtF trannies are essentially crazy people (see mentally ill)
FTFY
>it should at least incorporate masculinity/femininity/agender/queerness as perpendicular components
I know you're just being facetious here, but this could actually hold some water if you used concentrations of neurochemicals instead of non-quantifiable social constructs like "queerness" in order to quantify a person's gender leanings.
If you cannot name said neurochemicals, you are not qualified to make any mathematical models of gender. That said, it may also mean that no one is qualified and that either science isn't ready to model incorporeal gender empirically or that such a science does not actually exist in reference to humans.
It would depend on which observable you wanted to measure. If the masculinity value is to be in the range [0, 1], to measure the masculinity, you would express the gender vector along this basis. And the probability that the masculinity value is in some range could be found out in the usual way by integrating the square of the the norm of the gender vector with appropriate limits
Except the model can account for those data points. They're caused when something goes wrong in development. Like the de la Chapelle syndrome which occurs because of asymmetrical crossing over during meiosis in the sperm.
Nice fail safe, but you're not half as clever as you think you are. Ironic shitposting is still shitposting anyway. Morons and cranks need to be called out.
>If you cannot name said neurochemicals, you are not qualified to make any mathematical models of gender.
Do you think the field of physics just started with quarks and worked it's way upwards? You start off on the plain observable level (in this case, behavior), and work your way in from there.
They need to be called out by someone smarter than they are, not by someone like you who is even stupider
>when something goes wrong
pure connotation
it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right. If a small minority of freak mutants grow arms out of their head, you don't just ignore it in your taxonomy because it's "wrong". The very reason why you're calling it wrong is because it isn't fitting.
What if everything you knew about modern physics was all BS and the truth was right under your nose the whole time?
>under your nose
Don't have one.
Kill yourself brainlet. Your jig is up.
>arguing semantics
>while having no clue what the words he's using even mean
>arguing semantics
>in a thread that's specifically about semantic modeling
I think you're the one who doesn't know what your words mean user
I see you're not even trying anymore.
Piss off already.
what happens if a Demiboy breeds with a Genderfluid: adrongyne and female? would there be a new cross-gender?
>no retort
>"heh, nothing personell"
you're basically just complaining about people being on topic
pick one. you're either giving it or taking it.
what. the fuck.
The observable AND quantifiable if you're going to assert mathematical modeling. Physics was restricted to philosophy and essentially just feeling things out until Newton and his ilk contributed mathematical models to describe the observed behaviors. Until you have such quantifiable values, you cannot have a functional mathematical model, one that has specific observable outputs for specific observable sets of inputs.