There is no unit because it isn't a science. It's all pure conjecture.

Gender's as real as a belief in an immortal soul.

This won't work. They are busy deconstructing sex down to the million little "sexual characteristics", all the many ways in which humans are sexually dimorphic and plotting these out along an "axis" with medical conditions that can alter the expression of dimorphic traits. It's not a single variable so its not a spectrum at all, but they're too busy deconstructing sex to notice the difference. They can't see the forest for the trees.

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 15 points Edited

Wait huh? I've never seen this claim before, that a spectrum has to be quantified with units. And it's just flatly not true.

A spectrum is just a one-dimensional range between two poles—originally named after visible light, which is the Roy G. Biv spectrum within the much wider range of electromagnetic radiation.
(This spectrum, exceptionally, DOES have units—wavelengths of light in nanometers—but the spectrum itself was defined long, long before the units were known. And moreover, it's only that way because the spectrum of visible light is a tiny piece taken from a much larger, theoretically unbounded, range of all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.)

Height is NOT a spectrum, because it doesn't have two poles that represent actually defined opposite extremes.
There's no upper end of height at all in theory, and the "lower end" is zero, which isn't a valid pole for a spectrum either (because there's no such thing as being zero nothings tall).

Also, there are tons and tons and tons of things commonly described as spectra that do not have 'units' and are not quantifiable. The political spectrum from left to right is probably the most famous, but, practically every individual human psychological trait is also on a non-quantifiable spectrum—including each of the standardized set of personality factors (the set with "Agreeableness" and so on in it), plus others like tendency to violence at one pole vs. peaceable character at the other.

Conversely, most numerical quantifiers with units specifically ARE NOT spectra, because most things with units range from a zero value to theoretical infinity.

Thank you. Yes. I thought the same. The spectrum that sprang to my mind was the autism spectrum. No "units" of measurement.

I find Zach Elliot very irritating. He's not nearly as clever as he thinks he is.

but the spectrum itself was defined long, long before the units were known

But you could see that there were at least six different colors. The rainbow is a spectrum and you can't pinpoint exactly when orange starts and red ends, but red is definitely not blue, orange is not green. The obvious colors were the units, I guess.

[–] Lipsy #bornnotworn 4 points Edited

Those are "categorical values", not units. They're not rlly appropriate here, because visible light is a spectrum—there are infinitely many colors blending together.
Categorical values are discrete and can be counted with whole numbers, like the grade school formulation of the rainbow—which is basically just arbitrary, and, notably, not the same from one language to another (e.g. many Asian languages use the same word for blue and green. Other colors, like violet and orange, are named for fruits or flowers and don't correspond well between languages; Chinese people call hot pink "rose red", but have a different word for baby pink).

Units are numerical; the very name itself tells you in Latin that the unit represents exactly 1 of whatever thing. (The "one" in any romance language—un, une, uno, una, etc—is pretty visible in there too.)

They already released this in an infographic. The bigger your hips and boobs are the more of a woman you are, and the taller and buffer you are the more of a man you are. Facts!

Oh no. This one has a come-back: gender is undefinable; an ever-shifting, unknowable constellation.

Perfect. It's just like a constellation too. A pattern and meaning being ascribed to a set of unrelated points based on nothing but the power of human imagination.

I'm partly waiting for TRAs to start saying that women with narrower hips and a smaller bust are less female and men that are shorter with narrower shoulders are less male and that kind of shit to claim its a spectrum. I mean, they're already insanely sexist, why not just be straight up offensive about physical differences while we're at it!

Hate to tell you but they got there years ago. Have you seen the Mermaids Gender Spectrum diagrams? Pay attention to the proportions on their little stick-n-boob figures.

I once posed that question to a TRA coworker, if I was less female because I have androgen-induced acne. She wasn't sure how to respond. Lol

Lol! Well of course you're not, you're still 100% female but boy does gender ideology make me feel shitty about that kind of crap.

They already sort of do. I've seen tweets that make fun of certain women for being "trans passing" as if women who don't fit their idea of beauty are less of women

They see women of color as less female as well. Lots of comments like "if black women get to be considered women, then so do I!" God I hate these men, they really are the worst that that gender has to offer and they'e all forcing their way into our spaces. What a nightmare.

Everyone knows you measure gender fluid by light spectroscopy. Duh!!


But with light spectroscopy, the unit of measure is wave lengths, right? Which means that gender fluid must emit waves of light around a person like an aura. An aura that presumably consists of shades of pink and blue and rainbow stripes in varying degrees of intensity and different combinations. Though always with the pink and blue parts most dominant.

Some of us measure gender fluid the old-fashioned way, by using a traditional dip stick. It's not as sophisticated as your method, but it's a a reliable method for finding out if the fluid level is sufficient or it's time for a refill.





Load more (4 comments)