Femininity

[Like Ra]

I repeat my request that you write a clear definition of the sets.

You say the set of men includes "everything about men", but that is not clear enough to identify a set.

Yes, I aeady wrote it: "men" = everything about men, "women" = everything about women 😉 It's that simple. I don't know how else I can explain it or make it clear enough.

You can try to create your own universal model, I hope it will be more clear.

Question: can you tell a man from woman? If yes - how?

[princesitanatty]

"Everything about men" is not clear, do you mean "traits of men" or "male-typical traits"?
Biological sex can be identified objectively. Most people are either men or women. Less than 1% are intersexuals, which is a third category. Men and women are identified by their genitals, gonads, and sex chromosomes. Intersexuals have atypical genitals, gonads, and/or sex chromosomes, that prevent their classification as men or women.

[Like Ra]

do you mean "traits of men" or "male-typical traits"

Both

Men and women are identified by their genitals, gonads, and sex chromosomes.

You do not check gonads on the streets do you? But you still can guess if it's a man or a woman 😊

[princesitanatty]

do you mean "traits of men" or "male-typical traits"

Both

If a man has a feminine face, where would you locate this trait? In the intersection, or outside the intersection, at its left or at its right? See that this is a female-typical trait, and a trait of a man.

[princesitanatty]

do you mean "traits of men" or "male-typical traits"

Both

Men and women are identified by their genitals, gonads, and sex chromosomes.

You do not check gonads on the streets do you? But you still can guess if it's a man or a woman 😊

Of course you can guess. But you might be wrong in your guess, because some people have sex-atypical traits that might cause a misclassification. Also, because gender identity and gender display might diverge from biological sex. But this doesn't change my previous point.

[Like Ra]

Hang on. I found some traits, that break "my model". It's getting more complicated and I need more dimensions 😁

because some people have sex-atypical traits that might cause a misclassification.

Usually all "general" models are "generalized". For example, if it covers 80% of cases it's good in, at least, 80% of cases 😊 3.14 for Pi is good for most cases. Not good? OK, what about 3.14159? But if you really need it you can go up to the maximum your computer can handle.

Same for those "femininities"/"masculinities" - "atypical" cases require more complex "atypical" models.

[princesitanatty]

Hang on. I found some traits, that break "my model". It's getting more complicated and I need more dimensions 😁

That's exactly what I've been telling you so far. Have you read the link I've proposed above in this thread? I think it's very helpful, and it solves the problems of your model.

[princesitanatty]

Hang on. I found some traits, that break "my model". It's getting more complicated and I need more dimensions 😁

because some people have sex-atypical traits that might cause a misclassification.

Usually all "general" models are "generalized". For example, if it covers 80% of cases it's good in, at least, 80% of cases 😊 3.14 for Pi is good for most cases. Not good? OK, what about 3.14159? But if you really need it you can go up to the maximum your computer can handle.

Same for those "femininities"/"masculinities" - "atypical" cases require more complex "atypical" models.

Yes, but that is not the problem. The problem is that your model mixes two different issues: biological sex of individuals, and sex-typicality of traits. The difference is explained in the link I've proposed above in this thread.

[Like Ra]

That's exactly what I've been telling you so far.

I see your point, but I'm trying to say/define/describe something different. Mmmm..... Let's say "a feminine feature", which consists of not just one ("a dot" in the graph), but a set ("an area" on the graph) of traits. And in this case, shared traits combined with not shared traits make a feature, which *I* define as feminine or masculine. So far this is the best explanation I can come up with. The "shared" traits that break "my model" are socionics ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics).

Have you read the link I've proposed above in this thread?

This one?

See this text, it's very interesting: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-personalities/201605/sex-and-gender-are-dials-not-switches%3famp

It's fantastic! VERY interesting! This article and also the linked ones. I'm still reading them. Excellent find!

[no smile]

You are not giving a definition. It's not a problem of abstraction, you can put whatever you want in a set, but you must be clear on what the set includes and excludes. You say the set of men includes "everything about men", but that is not clear enough to identify a set.
(...)
I repeat my request that you write a clear definition of the sets.

I think I aeady heard that before 😁

If a man has a feminine face, where would you locate this trait? In the intersection, or outside the intersection, at its left or at its right? See that this is a female-typical trait, and a trait of a man.

Of course you can guess. But you might be wrong in your guess, because some people have sex-atypical traits that might cause a misclassification. Also, because gender identity and gender display might diverge from biological sex. But this doesn't change my previous point.

Yes, but that is not the problem. The problem is that your model mixes two different issues: biological sex of individuals, and sex-typicality of traits. The difference is explained in the link I've proposed above in this thread.

I love this...

And furthermore, all these where starting from so called "feminine" gesture. That's the whole point I'm trying to underline from the start but taking another line with the physical traits.

I think that by trying to simplify things in a chart, we tend to prevail what's making our point and remove the rest. Like theorising (from an idea) and then searching the facts proving it.