Femininity

I came across this little essay and I think it's interesting in our little exchange/debate here, even it's not directly talking about  :

https://www.academia.edu/13322557/Gender...osexuality

It concludes to the idea that gender (social version of our discussion) is dichotomical because it's constructed via the heterosexuality prism.

I think that's true. But once we abandon the heteronormative framework, the graduality becomes evident.

[Like Ra]

Think about colours. We agree on typical examples of red and orange, but there is no clear threshold between red and orange.

Red: #ff0000 - For Red colours the green part is 00)
Orange: #ff8000 - For orange colours the green part is as twice as less as the red part
Green <80 = red-orange -> red (#ff0000)
Green >80 = yellow-orange -> yellow (#ffff00)

That's why we have more colour names, than just red and orange 😉

https://www.color-hex.com/color-names.html

[Like Ra]

But once we abandon the heteronormative framework, the graduality becomes evident.

It's all about the goals and purposes. If the enlightenment is the goal, then yes, because everything is one, and that one is essentially nothing (OK, one of the nothingnesses), no duality exists there. Western science relies on classifications, hence thresholds are necessary. Even in quantum physics they talk about duality and discern particles from waves, while admitting that "it"'s actually both 😁

Think about colours. We agree on typical examples of red and orange, but there is no clear threshold between red and orange.

Red: #ff0000  - For Red colours the green part is 00)
Orange: #ff8000  - For orange colours the green part is as twice as less as the red part
    Green <80 = red-orange -> red (#ff0000)
    Green >80 = yellow-orange -> yellow (#ffff00)

That's why we have more colour names, than just red and orange 😉

https://www.color-hex.com/color-names.html

If you add categories, you have the same situation between the added categories, because their change is still gradual.

[Like Ra]

https://www.academia.edu/13322557/Gender...osexuality

It concludes to the idea that gender (social version of our discussion) is dichotomical because it's constructed via the heterosexuality prism.

Strange article. Basically it 's about how the definitions of social based terms and paradigms are changing with the changes happening with the society. Yes, think of moral, fashion, etc...

[Like Ra]

If you add categories, you have the same situation between the added categories, because their change is still gradual.

Absolutely. Appearing of more precise tools (or new knowledge) means adding new categories. What means more elementary dualities. And since something is gradual, the amount of categories can be infinite 😁

Or here's another perspective. For any 3D object there is an infinite amount of 2D projections. For any 2D object there is an infinite amount of 1D projections. Etc.

Red: #ff0000  - For Red colours the green part is 00)
Orange: #ff8000  - For orange colours the green part is as twice as less as the red part
    Green <80 = red-orange -> red (#ff0000)
    Green >80 = yellow-orange -> yellow (#ffff00)

That's why we have more colour names, than just red and orange 😉

Well, Except this is not the same.  You express Color with a clear definition of what's red and what's orange.  And we thinked it was useful to add more colour name in between and present the center to be the source of a dichotomy.

First we could discuss about the color definition and the limits of the three color model but that's not our concern  😉  And colors are far from a dichotomy.  What happens with the blue?

The definition of dichotomy is "division into two parts or classifications, esp when they are sharply distinguished or opposed".  If you adopt the RGB color scheme, you can mathematically define what's R and G, and then, defining a dichotomy with the center point.  But without it, you are lost since the distinction is not clear for the eye.  So the distinction is not sharp. 

If I give you a color near the center of red-orange, you wouldn't know without comparison which it should be expect by looking at the numbers and saying, this one is nearer of #ff0000 than #ff8000.  Which mathematically could be expressed red < (#ff0000 + #ff8000)/2 < Orange.  But this dichotomy is defined by the goals and not a threshold.

From the @princesitanatty definition :

A dichotomy is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets). In other words, this couple of parts must be

    jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and
    mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

This could not be defined by the goals but by the threshold.  A dichotomy would be more "Everything with a red component is red, the rest is not".

The point and I think it's in a way what's @princesitanatty say (we'll know 😉 ) is that we should define the ending colour (aka feminity and masculinity) but not the threshold.  If you take the Heterosexuality prism, you'll of course have a clear dichotomy since heterosexuality is based on the sexual dichotomy and "improves"/"clarify" it.  So, if you want gender to be dichotomical, you have to define something like (a rough false example) "Every body with a penis is masculine, the rest is not".  But sexuality is defined by goals, more like "Every body with a penis is male, Everybody with a vagina is female".  And then we try to play with the "in-between's" to make them match a dichotomy which is not defined correctly.

[Like Ra]

First we could discuss about the color definition and the limits of the three color model but that's not our concern    And colors are far from a dichotomy.  What happens with the blue?

https://www.likera.com/forum/mybb/Thread...1#pid42471

😉

[Like Ra]

Another trait I would call very feminine - lower back arch. Not very best examples, but these photos should explain what I mean.

[Like Ra]

Feminine enough? 😋


  femininity_01_golf.mp4 (Size: 1.82 MB / Downloads: 364)