Femininity

[princesitanatty]

Perhaps you want to represent the set of all human traits, and divide that set in 3 subsets: male-typical, female-typical, and sex-unrelated. This would make sense, but the correct representation is not "two sets with an intersection", it's "one set with 3 subsets".

[Like Ra]

but the representation is not two sets with an intersection

How come? I see two sets with an intersection. Exactly how it's supposed to be. All sets are "transparent", so you see different colours in the overlapping areas.

[princesitanatty]

Then the circles do not represent the biological sexes,

They do, why not? Typical feminine on the right, typical masculine on the left. If it's not typical and shared - in the middle.

A set of men includes men, not traits of men. Traits of men (and of women) can be male-typical or female-typical or sex-unrelated. So there is something problematic in the graphic. Can you write the criterion of membership of each set?

[princesitanatty]

but the representation is not two sets with an intersection

How come? I see two sets with an intersection. Exactly how it's supposed to be. All sets are "transparent", so you see different colours in the overlapping areas.

I mean that "a set with 3 subsets" is not equivalent to "2 sets with an intersection", and the correct graphic is the first one, not the second.

[Like Ra]

I mean that "a set with 3 subsets" is not equivalent to "2 sets with an intersection", and the correct graphic is the first one, not the second.

Actually, there are 4 sets. The second graph is the correct one, because it leaves some spaces not intersected with either aesthetics or "antisocial" sets. The correct representation would be in 3d.

[princesitanatty]

You might use an horizontal axis to represent degrees of male-typicality in the left, female-typicality in the right, and sex-independence in the point zero. You can distribute the traits of each man and each woman in that axis, and you'll get two sets, one of traits of men, other of traits of women. The set of traits of men will have more members in the left side of the axis, and less members in the right side. The set of traits of women will have the opposite distribution. You might use a vertical axis to represent the number of members in each value of the horizontal axis. Then you will have two bell-shaped curves, one for men's traits and one for women's traits.

[princesitanatty]

I mean that "a set with 3 subsets" is not equivalent to "2 sets with an intersection", and the correct graphic is the first one, not the second.

Actually, there are 4 sets. The second graph is the correct one, because it leaves some spaces not intersected with either aesthetics or "antisocial"  sets. The correct representation would be in 3d.

Forget temporarily those other sets. Just see the two circles. I am saying that they have problems when you try to define them. Please write the definition of each set, and you'll see. The definition might refer to people or to traits, in both cases there are problems

[Like Ra]

A set of men includes men, not traits of men.

A set of men includes everything about men. Same for women. Some traits are the same: one nose, two eyes, one brain, etc. They are in the intersection "in the middle". Both men and women have brows. But female brows are "placed" higher, than male ones (see https://www.likera.com/forum/mybb/Thread...7#pid28637 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_fem...on_surgery) . These differences will be placed outside of the central area.

[Like Ra]

Then. A real person is not a "dot" on the graph. So you have to allow some degree of abstraction here.

[princesitanatty]

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.
Maybe you are trying to make a set that includes both "traits of men" and "traits that are male-typical", but in such case it would be more clear to distinguish those two sets (and the same happens with women), because some traits of men are not male-typical, and some male-typical traits are not traits of men.
I repeat my request that you write a clear definition of the sets.