1 v. 2 dimensions

Like everyone here, I have male and female traits. I used to think of there being a one dimensional continuum of maleness to femalness and I was somewhere in the middle, but now I think that is algebraiclly wrong and maleness and femaleness are independent variables. My maleness doesn’t detract from femaleness, and vice versa. I’m not described by a point on a line but by a point in a two dimensional graph, if that makes sense.

If the graph scale is one to ten, least to most, then I’d give myself a 7 on the male axis and a 5 on the female axis.

Any thoughts on the two dimensional v one dimensional framework? Where do you put yourself?

Mermaiden,
I found the problem is when the female trait is stronger and wants to take over , this conflict felt like a gut feeling for most of my life . Now finally I have been able to allow the female side /trait to take the lead , I feel a whole lot happier , I'm not really bothered that the male trait is gradually fading away as the inner conflict has almost disappeared .

I designed my own graphic to explain where I was on the TG spectrum , my gender counsellor found it very useful , the only problem being our situation is never static until we can find a balance .

I guess one could see iit that way, but then, would a person who was 0,0 be asexual? What about negative values?

I think it’s easier to think of it as a spectrum on a single axis, personally.

Mermaiden,

I can see where you're coming from but I also see a flaw in your argument. Let's call the variables M & F. They make up you (Y) as a person. Therefore Y=M+F. So unless there's another part of you given over to another type of personality then it seems than the idea of a sliding scale seems more the likely way of describing our situation because as one variable alters it does so proportionally with the other, 2xM =Y/2.

The only was the above doesn't hold true is if Y isn't a constant then M could remain the same and F could say double. That way Y grows and the proportion of M and F alter independently of each other. So it's possible you retain the same level of maleness (M) while the femme (F) side grows.

Oh I can see this getting complicated!

Since the early 1980's there have been many attempts to graphically depict the tremendous variability seen in gender identity and secondarily its expression. Single lines to multidimensional models have all been tried and they work for the data at hand and fall apart when new data is added.

To me, the terms feminine and masculine gender are ambiguous at best and illusions at worst. The difficulty is that each have a whole pile of traits and characteristics each with their own values in each individual. It is the traits and characteristics and their particular blend of forms and intensities that defines a person's actual gender identity. And finding two people that are alike, even with identical twins, is next to impossible. This is probably due to behavioral genetics and the environment in which those genetics are expressed in the personality that intertwine in complex ways and that creates uniqueness. Personally, I try not to think of myself as feminine or masculine or a blend of the two that changes in sudden jumps sometimes and gentle flows at other times. I just concentrate on the traits and characteristics rather than the vague blanket terms of feminine and masculine.

I think your concept of masculine and feminine as not being proportional to the total length of the one dimensional line is headed in the direction of a more natural image. Your 7 and 5 total 12 which is 2 more than the length of the scale. That is perhaps more like it really is than the total always having to equal the length of the scale.

Imagine this. Let's say there are 100 traits that define all genders and 30 of those are fairly unique to distinguishing masculine and feminine. That means 70 traits are in common to both. Each person then has a particular value for each trait, say on a scale of 1 to 10 and those values are not fixed but change with circumstances and what is happening with other traits through interactions between traits. Thus there are 100 different traits with 10 different scores for each trait. That means there is an astronomical number of possible combinations for each person to play with in "performing" their gender identity or identities. Two dimensions may not be nearly enough.

Unfortunately, that is not very workable even if it is the reality. So, each of us reduce all that complexity down to a some common elements that more easily define us. However, the background complexity colors the simplified version and thus we seem to fall into groups and move around on whatever scale fits our image. The fact is, cisgender, transgender, or whatever-gender is unique for each of us even though the categories of masculine and feminine have grossly oversimplified underlying complexity to come up with a meaningless category - masculine and feminine. Perhaps, in truth masculine and feminine don't exist even though we think they exist. You just are. In my opinion, you are definitely on the right track with your thinking of it in two dimensions.

I would suggest you try expanding your dimensions to equal however many traits and characteristics you can find that define you. Dig deep. It will probably make your head hurt and spin and around, but you may get a feel for what is going on in the background. Then try to formulate a model that fits your pattern. It's hard and usually not very successful, but you will learn a great deal about yourself doing this exercise.

I think a Venn Diagram on a revolving hyper-cube with random Alpha and Beta particles being fired at it works best! A bit hit and miss!
:love:

Too difficult for me to comprehend, I have just learned to live with it.

I still look at women who are attractive and carry themselves well in both modes and my thoughts are twofold all the time.

My common point lays some where among all the bits and pieces of all the shattered scales laying at the bottom of the page. I know there must be one that is correct but which shard belongs were on on which scale is the problem.
In other words I have quit trying to place me on some such scale. I am ME just me.

Helen your grasp of maths is better than mine I am totally baffled now!

Bobbi,
In simple terms is Helen suggesting the two are on the same scale , if the female increases then then the male one has to decrease , having two separate scales could be a contradiction .

Maybe the graph should be more like the big maps you see when you walk into a shopping mall - with a Big Red Arrow saying "You Are Here."

Or, maybe not! I still get lost easy enough.

I am so glad I left all the what ifs and all the whys behind years ago.
Surmising and assuming this or that and trying to answer why this or that happened and what effect it had seems pointless.
You are who you are be happy all that stress isn't making life easier.

It does sound like you might genderfluid, or non-binary or something else. I definitely have had moments where I feel both very feminine and very masculine at the same time. And plenty of times where I felt not much of either. Everything is a multivariable function, so why not male and female too :)

Some masculine and feminine traits are defined in opposition to each other, so these are dependent variables. Dominating and submitting, decisive and vacillating, for example.

But each side of this sliding scale can be found in M or F.

'Man' and 'woman' are clusters of character traits- with physical and anatomical traits being the main differentiating character. Gender is expressed more in relationships- men showing off for each other, women courting male interest, etc.

I have some trouble with your opening line and I feel sure I am not alone.

I am "just a guy" who happens to wear SOME. CLOTHING ITEMS from the other side of the store.

Not certain how that would qualify as a feminine trait?

When out in public "dressed", I do absolutely ZERO to appear feminine or female in any way, shape or form. (literally)