home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.transgendered
- Path: sparky!uunet!boulder!devin
- From: devin@frodo.Colorado.EDU (No one in particular)
- Subject: Re: Interesting Concept
- Message-ID: <1992Dec22.165000.12067@colorado.edu>
- Sender: news@colorado.edu (The Daily Planet)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: tsalmoth.colorado.edu
- Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
- References: <BzMAsL.Lzz@visix.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:50:00 GMT
- Lines: 49
-
- Ken Mayer (ken@visix.com) wrote:
- : I wrote:
- : me> What it proposes is rating gender like this:
- :
- : me> Masculine
- : me> ^
- : me> |
- : me> |
- : me> |
- : me> |
- : me> Non <-----------+-----------> Feminine
- : me> |
- : me> |
- : me> |
- : me> |
- : me> v
- : me> Non
- :
- : So what's at (0,0)? I like the idea, but the math student in me says
- : that the scale should stay in quadrant I:
- :
- : Ken> Masculine
- : Ken> ^
- : Ken> |
- : Ken> |
- : Ken> |
- : Ken> |
- : Ken> Non+-----------> Feminine
- : Ken> Non
- :
- : Because you're measuring presence of something, not whether you have
- : something or its opposite. Or to put it another way, there's
- : non-Masculine, but no anti-Masculine (what would be called Feminine on
- : a single axis scale). The extrema retain the same mapping as before.
-
- The only reason I put it into quadrants (besides the fact that that's the
- way I saw it first) is that then the quadrants (i.e. which quadrant you're
- in) means something. That is, it's easier to explain the extrema to
- non-Math oriented people. :) Just because it's technically more correct
- the way you draw it doesn't mean it's easier to understand.
-
- -Deb
-
- --
- Deborah Parks (RP90) (SotM 7/91) DoD #0034 deb@boulder.colorado.edu ------
- "It's being both that's a bitch." --\--- /
- "I wanted to take my brain to hell and back and see what I had left." \ \ //
- "This howling in the distance, it's a captivating sound. \ \/
- Can't tell if it's ecstasy or pain..." -DW \/
-