LGBTQ+

6191 readers

10 users here now

All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.

See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC

Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Gender Identity Scale (lemmy.zip)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've recently begun going through a bit of a personal renaissance regarding my gender, and I realized my numbers-focused brain needs something to quantify gender identity, both for myself and so I can better understand others. I also just don't like socially-constructed labels, at least for myself.

So, using the Kinsey Scale of Sexuality as inspiration, and with input from good friends, I made up my own Gender Identity Scale.

Three axes: X, Y, and Z
X: Man (not necessarily masculinity), 0 to 6
Y: Woman (not necessarily femininity), 0 to 6
Z: Fluidity, 0 to 2
X and Y axes' numbers go from 0 - not part of my identity to 6 - strongly identify as
Z axis's numbers go from 0 - non-fluid to 2 - always changing

Example: The average cis-man is 6,0,0, the average cis-woman is 0,6,0, and a "balanced" nonbinary person might be 3,3,1, or 0,0,0, or 6,6,2..

Personally, I think I'm about a 3,2,1 - I don't have a strong connection to either base gender, but being biologically male, I do identify a bit more as a man. I also feel that I'm somewhat gender-fluid, but not entirely so. I honestly don't fully understand gender fluidity yet, so the Z-axis may require some tweaking.

Does this make sense? Can you use this to accurately quantify your own gender identity? I wanna know!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For me, 0-5-0, maybe 0-4-0?

And I'd suggest that you should probably add another axis to represent genders that don't fit the man/woman binary. Not every non binary person sits on that man/woman spectrum

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm, I really don't want to make it too complicated, though. Would 0-0-0 with maybe one additional label suffice? I guess at that point, the numbers become irrelevant and only the label matters, which defeats the whole purpose.

I don't know enough yet about nonbinary folks (even though I'm pretty sure that's what I am). Do you have any suggestions for additional/modified axes? Maybe we could make the X and Y axes go into the negatives, with different meaning ascribed to anything below zero. 🤔

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hmm, I really don’t want to make it too complicated, though.

I mean, we're talking about gender. Complicated is unavoidable :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

😂 Good point!

That's why I wanted to simplify it. It clearly needs more work, but I do think I'm onto something here, at least for those of us who find numbers easier to understand than labels. There are dozens of us!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Forget complicated, make it complex and add the imaginary axis i