Tech bros reinventing the Kinsey Scale.
Something worth noting here for people confused, is that this isn’t for computing or representing gay identity, its for computing gay expression of a couple. Each vector is one person describing their gender expression, and the output of the math is “how gay of a couple are they”.
All in good fun, I assume, but just wanted to clarify that this doesn’t calculate how gay a person is in isolation. Which is why they don’t have to worry about Bi/Pan, because it’s not about identity, it’s about optics, I guess.
It makes sense because you can’t be gay in isolation. So if you basically calculate weighted sum of all the people you find attractive or dated with their vectors and normalize it you can get the results from there in this system. Would be better representation than you estimating it yourself
Would be better representation than you estimating it yourself
But what counts as attractive and how somebody else views themselves isn’t the same as how you view them
Help that make sense to me. How could you not be gay in isolation? Are you talking currently irritated, or always isolated? Would that same logic say you can’t be straight in isolation?
Yes, you can’t be straight in isolation too. Straight vs gay is about who you find attractive, without anyone else then it’s just you. Mathematically it makes sense. In reality we use information from pst encounters, people around us, media and such to get the sample of what you find attractive. Maybe we can say we could analyze the brain and body and biochemistry to determine it in isolation, but normally it’s based on how you feel about other humans
You could calculate it against a theoretical partner with maximal gender (ie. [1 0 0] or [0 1 0])
As a visual-thinking, but non-mathy, person, this would be a lot easier to understand if someone plotted the graph. Right now, this is just a bunch of words and numbers without much meaning to me, but it sounds like the kind of thing that someone who “gets it” could easily “translate” for the rest of us with a visual.
Though I might be extra confused because they brought up gay and straight when the topic was originally about gender. Is it meant to plot one’s own gender, or the gender of whomever they’re attracted to? Or are we supposed to make two graphs, one of each, and there’s some math-term I’m too math-ignorant about being used to compare the two?
Or does the post not make full sense, but it sounds funny and that’s why people like it?
(Please be kind.)
I know this comment sounds kind of dry and maybe off-tone, but I’m rattled from a fall I just had, on top of battling a cold for the past couple days. So my autistic brain is running on safe mode right now and I can’t access the “polite and charming” program I prefer to run when writing comments.
The gay/straight part pretty much just compares how similar two genders are … in a math way. It’s only works for a relationship between two people, not for self identification. And those two things are actually not the same.
For visualization you can use colors instead of just a graph.
For example, red for F, blue for M and green for N. Now you have a gradient that can be different color based on your expression. Idk how dot products would work (i guess it’d mix the colors) but this sounds fun and you can have a little badge in your profiles and places
F [1,0,0]: 🟥 M [0,1,0]: 🟦 N [0,0,1]: 🟩
Person1 [0.5,0,0. .5]: 🟨 Person 2 [0.5,0.5,0]: 🟪
And so on
If I’m understanding what they’re putting out, it’s not… much. Cute, but there’s no hidden mysteries here.
Think of the vectors proposed here to be an arrow pointing from some imagined origin point in any of three orthogonal dimensions. Let’s say Masc is to the right, Fem is up, and “non-binary / I don’t know what their plan was for n but I’m going to consider NB” is forwards, away from you.
Now the idea is that everyone has a unit vector, that is a stick with an arrow on the end and all the same length we’ll call 1, that points in a direction to indicate their gender expression. Someone who is full Masc is an arrow fully to the right, a pure Fem would be fully up and down, and if someone is “Masc leaning but not full Masc” they can’t just have a shorter stick, all sticks are the same length, so they either need to be half way between Fem and Masc (the 1:30 position on a clock in front of you), or if that doesn’t feel right, you can use the 3rd non-binary dimension and it can be flat (no Fem) but angled 45 degrees away from you. At the 1:30 position when viewed from above where 3:00 would be full Masc again, and noon would be fully NB (no Masc no Fem, right in the center from our earlier upright perspective)
Okay, so that’s our setup. Now for the math, which is pretty “simple”. The dot product basically just measures how big the angle is between two different vectors. So the gist here is that if you are pretty Masc and your partner is pretty Masc, your two arrows have a large degree of overlap and so it’s “pretty gay”. On the other hand, a full Fem and a full Masc have zero overlap, they’re pointing in completely opposite directions, so it’s “not that gay”. A Masc and a Fem can both be with an NB without it being that gay, but two NBs together is pretty gay, by these standards.
So again, cute, but it’s really just a mathy way of codifying “its gay to be with someone with gender similar to your own, and less gay the more different they are”
The cross product finds a line that is orthogonal (goes in a separate direction) to the other two. So in a sense it finds the person most different from the two of you. A Masc and a Fem crossed would result in a pure NB. If a Masc and an NB crossed it would output a Fem. But if you had a person that was fully Fem crossed with a person that’s half-Fem half-Masc, what you’d get is a person that’s half-NB and nothing else. This doesn’t fit our original rule about everyone having the same sized-pointing stick, but we don’t care about that for now, because what they’re actually doing with this operation is just taking the absolute value, which in this case means measuring the length of the stick.
So a Fem and a Masc producing a full NB means the length is 1, and our half couple before only spit out a half-NB, so that’s 0.5 with the idea being that there’s some straightness between the Fem and the Masc parts of the two people, but it’s not fully straight because there’s also overlap between the Fem and Fem parts. Remember when I said this outcome wasn’t a stick the same size as everyone else’s? In a sense that’s what this is measuring. How close to a real person is this hypothetical “most different person”. In the case of full NB and full Masc the answer is easy, it’s a full Fem person. So that’s a pretty straight relationship because the person who is least like you two is themselves a full person. Or in another sense you could “complete the triangle” with three unique full people. But our more nuanced couple from before already has some ambiguity and overlap, even if it’s not in the NB direction, and so you really only need a little bit of NB to cover the difference, so it’s not that straight. Some, but not fully. I don’t know that this one has that clear of an intuition, honestly, I think they just liked the math properties. Or maybe there’s a better intuition about the cross product than mine!
It’s been too long since I took this kind of math myself to know where “A cross B” is different than just “1 - (A dot B)”, as in, where is Gayness not just the opposite of Straightness. Which couple is either both Gay and Straight or neither Gay nor Straight. I could look it up… but I won’t because that would deprive someone of the joy of telling me!
the existence of a sexuality cross product implies the existence of negative gender, which implies the existence of negative gayness. a [1 0 0] * [-1 0 0] relationship would be gayness -1, while being straightness 0, suggesting some kind of anti-gay or opposite gay. rather than attempting to erase the existence of negative gender with an absolute on the cross product we must explore its implications. perhaps a negative gender individual can be found. gender theory must know!
[1, 0, 0] and [-1, 0, 0] must never meet unless they annihilate each other in a violent particle-antiparticle explosion!
but functionally, they are indistinguishable, since the effective gender is actually the complex gender absolute value squared! yes that’s right, [i, 0, 0] exists as well.
Negative gay is where you are in the closet and trying to overcompensate by being very vocally homophobic, but then in your dark, secret moments, scroll grindr. That can be directly observed at Republican conventions.
Cis for agender nb [reversible] specifically
Wouldn’t a unit vector make more sense, in this case, rather than binding any one dimesion to an arbitrary range?
Also, Im a bit confused on “n” both in its calculation and value as a dimension?
Also, cross products wouldn’t give you a single value. You’d get the vector orthogonal to both.
This is a unit vector. They bound Masc and Fem to 0 to 1, sure, but what they meant about using NB to make sure it always adds up to 1 was attempting to set this up as a unit vector. It was just a little clumsily defined.
So then given that it’s a unit vector, “n” is there to represent non-adherence to the Masc and Fem spectrum. Someone can’t be half Masc in a unit vector without being half-something-else, and if that something else isn’t Fem, then it’s NB. Their expression would be some Masc but also some gender-non-specific things, without a lot of Fem traits.
That’s what they’re going for, at least.
the sum of the dimensions equalling to 1 doesn’t make it a unit vector. For it to be a unit vector its magnitude must equal 1. There is just an overlap where some values, like
<1,0,0>or<0,1,0>that both sum to 1 and have a magnitude of 1. We expect that the domains of m,f,n are in 0-1.So a vector like
<0.5, 0, 0.5>sums to 1… but it’s not a unit vector, because its’ magnitude ( sqrt( M2 + F2 + N2 )) is 0.7071… not a unit vector. To make it a unit you’d have to divide each of the dimensions by that magnitude. So the unit vector of<0.5, 0, 0.5>is<0.70711..., 0, 0.70711...>Calculating the unit vectors prior to doing the dot/cross products means you’re doing operations on two equally sized vectors which would give more consistent results.
You’re absolutely right, and I’m a dumbass! I wonder if the original poster made the same oversight I did, and actually did intend it to be a unit vector but messed up…
It does seem like that would be easier!
If you normalize the vector prior to doing the dot/cross then you don’t have to worry about restraining the domains of any of the dimensions. In fact, it’s easier if you don’t.
ACTUALLY, go one level deeper… abandon simple Vector3, do a 2x2 Matri. Like let V1 represent Gender…<M,F> and V2 represents Attraction <H,Q>
You could write up a quesionarie with Nth number of questions with answers that assign points into you dimensions. The points would respond to how Masculine/Feminine, Hetero/Queer any one answer is. And because the vectors will be normalized later, the number of points is arbitrary. You can assign any number of points to different dimensions based on how that answer “feels”, make the questions modular.
For example
-
Some question about typical gender stereotypes?
- Generic Masculine Answer (assign 2 points M)
- Generic Feminine Answer( assign 2 points F)
- Either Or (assign 1 point M, 1 point F, and 1 point Q)
- Hyper Masculine (5 points M, 2 points H)
the domains don’t matter anymore, because if someone answers in a way to get a result like V1<546, 0>, normalized it becomes <1,0>. V2 <235,0> => <1,0>… so your our Matrix is now
[ [1,0] , [1,0] ]
or masculine straight af
Embys would end up with a normalized V1 where both M/F are near equal. Bisexuals would have V2s near equal…
You could have any mix giving way to interesting matrixes. And you can still multiple the Matrices from one person against another to do some interesting transformations.
Math aside, I myself am none of non-binary, genderqueer, gender-non-conforming, nor agender, but I do wonder if any of these people feel like “equal mix of Masc and Fem” is what best describes them, or if “neither Masc nor Fem” feels more right. Because if so, having that 3rd dimension might still be useful, but I don’t know.
-
I don’t really understand your first point.
n can be determined according to this equation:
f + n + m = 1, and all the values are bounded by[]additionally.The cross product gives you the orthogonal vector, this is why they take the absolute value of it.
n can be determined according to this equation: f + n + m = 1, and all the values are bounded by [0; 1] additionally.
i think the equation actually is f² + n² + m² = 1
Inside the Gaytrix
What about transbian.
[1 0 0]
[0 1 1]
?
I don’t think [0 1 1] is allowed, since the sum of the components is supposed to be one. Also why would transbian be [1 0 0] (male) times [0 1 1] (female + n)?
I meant it as a 3 x 2 matrix, adding more information 😅 i didn’t really think it through ☺️
A man or woman is more straight for loving nonbinary as well, than just the opposite gender. You might even say they are super straight.
I failed graphical maths, so I’m still heternomishtive and cisgender.
deleted by creator
![gender math [gay calculator]](https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/79007dcf-f743-42ce-86c7-e03d3631a981.webp){kind=link}