LGBTAitp 27: Of Shoes, and Ships, and Sealing Wax

[Serpentine]

Hm. Alright, I suppose I can see that. But without specifying that, you're just saying "sex should not exist", which is... kinda nonsensical considering the whole sexual reproduction and biology thing. Because sex does exist - things like hormone abnormalities, birth defects and transexuality don't negate that, any more than some kids being born with 11 fingers negates the "humans have 10 fingers" thing; it just means the whole process is a lot more complex and fallible than the simple statement "humans are male and female" implies.

[Astrella]

I understand why you feel that way. However, from a medical perspective, when talking about potential treatments or side-effects, for example, what would you suggest? A transwoman could clumsily explain to her doctor that she's a woman and that she has a penis and testicles, and all that, or could just fit it all into the handy words "male-bodied" and convey a host of information all in two words. People with intersex conditions, who know which condition it is, also often have names they can tell doctors.
Otherwise, from a social perspective, I don't see any real need for physical sex to be mentioned, except maybe if you're looking for a relationship and it might matter. From a legal perspective, it should really only matter for census records, which should also show gender, and ID should show gender.

Trans woman can have a whole array of bodies. I haven't started transitioning at all so from a pure medical point of view my body isn't very much distinguishable from a cis guy. But, a trans woman who has completed her transition (let's assume it's someone who wanted SRS), has breasts, a vagina and all that, female hormone levels and all that would still fall under male legally if she hadn't finished doing her legal gender change paperwork. The point is, where do you draw the line? Is a pre-/non-op trans woman on HRT still male bodied? Despite her now having female hormone levels which influences medication; different fat distribution and all that, having breasts no needing regular check ups for breast cancer, etc...

Hm. Alright, I suppose I can see that. But without specifying that, you're just saying "sex should not exist", which is... kinda nonsensical considering the whole sexual reproduction and biology thing. Because sex does exist - things like hormone abnormalities, birth defects and transexuality don't negate that, any more than some kids being born with 11 fingers negates the "humans have 10 fingers" thing; it just means the whole process is a lot more complex and fallible than the simple statement "humans are male and female" implies.

No, but it does negate "all humans have 10 fingers" statement. It doesn't negate "humans commonly have 10 fingers" which is what I think you mean.

I guess my point is that gender fulfills everything on a social level and at a medical level the simplified assigned at birth sex system is flawed.

[noparlpf]

Trans woman can have a whole array of bodies. I haven't started transitioning at all so from a pure medical point of view my body isn't very much distinguishable from a cis guy. But, a trans woman who has completed her transition (let's assume it's someone who wanted SRS), has breasts, a vagina and all that, female hormone levels and all that would still fall under male legally if she hadn't finished doing her legal gender change paperwork. The point is, where do you draw the line? Is a pre-/non-op trans woman on HRT still male bodied? Despite her now having female hormone levels which influences medication; different fat distribution and all that, having breasts no needing regular check ups for breast cancer, etc...

Well, your doctor should be at least passingly familiar with your medical records anyway, and should see "born male-bodied", "HRT for X years", "SRS in XXXX", or whatever. After SRS and HRT for years, for most practical purposes that would be a female body, but for medical purposes, it would be either for different things. It's important to be completely clear with your doctor about any conditions. You could say, "born male-bodied, went through SRS" as a fairly brief explanation, I guess. All I'm saying is, your medical history is important to a doctor, not just what presents itself now.

[Astrella]

Well, your doctor should be at least passingly familiar with your medical records anyway, and should see "born male-bodied", "HRT for X years", "SRS in XXXX", or whatever. After SRS and HRT for years, for most practical purposes that would be a female body, but for medical purposes, it would be either for different things. It's important to be completely clear with your doctor about any conditions. You could say, "born male-bodied, went through SRS" as a fairly brief explanation, I guess. All I'm saying is, your medical history is important to a doctor, not just what presents itself now.

I'm not disagreeing about medical history being important, that is my actual point. Your doctor needs to know the details anyway, which is why an inaccurate term as male-bodied is superfluous.

[Serpentine]

No, but it does negate "all humans have 10 fingers" statement. It doesn't negate "humans commonly have 10 fingers" which is what I think you mean.

I guess my point is that gender fulfills everything on a social level and at a medical level the simplified assigned at birth sex system is flawed.

If a child is born with 11 fingers, something has gone wrong in its development. It doesn't make it less of a human, it isn't necessarily even a bad thing, and it's certainly something that needs to be acknowledged and understood because it's a natural part of the diversity of life and is important to our understanding of genetics, gene expression, environmental factors in development, and so on. It also doesn't change the fact that one of the defining features of Homo sapiens is the possession of 5 fingers (or 4 and a thumb, if you prefer) on each hand. The fact that human development is flawed and sometimes does odd things and is always full of variation doesn't change the fact that humans, as a species, have two sexes, and sex is a real thing that is relevant to various areas.
I don't disagree with you on the social level (in fact, I'd take it even further - you know my opinions on gender), but this dismissal of an entire scientific concept because of its cultural misuse just doesn't make sense.

[Heliomance]

Yeah, partial AIS also happens, and that leads to a form of intersex if I remember rightly.
Can somebody with complete AIS get pregnant? Producing Y-chromosome eggs might be mildly problematic.

No, because they have testes where their ovaries should be - thus the lack of periods. Actually, the testes are generally removed, due to a ridiculously high co-morbidity rate with germ cell tumours.

...looking up partial AIS, apparently 25% of people with PAIS are dissatisfied with their assigned gender, whether they get assigned male or female, and yet current guidelines still state that it's not recommended to wait to decide gender assignment until the child can decide for themselves. That seems stupid to me.

[Serpentine]

...looking up partial AIS, apparently 25% of people with PAIS are dissatisfied with their assigned gender, whether they get assigned male or female, and yet current guidelines still state that it's not recommended to wait to decide gender assignment until the child can decide for themselves. That seems stupid to me.

Now that is a situation where I can definitely get on board the "leave off the sex decision" train. I do think it's both important and useful for a sex to be determined at birth, and that it makes sense for the external appearance to be the basis for that determination until something arises to change that (and if something does arise, I think that shouldn't be any more difficult to change nor any bigger a deal than is absolutely necessary to ensure the mental wellbeing of the individual), but in the case of intersexed kids I hate that it's decided for them before they even get a say. Australia was oh-so-close to having an official "neither" option for sex, and I think it would be so useful in cases such as that.

[Astrella]

Sex is a human invention, not an inherent thing. It's a human label. Just like colours actually. Red isn't a thing that exists outside the human mind; the spectrum range does, just like the various physical features exist for people, but red itself is a human concept.

For example, what if people in the past had decided on a trinary sex system? male / female / neuter for people who are infertile? (Sex classification was around way before we even knew chromosomes existed.)

Edit; at the very least enforcing that binary is ridiculously harmful. Even around here people who for example don't desire SRS are denied treatment or put at the end of the waiting list; because if you don't want to be perfectly cis-looking obviously you're not really trans.

Edit2: I see where you are coming from; and I agree that it isn't inherently harmful but the whole attitudes surrounding it aren't neutral right now.

Edit3: Sorry if I'm coming over as overly argumentative. I think I'm channeling a lot of my frustration about the unfairness of the system here (and in other places) into this conversation. :/

[Serpentine]

Sex is a human invention, not an inherent thing.

It is clear that our views on biology are so fundamentally incompatible that we have no basis for a discussion, as we can do nothing at this point than say "I disagree completely". And I really can't understand how you can say that, given the whole, again, "sexual reproduction that requires male and female features which is the fundamental driving force of all non-asexually reproducing organisms on the planet" thing.

Edit; at the very least enforcing that binary is ridiculously harmful. Even around here people who for example don't desire SRS are denied treatment or put at the end of the waiting list; because if you don't want to be perfectly cis-looking obviously you're not really trans.

I agree with you there.

edit: a pondering of a compromise between our basic positions. The sex binary is a natural categorisation of male and female, a fundamental feature and driving force of the sexual reproduction and all evolution stemming from that. Where the exact lines are between them, when one starts and the other stops, especially in humans, is a human construct - similar to hetero/homosexual (natural, intrinsic individual preferences but with blurred edges) and species categories (natural, usually well- and practically-defined but with extremely blurry edges at places and some downright weird stuff going on).

[The Succubus]

While the idea of every single person being considered on their own merits and criteria is an admirable goal, the fact that there are 7 billion people on Earth makes this physically impossible.

Generalisations are occasionally a bad thing if they miss out an important section but generalisation is essential if we are to make any sense of the world and its especially true with children. How can you explain the concept of reproduction to a child while avoiding terms like male and female?

I do get what you're driving at - generalisations lead to expectations and expectations lead to prejudice; but humanity as whole cannot consider 7 billion variations of itself without at least *some* blanket statements.

[Arachu]

*Hugs Musashi, Lixie, Golly and anyone who wants them* :<

@ Musashi: I think you're too hard on yourself... There's nothing wrong with complaining about that sort of thing.

I completely forgot to respond to that part, thanks for reminding me! ^_^

As far as I know, Vampires are by folklore incapable of crossing running water by themselves. It is akin to not being able to enter human dwellings without invitation, but immersion does not seem to be mentioned often. It could have been mentioned in the book, but I do not recall it myself.

Oh right, it was usually crossing the water (being burned by it tends to be used as a handwave, though that makes other problems (for one, how do the more attractive/charismatic versions manage to look like they can bathe regularly? )). ^_^'

Ooh, interesting. I did not know that. Makes a lot of sense, although I wonder why they could not enter uninvited if they represent infections...

Morality tale, I imagine. Working in explanations for what the victim did "wrong" helped to warn people from repeating certain behaviors and therefore (hopefully) make them less likely to catch disease (from other humans at least) in the future.

The man-beast is a symbol for PMS or PMT, which turns some women into snarling monsters for a couple of days each month. The correct way to combat a werewolf is with chocolate, red wine and footrubs.

*hides*

Bad Asta. ;P

... *Steals the chocolates and wine*

It is, but an appeal to authority is not. Similarly to an appeal to tradition, an appeal to authority is trying to argue that something being an authority (on the subject or not) makes their information correct, rather than the merit of their information itself. It can certainly be true, it is just not a very good way to argue. ^_^

Saying that Rich is an authority and thus is more right about Aztec glyphs than either of us would actually be the Appeal to Authority. Rich being an authority on OotS because OotS is Rich's comic appeals to logic (Rich is not right because Rich is an authority, but because it logically follows).

*Nod* He'd know about OotS because he created it, and he's the one continuing to create it. His being the one who'd know these things, paradoxically-sounding enough, is unrelated to whether he actually does or not for the same reason that not all doctors can perform open-heart surgery and not all politicians are aware of every large-scale social issue going on.

At least, that is my understanding of the terminology. It has a chart! :3

Charts~! :3

So, good news and bad news.


Bad news. Despite my dad sounding like he agreed not to tell anybody else, he outed me to my mom.

Good news. My mom took it pretty well (Could have been better, and could have been MUCH worse.), and in my opinion, my parents are the main hurdle.

*Hugs!* At least it's turning out okay.

One of my friends told a bunch of people I was bisexual today. I'm not, but I didn't get the chance to correct her. Any tips on how to go about righting the situation?

I would try to just bring it up and correct anyone who said it wrong whenever I could (I mean, it works for my gender with my cousins), but that can be kind of... Stressful, especially if the people you're correcting keep doing it and/or don't like being corrected. *Hugs*

As to correction, honestly, my anxiety kicked in and I froze. Everyone left before I could fix it.

I hate when that happens. *More hugs!* :<

I really thought I was well-educated about queer things before I came to this thread. It's been less than a week and I have been quite thoroughly flabbergasted by the gaps in my knowledge. I'll just go... clutch my pearls or something while I wait on an explanation.

*Hugs* It's okay, we're a confusing group of groups~

Aphrodite machine? Is it marketed solely at transwomen then? I call shenanigans on the marketing executives!

I guess it has a Hermes mode?

I don't really like the notion of "fully male / fully female" bodies because just creates a whole bunch of harmful divisions imo; but yeah, there's a lot of variables to consider.

^

Spoiler

Show

Color me incredulous, but I find the notion of prejudice being okay so long as its against a power group irrational. And upsetting. This is my knee.





It took it five years to stop turning purple in the winter. It took me four months to stop walking with a limp. The idea that this is a lesser infraction because I'm white and was chased down the street with sticks and rocks by hispanics, than if the ethnicities were reversed, is disturbing. There is no way to say you're going to pick which branch of sexism or racism or homophobia or whatever to fight an which are okay for now without sounding hypocritical.

Racism isn't slurs and words. it's being chased by teenagers because you took a bath this morning and now you don't look Latino. I skid a good four or five feet on my right knee, bloody and crying and they still chased me. If it weren't for a Latino family taking me in, scaring off the gang and their eldest son walking me home, I woul probably be just as damn racist.

Racism is hate. Not annoyance, or words. It's actions. It's belittling someone until they break. It's only hiring a black worker to do menial labor. It's liking the white kid out of a grocery store because the black guy ranting about the white devil polluting the sanctity of the establishment was a regular customer, and none of the employees were Caucasian so no harm no foul right? It's two friends, one spontaneously beating the other while his family cheers because they heard the break-in down the street was perpetrated by white people, so the white kid deserved it, even if he was at their son's birthday party two weeks ago.

"it's less of a problem" is a dismissal. It's the same as "it's not really a problem". And something not being real prejudice because it happens to a group you're less invested in protecting is a No True Scotsman fallacy. I'm white. People think I'm male. So there are some issues I haven't had to worry about. Like being denied employ at an overnight shift because of my fairer sex. but I have had keep my distance for hours, hoping, praying an adult would walk by I could scream at because I lived in a latino neighborhood and my clothes were too nice for a gringo to have, and some kids on bikes circled the tree I climbed.

In no way is any kind of prejudice at that level okay. And no, this isn't a blank check for people to cry prejudice and get off the hook. But if one cannot practice discernment over the degree of slight, that is one's business to tend to.

*Hugs!*

Spoiler

Show

Your call if it's a goal or defect.

I call 'goal' on her genes and whatnot and 'defect' on the way she was raised. Or just her dad and TiM. Whichever.

It's really awesome of those of you responding that you're helping me improve this. Thanks a lot.

Chart

I like that one~

On my best gauge of it, I'd be:

Spoiler

Show

- Strong bisexual, but a bit 'blurry' because I somewhat prefer more 'feminine' qualities and 'male' nibblies most of the time.

- Vanilla on Pain Exchange, maybe leaning a bit masochist for liking it rough sometimes.
(I used to be really strongly masochistic leaning sadomasochist, but... Eh, I don't care for it anymore. *Shrug*)

- Definitely female, maybe leaning just a bit androgynous (I don't like having male anatomy, but... Well, I like using it if that makes any sense ).

- Pretty strongly egalitarian, with a slight lean to switch (a bit of dominance somewhere or another is neat ).

- Maybe about... 'Family' preference, leaning 'swinger'? I guess you could describe me as liking to have a lot of friends, and sometimes being sexual and/or romantic with a couple of them. Also I have a different concept of "cheating" than most people and like being a girlfriend for some reason.

Wouldn't it be more useful if you made it into a "trainer chart", like used on so many anime's?
http://i.imgur.com/mwKe4.jpg
something like that.
You would make 15 axis' on which people could put their attributes. In the center would be "non-commited" or "vanilla" or "Asexual" and to the sides the different attributes. If you don't feel like any of them, your chart will come out almost blank, and if you do feel like most of them, your chart will come out almost full:
I filled this one in on my own to give an idea. This is me, Gunnar:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2zocgti.jpg
or if you prefer this one (I'm not sure myself)
http://i47.tinypic.com/2m2xvuo.jpg

Not that I changed it back to non-commited, because I don't believe monogamy and non-commited are the same. Family has been changed into 'Group-Love' and Swinger into polyamorousy again. This is how I view it, though, so no pressure.



I believe there is a way to categorize people. I do not, however, believe that it can be done in a way that everyone is at ease and happy of the result. thereby, you shouldn't try to categorize people. The problem with that is that mankind has the innate function to think in boxes. It's a mechanism of survival , so it might have served us in the past.
Now, though, I don't think it's such an improvement. Either way, you can't judge people for generalizing/categorizing, nor can you judge someone else for being generalized/boxed.

Hmm... I like the idea, but it is a *bit* hard to keep up with - could you maybe post a 'clean' version? (Also, switching the categories list to the top and center descriptions to the bottom might help a bit.)


----------

In news; after much hanging out around a bonfire and some drinking with my cousins the night before last, we determined that we're *probably* going to join a LARPing community somewhat soon. If/when we do, my character will be a noble-turned assassin that wears a mask and doesn't speak - so I don't get called out for calling myself Madame Pistonfall. I'll be presenting as female in public, outside of my parents' radar.


~Bianca

[Serpentine]

(in case Astrella is typing a response: please see my edit ^)

[Astrella]

It is clear that our views on biology are so fundamentally incompatible that we have no basis for a discussion, as we can do nothing at this point than say "I disagree completely". And I really can't understand how you can say that, given the whole, again, "sexual reproduction that requires male and female features which is the fundamental driving force of all non-asexually reproducing organisms on the planet" thing.

The classification is; not the physical reality. And my point is that the classification is flexible and human made. Where you draw the line is a human decision. Just like using a number system with a different base doesn't change anything about the underlying math, but you are using a different number system. I'm not denying the reality, but I'm very much aware that how we describe reality is coloured by our human biases.

[Serpentine]

My edit, above, for ease:

edit: a pondering of a compromise between our basic positions. The sex binary is a natural categorisation of male and female, a fundamental feature and driving force of the sexual reproduction and all evolution stemming from that. Where the exact lines are between them, when one starts and the other stops, especially in humans, is a human construct - similar to hetero/homosexual (natural, intrinsic individual preferences but with blurred edges) and species categories (natural, usually well- and practically-defined but with extremely blurry edges at places and some downright weird stuff going on).

I think species is actually a pretty good analogy (at least in spirit, if not in specifics). Comparing distinct species is easy - a cat isn't a dog, a walrus clearly isn't a budgerigar. There is clearly a natural, intrinsic and fundamental distinction. But when you start looking at the details, at the nitty-gritty and the fine details and the exceptions and the weird goings-on and the genetic throwbacks, the precise lines between these obvious and natural distinctions get blurry. Like ring-species: species A is clearly a different species to species Z, but species L-N? Not so easy to distinguish. But still not negating the fact of species A and species Z.
No idea if I'm making any sense at all :B

[Astrella]

Yes, I agree with that.

[Serpentine]

Brace yourselves. I think the Internet is about to implode.

[Socratov]

From a biological point of view I agree with Serp. the fact that we humans have a different way of thinking which sets us apart from the other animals (secondary thinking patterns) gives us a whole lot of options, not all neccessarily good. Biologically man has 2 eyes, 1 nose, 2 lungs, 1 heart, 2 kidneys, 1 intestinal system, 10 fingers and either XX chromosomes, or XY chromosomes which we call female and male respectively.

Now starts the trouble. somehow we (humans) have developed a brain. We don't understand it, but we do know it works (sort of). This brain has a few weird quirks. Sometimes someone's mental gender (at least, that's how I understand it) does not match it's biological gender. Mentally, people can have any alphbet gender they want. however, biologically you're either one or the other (the big question here is do you have a y chromosome). At the moment we people as a whole (Warning, this is a generalization!) use occams razor to determine gender: if it looks, smells and sounds like a man, odds are it's a man. if not odds are it's a woman. In the rare case people really don't know, it's an enigma (that would make a great name for a 'third' or neutral gender). Now, for medical information and drivers license etc. it's a good question what gender would prevail: is it the biological gender? Is it the perceived gender, it is the self assigned gender? And what categories would be allowed? Add to that the fact that the whole gender identity problem has become a problem over the last few decades, indicates that yes, change is needed, but that things need to be thought out first. That information has to be compiled so the people ruling countries etc. will be able to make a decent ruling. (and this is without even considering religious view on the subject).

[Serpentine]

I would like to clarify, lest the conversation keep going past where it needs to and gets distorted, that I haven't actually been discussing transexuality in my argument about sex except as one of the anomalies that is a product of and helps to demonstrate the imperfection and complexity of human physical development. I have been making absolutely no comment on transexuality, except the occasional agreement with some specific situation mentioned by Astrella.

[Lentrax]

My edit, above, for ease:I think species is actually a pretty good analogy (at least in spirit, if not in specifics). Comparing distinct species is easy - a cat isn't a dog, a walrus clearly isn't a budgerigar. There is clearly a natural, intrinsic and fundamental distinction. But when you start looking at the details, at the nitty-gritty and the fine details and the exceptions and the weird goings-on and the genetic throwbacks, the precise lines between these obvious and natural distinctions get blurry. Like ring-species: species A is clearly a different species to species Z, but species L-N? Not so easy to distinguish. But still not negating the fact of species A and species Z.
No idea if I'm making any sense at all :B

Ambiguous response generator: Yes.

But really. Yeah, the whole thing needs to be reexamined.

I mean, I biologically am male. I have at various times and for various reasons, wished for/worked toward being/presented myself as a different gender.

Except for my parts, I was for a while, a girl. (Silly Y chromosome)

But that leaves a big gaping flaw in the two genders thing.

Where am I? Man? Woman? Enigma?

I really do like that last one. Good call on that socrotov.

[Lentrax]

Also, it occurs to me that I would like a drivers license that says, Gender: Varies.

Or As Presented.

It's too long, but how about: What do you think I am?

[Coidzor]

It's too long, but how about: What do you think I am?

That one's got a bit of a risk for being taken as rather asinine. Also, I doubt there's that many people who are OK with having their gender identity decided upon by public consensus who would also take a third option on official paperwork.

Indeed, I think that having one's identity decided by others is part of the problem for some people...

[Thajocoth]

gunnar11: Not being into anime, I've never seen that style of chart before. Honestly, that looks confusing to me. I think it's more intuitive to place dots on existing shapes than it is to try to represent what you want to as a shape. The purpose of a chart like mine would be essentially to provide a better "at a glance" sexuality summary for people to provide when they want others to more quickly get a basic sense of their sexuality.

Currently, there are sites that attempt this with words you select on your profile, but with limitations that create confusion. Like, on one site, you cannot select that you're a Dominant Masochist (as both words are selectable in the same slot, rather than separately). I have friends who are Dominant Masochists. I've also seen plenty of times that misunderstandings arose because people used a term, meant it "only a little", had no way to specify that, and people assumed they meant "all the way".

Natural gender is concrete enough to keep that as a drop down with words, so there's no reason to create a triangle for it. A person's natural gender isn't going to be 10% male & 90% female... And part of the point of these triangles is that there's a gradient that's lost in most of the ways we communicate sexuality.

This gives good precision without taking a lot of time, either for the user or those that they provide the chart to. 5 quick clicks to place circles... And easy to read at-a-glance.

[Lentrax]

True. It was just a random thought that popped into my more than slightly fatigued head.

Uggh. I hate working all night.

[Coidzor]

True. It was just a random thought that popped into my more than slightly fatigued head.

Uggh. I hate working all night.

Yowch. I'm bad enough when I'm just working into the early AM, much less through it. Hope you can get some rest soon.

[Lentrax]

Yowch. I'm bad enough when I'm just working into the early AM, much less through it. Hope you can get some rest soon.

Thanks, but it isn't likely. I get to go home and take care of the kids till my wife gets home.

*tired hugs for everyone*

[gunnar11]

gunnar11: Not being into anime, I've never seen that style of chart before. Honestly, that looks confusing to me. I think it's more intuitive to place dots on existing shapes than it is to try to represent what you want to as a shape. The purpose of a chart like mine would be essentially to provide a better "at a glance" sexuality summary for people to provide when they want others to more quickly get a basic sense of their sexuality.

......

This gives good precision without taking a lot of time, either for the user or those that they provide the chart to. 5 quick clicks to place circles... And easy to read at-a-glance.

Yeah, I totally get how you came up with the idea for your charts, and how the scale works. It's a good way (not questioning this) to look at it in a glance and understand everything.

I wanted to make a more elaborated chart, though. One that grades every aspect from 1 to 5, to get a clearer view.
It would also allow the possibility to compare the chart to other people and see in a glance how they differ: One with more red is usually more into pain play. One with more orange clearly defines himself/herself/otherself as different in his/her/others view of themselves.
One with more purple will like boys and girls more alike.

The same on the other side of the chart. One with less purple will be more asexual, one with less green defines oneself less with dominance/submissisivity. Get it?

My chart isn't that much about quick glances, but more profound, and I would actually like it if I saw people use it, to see what the results are like.

Two more prototypes, hopefully easier to read.
Basic:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2vcasgl.jpg

Filled in,Colors:
http://i49.tinypic.com/4kjqc2.jpg

Or filled in, Grey:
http://i50.tinypic.com/30birfc.jpg

I hope one of them match your fancies!

[Coidzor]

Kind of cumbersome in terms of design, though, gunnar. Usually those things try to have less going on at one time when I've seen them.

More though, I'd have to question the profundity of what it attempts to measure.

[Asta Kask]

My edit, above, for ease:I think species is actually a pretty good analogy (at least in spirit, if not in specifics). Comparing distinct species is easy - a cat isn't a dog, a walrus clearly isn't a budgerigar. There is clearly a natural, intrinsic and fundamental distinction. But when you start looking at the details, at the nitty-gritty and the fine details and the exceptions and the weird goings-on and the genetic throwbacks, the precise lines between these obvious and natural distinctions get blurry. Like ring-species: species A is clearly a different species to species Z, but species L-N? Not so easy to distinguish. But still not negating the fact of species A and species Z.
No idea if I'm making any sense at all :B

How many hairs on the head can a man have and still be called bald?

Thajocoth, androgynous. It's a minor point but it stabs my soul with the dark icicle of Trebhos-en-Reĝos when I see a mis-spelling like that.

Rawhide - everywhere it's possible, nature goes to great lengths to avoid self-fertilization so it's probably safe to say it's not a good idea from a genetics standpoint.

[Thajocoth]

Thajocoth, androgynous. It's a minor point but it stabs my soul with the dark icicle of Trebhos-en-Reĝos when I see a mis-spelling like that.

Thanks. MS Paint doesn't do spell check on it's own. I'll update the chart tonight. (That's minor enough that I'll just edit the last post I linked it in.)

[Asta Kask]

If you seriously want to design this kind of graphic representation, I recommend this guy.