top of page
Search

Toward a Quaternary Gender System: Integrating Subjectivity and Objectivity

  • Writer: Sean Gunderson
    Sean Gunderson
  • 11 minutes ago
  • 24 min read

Section I: Introduction – Reframing Gender as Epistemological and Evolutionary Responsibility


Human civilization stands at a crossroads—not simply of culture or politics, but of consciousness itself. Among the many tensions running through the fabric of our moment is a deep and unresolved confusion about gender: what it is, where it originates, and how we should understand it as a species. The confusion is not limited to language or identity. It strikes at something far more foundational: our understanding of reality, and of the relationship between the inner and outer worlds we inhabit.


This essay aims to clarify that confusion by offering a new framework for understanding gender—one rooted not in tradition or dogma, but in epistemology and evolutionary responsibility. Rather than asking what gender has historically been, we ask: What is gender when defined rigorously, logically, and inclusively—using the tools of valid knowledge production?


To answer that question, we begin by recognizing a truth that has long shaped human inquiry: every concept is an aggregate; every aggregate is made of constituents. No idea emerges whole-cloth from nothing. Concepts are constructed—consciously or unconsciously—from more basic elements, from constituent components that, taken together, form the larger category we name. Gender is no exception. To understand gender in a way that honors both logic and lived reality, we must begin by identifying its immediate constituents.


In this essay, I define gender as a polarized configuration along a spectrum that emerges within systems of sufficient complexity. Where there is complexity, a balance—or imbalance—of yin and yang can emerge. This dynamic of polarity across a spectrum is the most immediate and fundamental feature of what we have come to call "gender." When we examine human beings, we find that this polarity appears in two distinct but equally complex domains: the objective (our physical bodies and biological sex characteristics) and the subjective (our inner world of concepts, feelings, and symbolic self-representation). Because both domains meet the complexity threshold required for gender to emerge, each domain can independently manifest gendered characteristics. Together, their interaction gives rise to what I will call the quaternary gender system or four-gender system.


This framework is not arbitrary. It arises from the recognition that reality consists of both subjectivity and objectivity, and that our efforts to produce knowledge must engage both realms. Too often, modern gender discourse rests on incomplete epistemological foundations—either collapsing gender into material biology or reducing it to pure self-expression without structure. The result is a conceptual tug-of-war, rooted in misunderstandings of how we arrive at truth to begin with.


To resolve this, the essay draws upon basic principles of epistemology—how we know what we know—and distinguishes between deductive and inductive reasoning. I assert that many of the most rigid binary conceptions of gender rely on deductive shortcuts that exclude critical data points. These frameworks often appear logical only because they begin with a narrow hypothesis and then select confirming information. In contrast, inductive reasoning begins with reality as it is—messy, variable, multifaceted—and builds toward conclusions based on observable patterns. If our goal is to understand human gender in a way that corresponds with the richness of human experience, then induction is the epistemological method best suited to the task.


While this essay does not assume the existence of advanced non-human intelligence, it does operate with the awareness that such a question can be addressed—and, in fact, has been addressed—through inductive reasoning. In other essays, I have applied induction to demonstrate that the existence of other intelligent life is not merely speculative but logically supported by overwhelming historical, experiential, and systemic patterns. However, this essay is not about non-human intelligence. Rather, it is about humanity’s evolutionary responsibility to engage with the universal ecosystem, regardless of whether contact with advanced life has already occurred or lies ahead. Just as ecosystems on Earth demand coherence between biological systems and behavioral patterns, so too must our intellectual and social ecosystems align with reality—particularly when that reality includes the deep interplay of subjectivity and objectivity. The framework I offer here does not depend on belief in extraterrestrial or ultra-terrestrial intelligence, but it does provide the cognitive and epistemological scaffolding we will need if we are to participate in any broader interspecies or inter-intelligence dialogue. In that sense, a more evolved understanding of gender is not only a social or scientific necessity—it is a cosmic responsibility.


The purpose of this essay is therefore twofold:

  1. To define gender through its constituent components and show how these apply to both the subjective and objective dimensions of the human being.



  2. To present a quaternary/four-gender framework that logically arises from this dual-domain structure, and to argue that such a system offers the most coherent, inclusive, and epistemologically sound basis for human sexual organization.



Along the way, we will address the epistemic shortcomings of the binary model, the evolutionary significance of recognizing subjectivity as a knowledge domain, and the role of language as a technology for mapping reality—including how the expansion of linguistic categories (such as those developed by LGBTQIA+ communities) represents not confusion, but refinement.


This is not simply about gender. It is about knowledge, truth, and the evolution of consciousness.


Section II: Defining Gender Through Its Immediate Constituents


Before we can evaluate any framework for understanding gender, we must first be clear about what gender is. Rather than rely on historical tradition or current trends, we turn to a more stable method: epistemological analysis. This means asking what kind of concept “gender” is, and what elements compose it.


As with all concepts, gender is an aggregate—a conceptual structure formed from constituent parts. Understanding a concept in this way requires that we identify its most immediate components, the necessary features that give rise to it in the first place. This allows us to reconstruct the concept with epistemological integrity, ensuring that it reflects reality as precisely as possible.

Upon analysis, the two most immediate constituents of the concept of gender are:


  1. A division into polar opposites—a dynamic that often takes the form of yin and yang, masculine and feminine, assertive and receptive, active and passive.



  2. A manifestation along a spectrum—not a fixed binary, but a range of degrees between polar poles, arising only within systems of sufficient complexity.



These principles form the minimum logical architecture from which any meaningful idea of gender can emerge. Without polarity, the category of gender would have no internal distinctions. Without a spectrum, the category would collapse into rigid dichotomy and fail to represent the variability seen in nature. And without a threshold of complexity, the category would be too coarse to capture meaningful differences—rocks and molecules, for example, do not possess gender because they lack the internal organization to host polar dynamics across multiple dimensions.


Having clarified these constituents, we can now apply them to the human experience. When we ask where, in the human system, polarity and spectrum-based complexity arise, we find two answers: objectivity and subjectivity.


  • Objectivity, in this context, refers to the body: our biological sex, secondary sex characteristics, hormonal profiles, and other measurable physical features.



  • Subjectivity refers to the internal world: the self-aware observer that interprets experience, organizes symbols, engages with language, and navigates emotion and identity.



Crucially, both the body and the mind meet the complexity threshold required for gender to emerge. And within each, we see manifestations of polarity:


  • Objectively, sex characteristics tend to polarize toward male or female expression—though intersex conditions and ambiguous configurations exist, often falling nearer to the spectrum’s center.



  • Subjectively, individuals tend to identify their inner orientation with a “masculine” or “feminine” style of experience—though many exist in a space that blends or transcends these categories.



What we call "gender identity" in modern discourse is, in effect, the subjective correlate of the objective spectrum of sex. But this correspondence is not always one-to-one, nor should we expect it to be. Subjectivity and objectivity are not the same domain. They are connected, but distinct. The epistemological error of the binary model lies in the collapse of one domain into the other—assuming that gender is reducible either to biology (objectivity) or to self-identification alone (subjectivity), when in fact gender emerges from the interplay between both.

Because both domains manifest spectrum-based polarity, and because both can vary independently, we arrive at a fourfold framework:


  1. Yin Subjectivity / Yin Objectivity



  2. Yin Subjectivity / Yang Objectivity



  3. Yang Subjectivity / Yin Objectivity



  4. Yang Subjectivity / Yang Objectivity



These are the four foundational configurations of gender in this model. They do not describe all nuances of human identity, but they offer a structural map—a conceptual tool that accommodates not just variation, but the logic behind that variation. Importantly, the spectrum within each domain also allows for gradations and ambiguity, including non-binary identities and intersex expressions. The four-gender framework is not a new binary, but an integrative system grounded in complexity, polarity, and epistemic rigor.


This method—defining a concept by its constituents and testing whether they manifest in given domains—is not just good philosophy. It is good science. And when applied to gender, it yields a model that better aligns with the lived diversity of the human species.


In the next section, we will explore how the binary gender model fails to account for these realities, and how it relies on deductive processes that exclude both subjective experience and objective variation—often in ways that serve power, not truth.


Section III: The Epistemological Failure of the Binary Gender Model


If the quaternary/four-gender framework arises naturally from the interplay between subjectivity and objectivity—each structured along a spectrum of yin and yang—then why does the binary gender model persist? Why has such an incomplete picture of gender come to dominate so many cultures and institutions?

The answer lies not in biology, psychology, or tradition alone, but in epistemology—in the way we produce and validate knowledge.

The binary model of gender is the product of a deductive epistemology. That is, it begins with a preconceived conclusion—“There are two genders”—and works backward to select confirming data, discarding anything that contradicts the hypothesis. This is a shortcut, and like all shortcuts, it sacrifices depth for simplicity. Deduction is not inherently flawed; it is essential for many types of reasoning. But when used improperly, especially on questions of general structure or systemic complexity, it can distort our understanding of reality. When a deductive conclusion fails to integrate into a broader inductive framework, the failure is not with the framework—it is with the shortcut.


Inductive reasoning, by contrast, begins with observable data and patterns. It does not presume what gender must be—it asks what it appears to be when we include as many valid data points as possible. When we use this approach, we immediately notice the enormous historical and contemporary presence of non-binary experiences. These are not statistical anomalies; they are epistemological challenges to the binary system itself. Each non-binary person—every individual whose gender identity or experience falls outside the two-category schema—is a data point that calls for reevaluation.


Collectively, they suggest that the binary model is not wrong in every case, but incomplete as a general theory.


And yet, those invested in the binary model often respond not by expanding their frameworks, but by attempting to coerce reality into fitting their hypothesis. This is not a scientific or philosophical strategy—it is an act of epistemic violence, sustained by power, repetition, and social enforcement rather than truth.


This dynamic reveals something deeper: a failure to appreciate the function of language as a tool for mapping reality. Concepts and words are meant to help us represent what is, not dictate what should be. When language fails to keep pace with reality—when it becomes a tool for simplification rather than discovery—it loses its epistemological integrity. And when people cling to a deductive model of gender despite overwhelming evidence of its insufficiency, they are no longer engaged in knowledge production at all. They are engaged in conceptual coercion.


Importantly, this misuse of deduction often rests on a more general misunderstanding. Many people believe that because a conclusion feels self-evident or historically reinforced, it must therefore be logical. But epistemological rigor requires more than intuition. It demands that we check our reasoning processes, just as we would check our grammar or math. If our conclusion was reached deductively, we must ask: What data were excluded? What assumptions were built into the premise? What subjectivity shaped the hypothesis in the first place?


This scrutiny is not optional. It is the responsibility of any intelligent species, particularly one that prides itself on language and reasoning as its evolutionary strengths. If our ability to think in words is what sets us apart from other animals, then we must pair that ability with epistemological discipline.


Otherwise, we are not thinking—we are simply producing complex barks that appear to be logical because they are expressed in sophisticated syntax.


The consequences of epistemological failure are real. When we mistake a deductive shortcut for a complete truth, we create systems that exclude, marginalize, and misrepresent. In the case of gender, these systems have led to the erasure of countless lives and experiences, all in service of a model that cannot withstand inductive scrutiny.


The test of any conceptual framework is whether it can incorporate the full complexity of observable reality. The binary model fails that test. The four-gender model, by contrast, expands the framework rather than replaces it, allowing space for those who align with traditional gender categories and those who do not. It is not a rejection of the familiar—it is a completion of the picture.


In the next section, we will turn to the role of language itself—how its structure influences our understanding of gender, and how its evolution through LGBTQIA+ contributions represents not a breakdown, but an advancement of symbolic precision.


Section IV: Language as Epistemological Technology


At the core of human cognition lies a remarkable technology: language. Far more than a system of communication, language is a structured, evolving medium for mapping reality through symbolic representation. It allows us to identify, share, and refine meaning. As such, it must be understood not merely as a cultural artifact, but as an epistemological technology—a system designed to produce and organize knowledge.


To use this technology effectively, we must understand how it works. That is where the model of the linguistic truth chain becomes useful. A linguistic truth chain is composed of three core elements:


  1. A symbol: a verbal or written unit (e.g., a word or phrase).



  2. A concept: a mental representation that organizes a limited set of attributes associated with some real-world phenomenon.



  3. A referent: the actual phenomenon or condition in the world to which the concept is intended to correspond. This represents the full set of attributes of a given phenomenon.



Each connection in this chain is mediated by a cipher. The first cipher links the symbol to a concept—a subjective construct, shaped by language, experience, and social learning. The second cipher links the concept to reality, mapping that internal representation onto a real phenomenon based on its observable or functional attributes.


This process reveals that language is not about “naming” things arbitrarily. It is a double-mapping technology that operates at both the symbolic and ontological levels. A symbol acquires meaning only to the extent that its associated concept accurately reflects some aspect of reality—and only if that conceptual mapping remains open to refinement as our understanding deepens.


This brings us to the evolving language of gender. The expansion of terms—non-binary, genderfluid, agender, transmasc, transfem, and many others—is not a breakdown in logic, but a technological refinement of our epistemological systems. These terms function as new symbols that activate new or more precise concepts, each mapping a particular configuration of subjective experience that traditional binaries cannot adequately capture.

Importantly, these concepts do not claim to represent the totality of the phenomena they describe. Like all concepts, they represent a selected set of attributes—often those most relevant to lived experience, identity formation, and social navigation. By refining which attributes are emphasized and formalized, these new linguistic mappings allow human beings to more truthfully articulate the subjective dimension of their gendered existence.


To resist this expansion is not simply a matter of social conservatism; it is a failure to understand what language is for. When we treat language as a fixed canon instead of a living epistemological technology, we limit its power to represent truth. Resistance to evolving gender language often disguises itself as a defense of clarity, but in reality, it protects a deficient truth chain—one built on outdated concepts and insufficient symbolic mapping.

Worse, this resistance often arises from a desire to preserve an internal symbolic environment. Individuals who reject non-binary gender terms may do so not because those terms are illogical, but because they disrupt the internal language habits those individuals have come to rely on for navigating the world. In other words, they want reality to conform to the symbolic structures they find comfortable, rather than revising those structures to align with what is observable and real. It’s a real life example of trying to jam the square peg into the round hole.


But language is not designed to serve comfort. It is designed to serve truth. And the truth is that human subjectivity is complex enough to host a diverse range of gender experiences—experiences that require new mappings, new concepts, and therefore new symbols.


Just as mathematics evolves to describe more abstract structures, and just as scientific terminology evolves to describe new discoveries, so too must the language of gender evolve to describe new understandings of human subjectivity. This is not cultural decay—it is epistemological maturation. It is language doing what it is supposed to do: refine itself as reality demands more of it.


The contributions of LGBTQIA+ communities to this evolution should be recognized as exactly that: contributions to the technological advancement of language as a system of knowledge production. The expanded vocabulary they have developed is not peripheral to truth—it is central to the continued alignment between our symbolic systems and our lived, experiential reality.

To obstruct this evolution is to obstruct knowledge itself. And to obstruct knowledge is to obstruct the development of consciousness.

In the next section, we will explore this connection more deeply—examining why subjectivity exists, how it functions within the evolutionary arc of our species, and why its recognition is essential to our survival and growth as conscious beings.


Section V: Subjectivity, Evolution, and the Role of Conscious Experience


One of the most profound questions we can ask about the human experience is also one of the most neglected: Why does subjectivity exist at all? Why do human beings—unlike rocks, rivers, or even simpler organisms—experience themselves as entities with an inner world? Why do we possess symbolic thought, language, memory, imagination, and a sense of identity?


From a purely material perspective, subjectivity poses a problem. If consciousness is just a byproduct of brain function, then why is it so central to our experience—so essential to how we navigate the world? And if the physical body is all that matters, why do we not experience reality directly through our neurology? Why do we require a conceptual-symbolic interface to interpret the physical world and guide our actions?


We do not perceive the firing of our neurons. We do not navigate reality by tracking the electrochemical signals of our nervous system. Instead, we operate through symbols, concepts, emotions, and ideas—through the infrastructure of subjectivity. This is not a philosophical abstraction. It is a functional observation: the way humans engage with the world is mediated through the inner space of consciousness.


This fact reveals a crucial insight: subjectivity is not a byproduct of evolution—it is an instrument of it. Though we may not yet understand its full purpose, its presence suggests that it confers advantages that biology alone cannot provide. Subjectivity enables long-term planning, abstract reasoning, emotional nuance, symbolic language, social organization, self-reflection, and meaning-making—all of which are central to human survival and flourishing.


Indeed, the centrality of subjectivity is further validated by the vast bodies of knowledge that human civilizations have developed in order to study and understand it. Psychology, sociology, religion, mysticism, phenomenology, the arts, and even linguistics—all of these disciplines exist because subjectivity exists. And while they may diverge in their methods and metaphysical assumptions, they converge on one core truth: the inner world of human experience is real, structured, and worthy of inquiry. These fields, taken together, form an entire epistemological tradition devoted to understanding what cannot be weighed or dissected but is nonetheless known and lived.

But with this complexity comes responsibility. If subjectivity is real—and indeed it is real—then it must be treated as an epistemological domain in its own right. It cannot be collapsed into biology. Nor can it be excluded from our conceptual systems simply because it is difficult to quantify.


This has direct implications for how we understand gender.


As argued earlier, gender emerges wherever there is a division into polar opposites along a spectrum within systems of sufficient complexity. We have already seen that both the physical body (objectivity) and the inner world (subjectivity) meet this threshold. Each can manifest gendered attributes, and neither can be reduced to the other.


What this means is that gender is not reducible to matter. It is not simply a function of sex characteristics, genitals, or chromosomes. Nor is it purely a subjective self-expression divorced from physical form. Rather, gender arises from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity—from the dance between the symbolic and the biological, the internal and the external, the self-concept and the body.


Attempts to exclude subjectivity from the definition of gender are, in effect, epistemological shortcuts. They rely on the visible, measurable, and material as the sole domain of truth, while ignoring the conceptual, symbolic, and experiential. But this exclusion is not neutral. It is an intentional narrowing of the scope of inquiry, one that yields incomplete and often harmful results.

Just because we do not fully understand the origin of subjectivity does not mean we can ignore its role. In fact, its mysterious nature only makes its reality more significant. Subjectivity is a known unknown—undeniable in function, yet not fully explained in mechanism. And like all known unknowns, it demands epistemic humility and inclusion, not dismissal.


Human beings live in two worlds: the world of matter and the world of meaning. We are not merely biological machines. We are symbolic navigators, interpreting stimuli through language and thought, and making choices based not only on survival but on significance. Our subjective space is not secondary. It is primary. It is the stage on which consciousness unfolds.


And it is within that space that gender is organized.


This perspective challenges us to reevaluate the methods we use to reach conclusions. If we are constantly producing thoughts in linguistic form—if we are always narrating our reality through inner verbalization—then we are constantly engaged in epistemological activity. The question is not whether we are using a process, but which one we are using. Are we letting reality inform our conclusions through patient observation (induction), or are we imposing preselected frameworks onto reality through conceptual control (deduction)?


A mind that constantly rehearses language seeks validation of its existing narratives. It may become obsessed with deductive shortcuts, reinforcing the conclusions it has already drawn. But a quiet mind, one that begins in observation rather than assertion, is better positioned to apply inductive reasoning—to observe complexity, detect patterns, and arrive at conclusions that correspond with the shape of reality.


This is why gender must be understood as an emergent phenomenon—not from matter alone, and not from thought alone, but from the synergy between two domains complex enough to sustain it. Subjectivity and objectivity are not enemies. They are partners in truth. And only by honoring both can we arrive at a model of gender that does justice to what it means to be human.


In the next section, we will return to the heart of this model—the quaternary or fourfold gender framework—and show how it naturally arises from the integration of subjective and objective polarities along their respective spectrums.


Section VI: The Quaternary Gender Framework


Having now laid the philosophical and epistemological groundwork, we arrive at the heart of this essay: a framework that accounts for gender as it actually manifests within the human experience—not in reductive binaries, but in complex and variable configurations of subjectivity and objectivity, each organized by the dynamics of polarity and spectrum.


To reiterate: gender, like any concept, is a construct of constituent elements. Its most immediate features are (1) a division into polar opposites (such as yin and yang), and (2) a capacity to manifest along a spectrum within systems of sufficient complexity. We have already seen that the two major domains of human reality—subjectivity and objectivity—both meet this threshold. Each is a spectrum of expression. Each polarizes. And each contributes essential structure to the gendered experience.


When we treat these domains not as isolated, but as interactive and combinable, we uncover a simple but powerful truth: the possible gender configurations expand from two to four.


These are the four foundational types within the framework:


  1. Yin Subjectivity / Yin Objectivity


    A person whose inner experience (identity, perception, relational approach) and biological expression (sex characteristics, hormonal structure, etc.) both align with traditionally “feminine” or yin attributes.



  2. Yang Subjectivity / Yang Objectivity


    A person whose inner experience and physical expression both align with traditionally “masculine” or yang attributes.



  3. Yin Subjectivity / Yang Objectivity


    A person whose inner gendered experience expresses yin/feminine characteristics, while their physical sex traits lean toward yang/masculine.



  4. Yang Subjectivity / Yin Objectivity


    A person whose inner experience expresses yang/masculine characteristics, while their physical traits lean toward yin/feminine.



This quaternary configuration accounts for a wide range of lived gendered realities, including those that fall outside of traditional binary categories. It does not deny the existence or salience of binary alignments—such as cisgender men or women whose subjectivity and objectivity are both polarized in the same direction—but it contextualizes those configurations as part of a broader system, not the totality of it.


Importantly, this model is not rigid. It is built on spectra, not fixed categories. Both subjectivity and objectivity unfold across a range of intensities and expressions. In the physical domain, this accommodates not only male and female bodies, but intersex variations, ambiguous sex traits, and transitional or fluid presentations. In the subjective domain, it accounts for people whose gender identity is non-binary, fluid, ambiguous, or not easily categorized.


The four-gender model is not a new form of classification imposed from above. It is a mapping tool that emerges from the natural logic of complexity. It simply recognizes what has already been present in reality: that gender is a compound expression, arising from two complex and independently variable domains. It provides a coherent structure into which observed patterns and lived experiences can be integrated—without the need to deny or erase any part of the human condition.


Furthermore, this framework prevents epistemological conflict. It acknowledges that two people may share the same biological sex while differing in subjective gender; or share a similar sense of internal identity while embodying different physical expressions. It removes the need to “choose sides” between biology and identity, because it honors both as real and operative. In doing so, it replaces the antagonism between subjective truth and objective fact with a relational model—one in which gender is understood as a consequence of interaction, not a possession of either domain alone.


The quaternary/four-gender framework also provides a basis for ethical clarity. If gender is a synthesis of subjectivity and objectivity, then no one outside an individual can claim to know that individual’s gender without accessing both. Objective assessments alone (such as biological sex) are epistemologically insufficient. And subjective declarations alone, while valid, must be understood as part of a dual system—not because one side undermines the other, but because the very existence of gender relies on their interplay.


This does not invalidate traditional identities. Rather, it makes space for all identities to be understood more deeply, more accurately, and with greater compassion. By grounding gender in a coherent dual-domain framework, we give ourselves the tools to listen more closely, speak more precisely, and think more clearly about what gender truly is—and what it means to be human.


In the next section, we will return to the ethical and epistemological implications of this model. We will explore why it is not merely preferable but necessary to adopt such a framework if we are to remain aligned with truth, with evolution, and with our responsibilities as conscious participants in a shared universe.


Section VII: Evolutionary Responsibility and Epistemic Maturity


The stakes of this discussion go beyond gender. They touch the core of what it means to be intelligent, responsible beings capable of navigating a complex and evolving world. In this final section before our addendum, we consider the evolutionary responsibility that underlies the four-gender framework—not just as a social proposal, but as a necessity for mature knowledge production and civilizational development.


To begin, we must return to a simple but powerful point: how we reason matters. Just as a mathematical equation is only valid if its steps follow logical rules, a conclusion about gender—or any other human reality—is only valid if it is the result of sound epistemological tools applied within a coherent system.


Too often, binary gender systems are justified through deductive reasoning that begins with a preselected conclusion (“there are two genders”) and then filters reality to conform to that hypothesis. In doing so, it excludes massive swaths of observable human experience. It cuts out any subjectivity that does not neatly correspond to external form, any body that does not conform to rigid sex binaries, and any person whose internal truth contradicts the assumed norm. These exclusions are not neutral—they are epistemic errors disguised as moral convictions.


By contrast, inductive reasoning—another epistemological tool—begins with reality itself. It starts from the observable world—bodies, identities, variations, histories, and lived experiences—and draws conclusions based on patterns that emerge from the full scope of available data. This is the appropriate tool for evaluating general phenomena like gender across a diverse species.


And here is the critical point: when a conclusion reached through deduction cannot integrate into a broader inductive framework, it must be revised—not the other way around. Induction provides a fuller, more reality-aligned scope of reference. The integrity of knowledge demands that we privilege its findings. It is not the role of language, power, or cultural tradition to coerce reality into compliance with outdated conceptual systems. Rather, it is the role of conceptual systems to adapt to what is real.


The persistence of non-binary experiences across cultures and history is not a challenge to logic—it is a challenge to bad logic. These lived realities function as data points, each one undermining the legitimacy of rigid binary models. To deny their validity is not a neutral act of “defending tradition.” It is an attempt to silence reality in order to preserve a flawed epistemological shortcut.


Put simply, truth does not fear complexity. Truth welcomes new data and reorganizes itself to accommodate it. This is what evolution does in nature—and it is what consciousness must do in culture. Our ideas must evolve if we are to evolve.


This is particularly urgent in a species that prides itself on symbolic thought. If humans claim to be intelligent because we use language, then we must also accept that language is a knowledge production technology, not just a tool for convenience or comfort. And if it is a knowledge production technology, it must be subject to the same discipline we apply to any technological system: internal coherence, empirical adequacy, and adaptability to new information.


The refusal to update gender frameworks in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence is not a neutral mistake—it is an epistemic failure that undermines our claim to intelligence. To cling to a binary system because it is easier to conceptualize is to behave like an animal barking in complex syllables. It may sound rational, but it does not meet the criteria of reason.


This failure also obstructs our evolutionary trajectory as a species. For if subjectivity is real—and if it is central to how humans navigate existence—then any system that erases or denies it will weaken our adaptive capacity.


A society that ignores subjectivity in the structuring of gender will ignore it elsewhere too: in mental health, in ethics, in law, in science. The long-term result is a civilization that cannot see itself clearly, because it has amputated one of its most essential faculties.


By contrast, the four-gender framework honors both domains—subjectivity and objectivity—and structures them into a system that reflects how humans actually live, think, and feel. It is not only a more truthful model, but a more adaptive one. It prepares us to interact not just with ourselves, but with whatever realities may lie beyond the limits of our current understanding.


This brings us to an important broader context: the universal ecosystem. While this essay does not presuppose contact with non-human intelligence, it does affirm our responsibility to behave as if such contact could happen—at any time, in any form. In other writings, I have used inductive reasoning to support the logical conclusion that other advanced life forms exist. Regardless of belief, the task before us is the same: to prepare our consciousness for that eventuality by aligning our symbolic systems with the deeper structure of reality.


In this light, evolving our concept of gender is not just a moral necessity or a scientific refinement. It is an act of species-level maturity. It is a way of becoming worthy partners in a larger, possibly multiversal, dialogue—a way of proving to ourselves, and perhaps one day to others, that we are ready to engage with the full complexity of what it means to be alive.


The quaternary gender model is not the end of that evolution. But it is a beginning worth embracing.


Section VIII: Addendum – Conceptual Illustrations 


This addendum offers a brief overview of conceptual illustrations that support the essay’s core arguments, as well as related insights.




A. Conceptual Illustrations


1. Four-Gender Quadrant Model

A simple 2x2 grid can be used to visualize the interaction between subjectivity and objectivity, each polarized along a yin-yang spectrum:


Yin Objectivity (e.g., female sex traits)


Yang Objectivity (e.g., male sex traits)


Yin Subjectivity (e.g., receptive, nurturing identity)


Yin/Yin Gender (traditional feminine)


Yin/Yang Gender (e.g., transfeminine)


Yang Subjectivity (e.g., assertive, action-oriented identity)


Yang/Yin Gender (e.g., transmasculine)


Yang/Yang Gender (traditional masculine)


This model honors the role of both domains and allows for a diversity of expressions, including those that fall along the spectrum or between categories.




2. Spectrum Visualization

Both subjectivity and objectivity exist along fluid continuums rather than fixed endpoints. Each person occupies a unique position along both axes:


  • Subjective Spectrum: Yin ←––––––→ Yang



  • Objective Spectrum: Yin ←––––––→ Yang



An individual might be near the midpoint of one and toward a pole of the other, illustrating the wide variety of valid gender expressions and identities.




3. Linguistic Truth Chain Diagram


A symbolic chain illustrating how language functions as a knowledge production technology:


Symbol → (Cipher A) → Concept (a limited set of attributes) → (Cipher B) → Real Phenomenon


This model helps explain why precision in language is essential to aligning our symbolic systems with reality. Expanding gender vocabulary increases the accuracy and resolution of symbolic mapping, allowing us to better represent subjectivity within our knowledge frameworks.


It is worth noting that this truth chain forms the foundation of any language not limited to spoken/written languages, such as English or Spanish. Specifically, this truth chain is present in other types of languages, such as math and music.


In math, the truth chain utilizes ciphers of maximum precision whereby one symbol corresponds to one concept. Due to this maximum precision, the symbol concept pairs easily map onto realities across the universe. Perhaps this is why it is commonly referred to as the ”language of the universe”. I invite my audience to consider that precision is what makes a language universal, as it is precision that distinguishes math from spoken/written languages.


With regard to music, the scope of the phenomenon being organized or mapped is limited to sounds. However, we still see the truth chain intact. Arbitrary symbols that we call notes correspond to ideas, and those symbol concept pairs can be mapped onto a variety of instruments, each producing slight variations of the intended concept.


What is perhaps most astonishing is that in several millennia of modern human linguistic evolution, at no point has the human species reverse engineered language itself to understand its structure as a knowledge production technology and its function to use that technology to map reality. 


Furthermore, the abundance of UAP‘s populating the skies all over the world has even led to advocacy groups insisting that the US government disclose what it knows about advanced non-human technologies so that modern science can reverse engineer these highly advanced technologies to facilitate human evolution. The irony here is that people are insisting to gain access to highly advanced non-human technologies in order to reverse engineer them without first having reverse engineered language itself. 


Have these individuals not considered that language might serve as prerequisite knowledge for other advanced technologies? Indeed language as a knowledge production technology serves as prerequisite knowledge for literally every other branch of human knowledge. If we expect to meaningfully engage with non-human intelligence, I assert that it is worthwhile to reverse engineer language before expecting to be able to successfully reverse engineer technologies that are far beyond our current understanding. 


Thank you and have a content day


 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
  • YouTube
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

©2023 by Sean's Thesis Adjunct. Proudly created with Wix.com

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page