@kate@social.treehouse.systems I am always a bit drawn, when hearing this analogy for two reason: This is usually working with states in superposition, which implies that gender is binary and non-binary people are just a superposition of genders. Just adding more genders to this does not necessarily make this better or solve the reduction to a given set of genders. For some this is true, while others fall outside of any given order scheme. I thus fear that this analogy excludes people that are not covered by just "man", "woman", "both".