@kate@social.treehouse.systems
2026-06-29 21:25 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@scottmichaud@mastodon.gamedev.place 2026-06-29 21:32
@kate@social.treehouse.systems Quantum? I barely know 'em.
-
@6@possum.city 2026-06-29 23:06
@kate@social.treehouse.systems this gender is certified quantum-ready at a Stable Superposition rating of 9.5
-
@Elrick_Winter@tech.lgbt 2026-06-30 03:46
@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".
-
@q@social.quotequack.xyz 2026-06-30 07:24
@kate@social.treehouse.systems WAIT NO- MAKE GENDER ITSELF A QUANTUM SUPERPOSITION- ex: -whats your gender? -right now its in a superposition of |ψ⟩ = (0.837, 0.548i) so around a 70% chance of male w 30% on female -neat! i am |ψ⟩ = (0.316, 0.949i) SO MUCH ACCURACY
-
@Cassidy@woof.group 2026-06-30 23:33
@kate@social.treehouse.systems Because in a quantum computing system the end state of the composition qubits is still a binary state. I get the intended joke, it just irritates me as a non-binary person. I'm not indecisive or waiting someone to observe me to determine if I'm male or female. I'm neither binary whether people notice or impose a set of defining traits or not.