the point is the is the set of comparison for the other person and the set of comparison for you

And to you, you don't need any traits, is that what you mean?

Sorry I haven't slept and just finished a paper my brainz don't work properly

what i mean it is only the mimimum required given a variable set of comparison

the baby can use any label they like for the cat

they only need to differentiate it from the dog

It's an abstraction of the cat.

correct

it's a representation

which is only 'good enough' to seperate it from other representations they have accumulated

That's why the abstraction of concepts from physical referents is an crucial basis of knowledge.

But identity is something that's identifiable so on the very basic lingual level it is still possible to

You’re referring to what is known as a “ schema ” in psychology terms by Piaget

The reason why I vehemently oppose individuals who seek to reverse the process.

as the set of representations expands, more traits are required to differntiate and identify an entity

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(psychology)

yup

but rand described those concepts decades before they were published in psychological journals

Piaget describes these in the 20s

Gender was always an abstracted concept from the two, physical referents of male and female physiology.

He was way before Rand

but there is a diffrence between a 'slot and a signal'

To reverse the process and claim primacy in mind over reality is the very definition of insanity.

gender is a relative reference

Gender was always a concept in the language and was for some reason also applied to inanimate objects

^^Yup

it's critial for the opposite role to interact with given a degree of uncertainty

it's LESS critical for all of those who share the same key attributes

it's far more critical when the interaction is with one outside that group

gender is a 'slot'

and that slot sends signals to the other slot

change the slot, and the signals no longer work as intended

Again Piaget did a whole lot of work in this how we group gender and such

and the other slot has no way of knowing

you should read his work

his work is very differnet though

he doesn't address the elastisicity or the difference between percepts and concepts

say nothing for the neurological portion that accounts for the fact that both percepts and concepts have the same inputs but function in two different modes

i.e. percepts are subconcsious. children assimilate behaviours but aren't aware of how or the associations

much like sensory input from indivuidual nerves are processed on the level as a composite whole

concepts are made consciously and can be easily deconstructed