Hypergendered Logic Source
Hypergendered Logic — Page 73
Permanent lack of upward progression does not convert her into an ordinary non-Archfemale. The acquired
stage is still occupied.
This is exactly analogous to saying that a person can remain at a particular level of a hierarchy without
ceasing to be a member of the hierarchy.
110. A careful reading of “going to higher stages”
The phrase “going to higher stages” can be interpreted in at least two ways:
•
currently transitioning: a stage increase is happening now;
•
developmentally disposed to progress: the person may later reach higher stages even if not
transitioning at this instant.
Neither interpretation is necessary to establish Archfemale or Archmale status once a stage is already
occupied. Stage occupancy is sufficient.
Therefore the safest definition remains:
Archfemalea,t⇔FemaleTypea,t∧Sa,t∈{SF1,SF2,…},
Archmalea,t⇔MaleTypea,t∧Sa,t∈{SM1,SM2,…}.
Progression can then be described by a separate predicate.
111. What can be strictly logically deduced from the new definitions
The following are deductions once the updated definitions are adopted.
Deduction A: current stage increase is not necessary for Archfemale status
If
𝑆𝐴, 𝑡
(
) = 𝑆𝐹
4,
then Aliza is an Archfemale at even if
𝑡
𝑆𝐴, 𝑡+ 1
(
) = 𝑆𝐹
4.
The classification follows from occupancy, not transition.
Deduction B: stage stagnation alone cannot entail developmental constancy
Because the theory explicitly permits models in which
𝑆𝐴, 𝑡1
(
) = 𝑆𝐴, 𝑡2
(
)
and
𝐷𝐴, 𝑡1
(
) ≠𝐷𝐴, 𝑡2
(
),
there is no valid inference rule from stage equality to developmental equality.
Deduction C: same stage does not imply same full phenotype
Since contains more variables than ,
𝐵
𝑆
𝑆1 = 𝑆2 ⊭ 𝐵1 = 𝐵2.
Source Canon: Verbatim mathematical and modal logic. Interactive navigation and operator lookups available at /#hgl-part:73.