>>13443228>that we all exist in some middle groundBe very careful here, this conclusion is essentially an extension of the "I either win the lottery or I lose the lottery, 50-50 odds" fallacy.
The goal of queer theory is indeed to say "because there are things in between male/female or man/woman therefore there are no men, women, or anything in between". In other words, they would like to say that because the distribution is not binary (two delta functions) it must therefore be uniform and therefore irrelevant.
By contrast, both of the graphs in the OP do suggest that there are people who are 100% typical male/man or female/woman and that these types are the most common (i.e.: modes).
If these graphs are using gender as a euphemism for sex, then the top graph is mostly correct except for where it says "Other Genders [sexes] Exist", this is stupid. The term intersexed can't even exist without two things to be placed inbetween, so intersexed can't itself be a gender[sex]. The graph also totally overestimates the overlap.
Ironically, if the graphs mean gender distinct from sex, the meaning of the "gender spectrum" axis is totally nebulous unless you presuppose biologically essential male and female traits and map each persons particular behavior on that axis until the bimodal distribution emerges and the two modes "women" and "men" appear. In other words, how could one define the meaning of "gender spectrum" without using the words "women" or "men" (this would be circular reasoning since the men and women modes are emergent properties of the gender spectrum) *and* without using the words "male" and "female" (this would be biological essentialism)?
