Olivia: Alright Jackson, I have a controversial take for you, inspired by our book today. The Golden Rule—'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'—is actually terrible advice. In fact, it might be the source of a lot of unintentional harm. Jackson: Whoa, okay. The Golden Rule is bad? You can't just drop that bomb and walk away. That's the foundation of every kindergarten class, every moral fable. Where is this coming from? Olivia: It comes directly from the brilliant and surprisingly funny book we're diving into today: A Guide to Gender: The Social Justice Advocate’s Handbook by Sam Killermann. And what's fascinating is that Killermann isn't a stuffy academic; he's a comedian and an activist. He actually co-created TheSafeZoneProject.com, a massive free resource for LGBTQ+ ally training, and he’s the mind behind the famous 'Genderbread Person' graphic that's been downloaded millions of times. Jackson: Ah, the Genderbread Person! I've definitely seen that. It’s that cute little gingerbread figure that explains gender. That makes sense now. A comedian and activist is going to come at this from a very different angle than a traditional textbook. Olivia: Exactly. The whole book is built on making these huge, complex ideas feel accessible, and it all starts by questioning the absolute basics. He argues that before we can even begin to talk about something as complex as gender, we have to check if our fundamental tools for kindness are even working properly.

Jackson: Okay, so let's get into it. Why is the Golden Rule, the cornerstone of niceness, supposedly so flawed? Olivia: Because it operates on a massive, faulty assumption: that everyone wants to be treated the same way you do. Killermann tells this perfect little story, the "Soccer Field Spat." Imagine two people on a soccer field. One is upset because the other made a joke about his picture on social media. Jackson: I can already feel the tension. Olivia: The person who made the joke says, "I don't get why you're so upset. I wouldn't be bothered by a comment like that." And then she doubles down and questions his sensitivity for being hurt. Jackson: Oh, I've been on both sides of that conversation. You think you're being harmless because you wouldn't be harmed, but you've completely missed the mark on how the other person feels. Olivia: Precisely. You're applying your own operating system to someone else's hardware. It just doesn't work. So Killermann proposes an upgrade: The Platinum Rule. Jackson: The Platinum Rule? Is that like, a more expensive version of the Golden Rule? Olivia: (laughing) In a way. It’s more valuable. It’s: "Do unto others as they would have done unto them." The focus shifts from you to them. It's not about guessing or assuming; it's about listening, asking, and observing. It replaces assumption with empathy. Jackson: That makes so much sense, but it also sounds a lot harder. It requires actual effort and communication, not just projecting your own feelings onto the world. Olivia: It is harder! But it's the necessary foundation. And that leads to the next piece of his 'basic training': understanding the landscape we're using this new rule in. He calls it the "Cycle of Oppression." Jackson: Okay, 'Cycle of Oppression' sounds pretty heavy. Can you break that down in plain language? Olivia: Absolutely. It’s a surprisingly simple, and devastating, loop. It starts with a simple difference. Any difference—skin color, religion, gender identity. Society then attaches stereotypes to that difference. Those stereotypes curdle into prejudice, which is a personal belief. Prejudice then gets acted upon as discrimination, which is an action or policy. Jackson: Right, so it moves from an idea in someone's head to something that affects someone's life. Olivia: Exactly. And here's the insidious part. The group being discriminated against can start to believe those negative messages. That's internalized oppression. And when that happens, it can unfortunately reinforce the original stereotypes for the dominant group, creating what he calls second-generation stereotypes. The cycle feeds itself. Jackson: Wow. So it’s a self-perpetuating machine. A difference gets weaponized, and the system keeps it running. I can see how that engine would be behind so many problems. So how does this connect specifically to gender? Olivia: That is the perfect question. Because to understand how this cycle applies to gender, we need a much, much better map of what gender even is. And to do that, Killermann gives us his most famous tool: The Genderbread Person.

Jackson: Alright, let's meet this famous cookie. I've seen it online, but I've never had it fully broken down for me. Olivia: It's beautifully simple. Killermann wanted to untangle the big four concepts that always get mashed together. So, picture the little gingerbread figure. First, in the brain, you have Gender Identity. This is your internal sense of self—who you know yourself to be. It's about your head. Jackson: Okay, identity is in the head. Got it. Olivia: Next, you have Gender Expression, which is represented by the whole body. This is how you present your gender to the world—your clothes, your haircut, your mannerisms. It's how you perform gender. Jackson: So, how you show it on the outside. Olivia: Exactly. Then, in the... well, in the gingerbread person's crotch area, you have Anatomical Sex. This refers to the physical body—chromosomes, hormones, organs. The stuff you're born with. Jackson: The biological parts. Makes sense. Olivia: And finally, in the heart, you have Attraction. Who you are romantically or sexually drawn to. And the most crucial point Killermann makes is that these four things are independent. Knowing one tells you absolutely nothing about the others. Jackson: That’s the real breakthrough, isn't it? Our culture treats these as a package deal. If your anatomical sex is male, your identity must be man, your expression must be masculine, and your attraction must be to women. It's a pre-set menu. Olivia: A pre-set, and very limited, menu! But Killermann's model shows they are separate sliders. And he even improved on his own model. The first version used simple spectrums, like 'Man' on one end and 'Woman' on the other. But he realized that was still too limiting. Jackson: How so? Olivia: It implies that being more of one means being less of the other. So he created the "-Ness" model. Instead of one slider for identity, you have two: a "Woman-ness" scale from zero to one hundred, and a "Man-ness" scale from zero to one hundred. You can be high on both, low on both, or anywhere in between. Jackson: So it's less like a single slider from left to right, and more like a character creation screen in a video game with separate stats you can level up independently? You can put points into 'Woman-ness' and 'Man-ness' and 'Agender-ness' all at the same time. Olivia: That is the perfect analogy! It allows for infinite complexity. You can be a man who also has a strong connection to femininity. You can be a woman with a masculine expression. The map suddenly becomes three-dimensional. Jackson: This model is so clear. It's visually intuitive and the analogy makes it stick. But I know the book, while highly-rated, has had some critics who find the style too casual or blog-like. Do you think the cuteness of the Genderbread Person risks oversimplifying something so profound and, for many, so painful? Olivia: That's a really fair question, and one the author seems to have thought about. I think the accessibility is its greatest strength. The goal isn't to be a dense academic text; it's a handbook for advocates. It's meant to be shared, to be put on classroom walls, to start conversations. And the simplicity is the entry point. Because when we don't have these clear, accessible tools, the default understanding—the simple, rigid gender binary—can be incredibly dangerous.

Jackson: Okay, let's talk about those dangers. We've got the Platinum Rule as our guide and the Genderbread Person as our map. What happens in the real world when society ignores all of this and sticks to the old, binary map? Olivia: The book makes this incredibly real by sharing stories of what he calls "gender dissonance." That's the friction you feel when your internal identity doesn't align with the box society puts you in. He shares a story of a friend who felt it as a mild, constant discomfort growing up—never feeling like the "most boyish of boys," always feeling a little off. Jackson: I think a lot of people can relate to that on some level, not perfectly fitting the mold of 'man' or 'woman'. Olivia: Exactly. But then he contrasts that with a much more harrowing story. It's an anonymous account from someone who experiences extreme dissonance. This person describes hating their body so much they avoid ever seeing themselves naked, and in moments of intense pain, has even taken a knife to their own chest, wanting to carve off the parts that don't feel like them, crying and wanting to be dead. Jackson: Wow. That's... incredibly heavy. It really puts a fine point on why this isn't just an academic exercise or about being 'politically correct'. This is about life and death. Olivia: It is. The pressure to conform to a binary that doesn't fit can create unbearable psychological pain. And that's why the second half of the book shifts from theory to action. It's about how we can actively reduce that harm in the world. Jackson: So, for someone listening who feels that weight and wants to do better, what's the one, simple change they can make today after hearing this? Olivia: The book is full of practical advice, but one of the most powerful and simple things is focusing on inclusive language. It's a direct application of the Platinum Rule. For example, instead of asking someone if they have a 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend', you can use the word 'partner'. It doesn't assume gender or sexuality. It's a small change that creates a huge amount of space and safety for people. Jackson: It removes the assumption. You're not forcing them to correct you or out themselves. Olivia: Exactly. Another example is with forms. The book asks a simple question: do you really need to know someone's gender? If not, don't ask. If you do, don't just give two boxes: Male/Female. Provide a fill-in-the-blank option. Let people tell you who they are. It's about shifting from demanding people fit into your boxes to creating boxes that fit people.

Jackson: It all comes back to that Platinum Rule, doesn't it? Stop assuming, start asking. Olivia: It's the thread that ties the whole book together. The core message isn't about memorizing a hundred new terms, though the book has a great glossary for that. It's about a fundamental shift in posture—from certainty to curiosity. We started this conversation by breaking a rule, the Golden Rule. Then we got a new, more detailed map, the Genderbread Person. And that map gives us a new direction for our journey: leading with empathy and simply asking people about their own experience. Jackson: It feels like the ultimate takeaway is that it's not about having all the answers, but about being brave enough to ask the right questions, and more importantly, being humble enough to listen to the answers. Olivia: That's it perfectly. It's about replacing judgment with compassion. The book is a handbook for becoming a better, more effective ally, and it argues that journey begins with small, conscious choices we make every day. Jackson: It’s a powerful and, despite the heavy topics, a surprisingly hopeful message. It makes you feel like you can actually make a difference. Olivia: It really does. And it invites us all to be a little more thoughtful. So, a question for our listeners to reflect on: What's one small way you could apply the Platinum Rule this week? It could be at work, with family, or even with a stranger. Jackson: I love that. Let us know your thoughts; we love hearing from our community and seeing how these ideas play out in your lives. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.