"Apparently?"
Well, while I really like your thread, I have to comment on the convenient science here. I wouldn't typically care since we're not a science forum, but you're using "science" to specifically support your anima/animus theory without the patterns actually matching up, which makes it sound thin to me. For example:
1. All babies start out on the road to female, not both, if things progess without SRY intervention. Androgens in sufficient quantity act so to speak as the switch to deflect the train onto a new route (although technically there are various degrees of differentiation that can occur in between the "standard male and female" physically -- the amount and timing of the androgens determines the degree of differentiation toward male).
2. Only some sexual structures exist in both males and females. (For example, males never typically develop a uterus.) The wolffian and mullerian ducts are interesting in that they develop in both genders, but then the presence of androgens triggers one or the other to dwindle and disappear almost completely. Some parts of them and other structures simply differentiate into the male or female form (for example, the clitoris vs the glans of the penis). There is no "latent hidden structure" of the other gender lying within; the part in question differentiates (either completely or to some partial degree) toward male or female. This seems to be in opposition to your psychological theory.
OK, perhaps I didn't get the scientific details absolutely correct (As I have not studied that in any depth), but the way I understood it, was in terms of the external genitalia. (not any hidden or inner structures). From what I have read, it starts out sort of inbetween and ambiguous. Basically, hermaphroditic; and someone born that way is someone who did not have enough of one chemical or the other. What I had just learned, which I never knew was that that crease we have in the crotch was once open, basically as a proto-vulva. When the testeosterone gets to it, it closes up, and the testes and phallus grows. If the fetus is becoming female, then it stays open, and the phallus shrinks and becomes the clitoris, and a sort of "cord" going further into the body becomes the vagina.
I guess if no testosterone gets to it, and everything grows as it is, then it would be closer to a female, at least on the outside.
For organs like the uterus, it must become something else in a male. If it just grows out of nowhere for a female, then once again, the earlier fetus is more inbetween. (The same for ducts disappearing when the other gender is chosen).
The point is, to give an idea of the process of
differentiation (physical and psychological), and how it ties to the gender identity inherent in the different archetype complexes that develop. The fetus; or we could just take it further back, to the "undifferentiated zygote (fertilized egg)" starts out in a position where it can become either male or female, and then one is chosen, the other is suppressed, whether by the organ of one gender growing, shrinking, appearing from nowhere or disappearing.
Since this is physical, then, no, once the process is complete, there won't be any "hidden" structures from the other gender left. Psychologically, of course, it is different (abstract rather than concrete), and you
can have things simulataneously hidden in the unconscious.
3. As far as brain wiring goes, there is no "female nerve cell" compared to "male nerve cell." Nerves are just nerves. It's the organization of the nerves that is impacted by utero hormones. Which means you can take the same 2000 yards of cable to wire a building one way or another, but it doesn't mean that both wiring configurations exist within the same building; one occurs, to the exclusion of the other... or maybe a hodgepodge occurs... but not both complete sets of wiring in the same building. This is in opposition to your psychological theory. The brain does contain both androgen and estrogen receptors within it, so here maybe the quantity of those receptors might make a difference, though. That is biochemical receptors, however, and not wiring.
Sexual differentiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But what I'm talking about is primarily
conscious gender identity, (not really nerve cells). I know some of it can be learned from the environment. But specific stuff like being atracted to the opposite gender is from the hormones.
And what I was learning, especially concerning the anima/animus, is that it stems of a sense of "
otherness". This is developed in part from the parent of the opposite gender (or any other opposite gender person around. If there is none at all, I'm not sure how the anima/animus would be affected).
So as I just explained to Xander, it's not even really a true other gender I am saying is inside of us; it's just this sense of otherness we project onto the other gender; meaning we see them this way, but they may not experience themselves like that.
I guess I shouldn't have put it the way I did. ("
So it selects our gender identity to go with the body, and the opposite one is still in there, somewhere, but suppressed") That was oversimplified. Trying to give everyone the basic idea, in the fewest words, as it was already long enough.
I'm really still trying to understand this part of it. Lenore was explaining it to me, but then had to travel somewhere, so the discussion ended for the time being. It went into all of this stuff about "libido", or "life force", and this we come to somehow project onto the opposite gender as this sense of otherness, but we need to see it in ourselves. Fascinating, but I suspect there is a lot more to understand about it.
This article goes into it as well:
Jung Society of Atlanta - Anima
I do agree with others that the picture needs more work. Even knowing Beebe's work and having read lots of your material before, I'm not sure what significance or distinctions you are trying to make with this diagram, and a picture shouldn't need a ton of text to support it; the reason for using pictures is to remove the need for words. It's either saying nothing new, or what is new that is being said is not being aided by the picture. It sounds like you thought things would be obvious, but it's not as obvious as you've suggested to everyone.
I know this all sounds very critical; aside from this, the theory itself seems interesting and I'm in the middle of looking for resonance points in your comments.
No problem.
I guess the picture is likely to be more obvious for those who already have some understanding Beebe's concept. Like esfpmary has been studying him, and it seemed to right away resonate with her a lot, even for an SFP who is not usually into things like this!
You do know a lot about Beebe's model, thought I remember you had questions about it, especially back when you were trying to do that series on the INTP's eight functions, and never got to the last two.
If you don't recognize the symmetry of his model (Don't know if you do; I didn't pick it up at first either), then it might not mean much.
What I'm seeing is that the key to the whole thing is that symmetry (hence, reflections and shadow images).
Dfferentiation is a process where we choose one thing, and everything not chosen basically "collects" (I like this new way of putting it) in an opposite area. So start with the two realms we deal in, ourselves, and the outside world, and one function preferred for each of those, and two different levels of lower consciousness that suppressed stuff collects in, then 2×2²=8 functions and associated complexes in a symmetrical order. (which is why the order is not about relative strengths as many people had assumed).
We all know how type is basically defined in terms of the dominant and auxiliary. In more classic MBTI discussion, this then sets the tertiary and inferior. In Beebe's extension of this, the "other four" function-attitudes also are given a place, as "shadows" of the primary four. He has also described the tertiary adnd inferior as sorts of reflections of the dominant and auxiliary. And from this, you get the whole spine/arm distinction.
So by using a combinations of reflections and shadowing, the two functions generate the full eight.
The "ton of text" was to further articulate the whole gender aspect of it, which has not really been discussed in depth here, as far as I know. Most people now little about it, (they just see it in passing in the discriptions) and as I said, I used to brush it off too. I got into it more recently, trying to understand what this "anima" really is, to see how it fits Fe for me (especially with that "expert" claiming my Fe was "Senex" aka critical parent because I reacted to her).
Next step was how the Opposing Personality was also opposite gender. This is what led me into the "mirroring" idea.
So it is a really in depth concept. Though it was only one aspect of the whole mirror/shadow illustration. So again, if someone has some idea of Beebe's model, it should explain it further without many words.
So again, I just figured I'd toss the idea out to everyone, to see what they thought. (And getting both positive and negative reviews). Just parenting with Ne some more!
) 
