setting where psycho-normativity means obligatory plurality: everyone is supposed to have one (1) "front", one (1) "guardian", and one (1) "observer". not having precisely that combination is a diagnosable disorder with associated corrective therapies. you wouldn't get, like, thrown out over it, but it's def considered weird and undesirable.

& especially thinking about what childhood & grade school looks like in this society

like: would the default society expectation of a very specific psych structure be enough to reproduce it? would growing up & people constantly interacting with you and assuming you're plural be enough?

I'm not sure. I think it'd do *something* & result in people with generally more fluid identities, push the median person closer to being a median system

but I think maintaining sharp internal boundaries is a kind of "effort" most ppl wouldn't do if left alone.

to an extent I think any psychosocial normativity is going to imply some amount of abuse towards those who can not or will not commit to the bit, scaling disproportionately to society's intolerance of divergence.

(like, I think you'd still have maybe 40-60% gender if you got rid of gender-based bullying entirely, but it'd require asymptotic abuse & violence to hit 80%, 90%, 95%, 97.5%, 99, 99.7%, &c gender compliance)

thinking of a bit from The Timeless Way of Building to the effect of ~"if you build organically, according to the needs & circumstances of the inhabitants, you often end up with interior corners around 90° b/c very acute angles waste space, but not _exactly_ 90° b/c there is no requirement to be exact; 90° angles are an artifact of building from blueprints."

there's advantages to being integrated & advantages to having facets, & in the absence of external requirements…