A homeomorphism $\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ is almost the same thing as an order isomorphism, except that a homeophorphism can also be an order anti-isomorphism.
I'm wondering whether there is a natural first-order structure "X" which generalizes partial orders (in the sense that order-presering and order-reversing maps would be the prototypical examples of "X morphisms") such that the homeomorphisms $\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ are exactly the "X isomorphisms".
So far the most promising approach seems to be consider a trinary "betweenness" relation $$\beta(a,b,c) \equiv (a\le b\le c) \lor (c\le b\le a)$$ and look at the category of $\beta$-preserving maps.
Have such structures been studied? Do they have a name? Is there a nice axiomatic characterization of the trinary relations that can be induced by a partial (or total?) order in this way?
For my intermediate question about generalizing partial orders to something where order-preserving and order-reversing maps would both be homomorphisms, here is a sort of brute-force way to make a poset forget its orientation:
We consider a four-way relation $ab\sim cd$, intuitively meaning "the relation between $a$ and $b$ is the same as the relation between $c$ and $d$", and formally defined by $$ ab\sim cd ~\equiv~ (a<b\land c<d)\lor(b<a\land d<c) $$ Celarly, if a partial order $P$ has at least one pair of different but comparable elements, then the $\sim$-preserving maps from $P$ to another partial order are exactly the order-preserving maps plus the order-reversing maps. The same is also (somewhat vacuously) true if $P$ is the trivial partial order.
We can give axioms for $\sim$ that guarantee that it derives from a partial order:
For any $\sim$ that satisfies these axioms we can derive a partial order that induces it: If $\sim$ is the empty relation, then the trivial partial order works. Otherwise choose fixed $a$ and $b$ such that $ab\sim pq$ for some $p$ and $q$ and define $x<y$ to mean $ab\sim xy$. Then $x<y$ is a strict partial order, and $\sim$ is the quaternary relation induced by it.
But elegant it ain't. In particular the connectedness axiom looks rather ad-hoc. (On the other hand, this could be a sign that deleting this axiom might lead to something interesting beyond just posets).
I'm still curious whether something interesting can be done with the "betweenness" idea, though.