Androgyne

[Susan]

I have shut off the public Androgyne forums for the next two days...

These are the only definitions that apply to the Androgyne community, at least on this web site.

Androgyne: An androgynous person
Androgynous: Being neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine, as in dress, appearance, or behavior.

If you don't like the definitions go start your own site. There's a delete account option in your profile. Any other defintions do not apply. Any arguing about these definitions will result in that persons ability to post on this site being removed. This is exactly why I went through the effort to come up with community terms in the first place, I just didn't want to have to be so blunt about it. So sorry it had to come to this, but I am tired of constant attempts to redefine Androgyne as transgender lite or transsexual lite. They are each different terms covering different conditions.

A Transsexual can be Andyogynous, but that doesn't make them not a transsexual.
A Crossdresser also can be Androgynous, but that again doesn't make them not a crossdresser.

Hell, I dressed Androgynously for years, though that has changed in the past few months.

[NickSister]

I'm not sure why you felt the need to go to such lengths. Most of us were really just debating about androgyne as a gender identity. I guess we were trying to better define ourselves. Maybe I missed some debates over the last couple days but I never saw any indication that we were looking at trying to make it into something "transgender lite or transsexual lite", what ever that means. To define it in that way would be an insult and it is insulting that you thought this is what we were doing. Are you doing this because you feel that you better understand what the terms mean for the androgyne community or have we been asking for a change in an inappropriate manor?

I agree that an Androgyne could also be a transsexual in that they can get SRS. This does not make them the same as someone with a gender opposite to their physical sex - which is what I thought a transexual really was. You dressed androgynously for years but this does not make you an Androgyne anymore than me dressing as a man for years makes me a man.

An Androgyne can't be a cross-dresser because there is no gender opposite to an androgyne...though I guess you are taking the view that cross dressing is dressing in a way that is opposite to your physical sex. I thought most people viewed crossdressing in terms of their gender i.e. a crossdessing man still considers themselves a man even though they wear woman's clothing. You were wearing woman's clothing before SRS but you were not crossdressing were you?

I think these terms should be able to be reviewed. You definition does the Androgyne community a disservice. Please let us know what would be the appropriate way of going about this because it seems clear to me that the community that fits under the label feels your definitions don't define them well enough.

[Susan]

I think these terms should be able to be reviewed. You definition does the Androgyne community a disservice. Please let us know what would be the appropriate way of going about this because it seems clear to me that the community that fits under the label feels your definitions don't define them well enough.

Not going to happen. I tried letting the Androgyne community define it's self, but when an established androgyne community member endorses the claim of someone who came to the site self identifying as androgyne, but wanting 46DDD breasts or bigger, crossed the line.

I am new here and I have taken the COGIATI test it shows I am androgyne. I have always loved very large breasts. I have been married to a women with 46ddd breasts and have always wished that I can have breasts that large. How could I have them? Right now I am am wearing a 50L stuffed bra which I was all mine. Is HRT the way to go? 

I responded

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word Androgyne. You should spend some time learning about that before jumping to seeking information about growing breasts.

To which a Androgyne community member responded

"A few [androgynes] even take steps toward transitioning from their birth sex into a physically androgynous form." --forum wiki, article "Androgyne"

What about A New Members's post indicated they did not understand the word?  And why do so many people on these forums seem to be playing at gender enforcer lately?

     As for Crossdresser: a person wears the clothing of the opposite gender, and has no desire to permanently change
     their sex. There is generally no sexual motivation for the cross-dressing.

When an Androgyne wears the clothing of their birth sex they would indeed not be crossdressing, but when they wear clothing of a non-birth gender, they would indeed be crossdressing under the commonly accepted definition. They would still be Androgyne.

[NickSister]

I think your response to 46ddd was a fair one. I also think the androgynes response was also fair in that is it not ok for an Androgyne to want huge breasts? (that androgyne poster probably got a bit carried away though because it did seem that 46ddd had the wrong motive...)

I think you are missing the point that most people that 'cross-dress' to satisfy a need to present closer to their internal identity don't consider themselves to be crossdressing. I think this is distinctively different to a 'cross-dresser' that still has a gender that matches their birth sex and I think they would argue this too.

People that identify as androgyne anywhere come in a range flavours, which is why we argue about the definitions. There are many of us that don't fit in the gender binary in terms of gender identity and the current accepted terms that cover most of us includes Androgyne.

Now I do accept that you have the right to set the definitions for your site, but it would be really awesome to have some method where people can debate a change of definitions when it is felt they don't fit the community it represents. Androgynes are still learning and discovering more about psychological androgyny and bigenderism and null gender and third gender. It is a very young field of research and things will be subject to change as understanding grows. We would appreciate a chance to have our say. You don't need to agree or change your terms, but if there is a compelling enough case then it would be good if there was a chance you would review things. (of course getting unified understanding is a difficult thing in our group, so I can understand your frustration in regard to this, but I think we are making some headway).

[Caroline]

These are the only definitions that apply to the Androgyne community, at least on this web site.

Androgyne: An androgynous person
Androgynous: Being neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine, as in dress, appearance, or behavior.

*thinks back to that thread where we were told that Androgyne is a perfectly good blanket term for all non-binary identifying people and doesnt need changing*

[Susan]

One of the main purposes of this site is information and education. When it moves into misinformation, I am forced into taking steps to correct it, as I did with the terms.

Androgyne: an androgynous person.
Androgynous: Being neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine, as in dress, appearance, or behavior.

Please notice the being neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine.

I thought that was what Transgender was Andra?

Transgender: an inclusive umbrella term which covers anyone who transcends their birth gender for any reason. This includes but is not limited to Androgynes, Crossdressers, Drag kings, Drag queens, Intersexuals, Transsexuals, and Transvestites.

They key is that androgyne is neither masculine nor feminine which doesn't apply to many other segements of the communities serviced by this web site.

[Nero]

I think your response to 46ddd was a fair one. I also think the androgynes response was also fair in that is it not ok for an Androgyne to want huge breasts? (that androgyne poster probably got a bit carried away though because it did seem that 46ddd had the wrong motive...)

I think you are missing the point that most people that 'cross-dress' to satisfy a need to present closer to their internal identity don't consider themselves to be crossdressing. I think this is distinctively different to a 'cross-dresser' that still has a gender that matches their birth sex and I think they would argue this too.

People that identify as androgyne anywhere come in a range flavours, which is why we argue about the definitions. There are many of us that don't fit in the gender binary in terms of gender identity and the current accepted terms that cover most of us includes Androgyne.

Now I do accept that you have the right to set the definitions for your site, but it would be really awesome to have some method where people can debate a change of definitions when it is felt they don't fit the community it represents. Androgynes are still learning and discovering more about psychological androgyny and bigenderism and null gender and third gender. It is a very young field of research and things will be subject to change as understanding grows. We would appreciate a chance to have our say. You don't need to agree or change your terms, but if there is a compelling enough case then it would be good if there was a chance you would review things. (of course getting unified understanding is a difficult thing in our group, so I can understand your frustration in regard to this, but I think we are making some headway).

It's okay to go for an uber mixed gender look - maybe huge breasts on a body builder frame?
But I doubt breasts are the first concern of most androgynes. The post in question seemed more along fetishistic lines.

[Susan]

Which was my point Nero. The person needed to take some time, learn more about the issues facing them, and then decide what to do. Not rushing into how do I grow uber huge breasts as the first step. Which is why I got upset when a androgyne community member criticised my absolutely correct response to them.

What about A New Members's post indicated they did not understand the word?  And why do so many people on these forums seem to be playing at gender enforcer lately?

Cross-gender Hormones are not a game, and it's definately not something to do on a whim.

Posted on: November 25, 2007, 04:23:52 PMI went ahead and turned the Androgyne boards back on. I hope it's not necessary to turn it off again in the future...

[Leslie_Taylor]

They key is that androgyne is neither masculine nor feminine which doesn't apply to many other segements of the communities serviced by this web site.

but then wouldn't that cover males who feel female one day, and male the next? And females who also flucuate between what they feel?  A female who likes her large breasts and enjoys miniskirts on monday, might love getting down and dirty on Tuesday, and who care about ripped/torn clothes, and "gross" behavior. WHile you can call it crossdresing, when they are in male clothes they are just as male as any guy here, and while in female just as female as any girl here. THe only difference is physical.


That's been part of the definition of androgyne everywhere else I've been. And if its not part of the definition here than what category do those people fall into? It would do them no good to have sugery, as their body would still not match the way they feel, so they aren't transexual? But they aren't the "typical" (for lack of a better term) person, who fits their physical gender either.

[Susan]

It would do them no good to have sugery, as their body would still not match the way they feel, so they aren't transexual? But they aren't the "typical" (for lack of a better term) person, who fits their physical gender either.

The issue is that people have been trying to fit non-androgyne groups into the androgyne definition by using it as an umbrella term which it is not. The Androgyne forums is for the androgynous.

What I will not do, is let a what comprises a community group be expanded beyond all recognition by including things which are clearly not a part of that group. That is what happened in this case and what has prompted the tightening of the definition of what constitutes Androgyne and Androgynous for the purposes of this forum.

What you describe in your post might best be described as Genderqueer. If enough Genderqueer start participating on the forums and requests a community forum, I would be willing to grant it.  If they don't want to, then they would be amply covered by the Transgender forums which is an umbrella group.

[Mia and Marq]

Here's our 4 cents.

Androgyne is not the same as Androgynous. You don't need to look somewhere in the middle to be in the middle. Anyone can tell you that just because a woman might dress in jeans and a t-shirt, they're not any less of a woman then the women in makeup and dresses.

Sure some of the people that try to fall under the androgyne umbrella identity may not fit the exact definition. But atleast its a general ballpark of the same issues that they face on a day to day basis. On a forum where discussion occurs, getting a chance to talk with people that are atleast close to you is the real goal.

Occasionally the extremists come along for everything, don't revert back to a very rigid definition to prove the occasional extremist wrong. The goal here is to try to get as many people support as possible. Worry about informing the extremists they're crossing the line rather then moving the line so that a large number of folks are offset.

It may be appropriate to rename the Androgyne section Non-Binary because then there is no doubt that it encompasses the subset of genders that are looking to make sense of their feelings. Sure, some may not agree about things outside of the binary, but you don't need to agree to offer the opportunity of others. More harm could be caused by telling people these are your only options and no matter how much they don't fit, thats all you have to choose from.

Support is our goal
Mia and Marq

[Susan]

Non-binary is not specific enough. Transgender is the only umbrella term on this site and that's for a reason, to make it easier for people new to the site to find their community. We don't do it by having overlapping groupings. Non-binary could apply to almost every transgender subgroup, and as such is duplicative. I would rather have smaller and more specific communities, than large all encompassing ones. It makes the job of support easier.

[no_id]

Susan, in my opinion you have highlighted a very interesting development in the Androgyne sphere:

The issue is that people have been trying to fit non-androgyne groups into the androgyne definition by using it as an umbrella term which it is not. The Androgyne forums is for the androgynous.

What I will not do, is let a what comprises a community group be expanded beyond all recognition by including things which are clearly not a part of that group.

However, I believe that the problem in question is not the very fact that the Androgyne definition evolved to an 'umbrella-term', but that the question at stake is: why it has evolved to an 'umbrella-term'.

The true concern is the answer to the above: that these, as you describe, 'non-androgyne' groups identify as Androgyne due to the motivation that they do not have any further sections they can belong to/fit in(!) And it is only natural that as a result of the warm-hearted welcome by the Androgyne population, and the lack of further available terminology, this undefined definition is ought the most befitting.

Moreover, allow me to advocate: as long as any definition of Androgyny is not supported by citations/references, motions of seclusion and inclusion cannot be empowered.

[Susan]

The true concern is the answer to the above: that these, as you describe, 'non-androgyne' groups identify as Androgyne due to the motivation that they do not have any further sections they can belong to/fit in(!) And it is only natural that as a result of the warm-hearted welcome by the Androgyne population, and the lack of further available terminology, this undefined definition is ought the most befitting.

See my last message, there is a term that covers everyone that uses these forums including those with or without specific community subforums that is transgender, so androgyne doesn't need to be expanded to cover them. 

If anyone would like to form a new subgroup, I will consider their requests as long as there is at least 10 sponsoring members with 100 posts or more each who want to become a part of that group, and the subgroup does not duplicate coverage given by already existing subgroups. I do of course reserve the right to decline new group requests.

[Seshatneferw]

See my last message, there is a term that covers everyone that uses these forums including those with or without specific community subforums that is transgender, so androgyne doesn't need to be expanded to cover them.

Er, excuse me for piping in, but that's not quite the point. Yes, you are correct in that there are enough terms for people over here, and that transgender is the all-encompassing umbrella term for anyone with any kind of GID-related issues whatsoever. However, the main topic in the recent discussions is not how to classify people but how to divide genders.

Many transsexuals don't need to pay too much attention to the genders themselves: they have the wrong anatomy for their gender, but inside they are still without question male or female. For some members of the various transgender subgroups, though (yes, including the TS), the situation is more complex, and this is clearest in the case of androgynes. In their (well, our) case, the whole point is that the gender identity does not fit in either of the two common categories, so our GID prompts us to question the underlying gender division itself. It's on this level that we've been using androgyne as an umbrella term, to cover such gender identities as null-gender or intergender. I've always assumed that people with all these identities do in fact fit in the androgyne category, as used in the official terminology for this forum. Still, this double use of androgyne is confusing at times.

That said, you are also right in that a lot of the discussion within the androgyne forum would fit at least as well, and possibly much better, in the gender studies or the transgender forums. Is that what you'd like us to do?

  Nfr

[Susan]

And I have stated the system for establishing new categorizations. I will not create a group for one person. But I will for 10 established members. So if there is a group which is not covered well enough by Transgender or by Androgyne with the meaning I specified, they can request their own grouping. Null Gender is covered by Androgyne. Intergender is covered by the Genderqueer title. I am open to creating a group for that categorization if enough people are interested in it.


I don't know how I can be any more accommodating on this subject without giving in on my main point of making it easier for people to find the group or groups that best fit their situation.

That said, you are also right in that a lot of the discussion within the androgyne forum would fit at least as well, and possibly much better, in the gender studies or the transgender forums. Is that what you'd like us to do?

Those forums could see more use, but that's up to you how you make use of it.

[Seshatneferw]

I think I'm starting to understand what you mean. It's a bit difficult at times, since I haven't seen the thread that prompted you to take action. From what you've quoted here, though, it looks like I'd have been in your camp.

And I have stated the system for establishing new categorizations. I will not create a group for one person. But I will for 10 established members. So if there is a group which is not covered well enough by Transgender or by Androgyne with the meaning I specified, they can request their own grouping. Null Gender is covered by Androgyne. Intergender is covered by the Genderqueer title. I am open to creating a group for that categorization if enough people are interested in it.

No, I don't believe we need more categories: having androgyne for those who are somewhere between male and female (either in terms of identity or presentation) is quite enough. Also, the Wikipedia entry for  genderqueer seems to imply that it's more or less synonymous to androgyne except for some differences in emphasis, and to me it looks like the general feeling over here is the two terms are close enough for our purposes. No need to add it to the list of terms for this forum.

I don't know how I can be any more accommodating on this subject without giving in on my main point of making it easier for people to find the group or groups that best fit their situation.

This is why there was a thread recently about whether to request a change to the name of the forum. In the end, that doesn't seem to be necessary, and changing the categories is even more unnecessary. Then again, I also don't see why the entire androgyne forum should be closed for a time, especially with so little prior warning. Steering the discussion a bit more and moving threads to more appropriate forums might be a good idea, though.

Those forums could see more use, but that's up to you how you make use of it.

Partly, yes. On the other hand, a lot of the stuff that belongs to somewhere else is in threads that started well within the androgyne forum, so to some extent this is also an issue of moderation. I'm optimistic enough to think we can manage that mostly by ourselves, now that you've hit us by a clue-by-four to get our attention.

  Nfr