Androgyne Frame of Reference: Part II

[no_id]

Firstly; I would like to thank all those who replied to the previous Androgyne: Frame of Reference thread.

Secondly I shall reveal the actual intention of that topic and it's outcome:
I have resembled everyone's frame of reference and looked for similarities in order to establish a Common (yet fluctuating) Androgyne Frame of Reference that is as following:

Androgyne Common Frame of Reference: Solitary, Invisible, Both, Neither, Misunderstood, Free, [Gender dysphoric], Spiritual, Balanced, Not socially constructed; unbound, Divine, Other, Non-Binary, Transcendent, Confused, Naïve, Childlike, Failing to conform, Unique.


Now the question, of course, is; to what extend everyone can relate to this Common Frame of Reference concerning Androgyny[...] You could see it as a somewhat established group identity that would give the large sphere a more identified existence/section.

Naturally I don't expect everyone to be capable of relating to it completely, but it is interesting nonetheless. Again; thank you for your cooperation.

[Caroline]

I am very suprised.  Reading that list, I can relate to all of the points to a large degree (though some more than others).  Maybe we have more in common than we realise

[Emerald]

I can mostly relate to the compilation. "Gender dysphoric" is the sticking point. I am gender euphoric. I have NEVER felt my absence of a Male or Female Gender Identity was "wrong" or that I was "missing" something mentally or physically desirable that others possess. I am whole and complete, the best of both binary genders combined in a way that creates a state of being genderless. Gender-blessed because I'm neither a Man nor a Woman, and yet both...Both and Neither simultaneously. Androgynes have the potential to possess the excellence of each binary gender without the weaknesses of one gender or the coarseness of the other, a synergy of the binary genders which results in something unique and wonderful, something entirely different from the Gender Identities of a Man and/or a Woman.

I feel no gender dysphoria, or any other internal conflicts, due to possessing an Androgyne Identity - or a natal female body.

-Emerald 

[RebeccaFog]

   I think it's the body that does it for you, Emerald.  I don't think I would have dysphoria if I had a female body unless certain attributes were oversized.  I guess I'll never know.
   I think it is important to note that a person can be gender variant as Emerald is, but not have body issues.

   I think the common Frame of Reference bags what I feel but couldn't say.

[no_id]

   I think it is important to note that a person can be gender variant as Emerald is, but not have body issues.

Definitely, it's the main reason I'm tempted to put it between brackets.
We'll see depending how others feel about that suggestion.

[Shana A]

I answered mostly. Although I've had issues of discomfort regarding my body, it doesn't seem to be consistent with everyone who identifies as androgyne. I think you really captured the essence no_id, thanks for doing this.

Zythyra

[Kaimialana]

This set of frames doesn't really fit for me.

[RebeccaFog]

This set of frames doesn't really fit for me.

are you going to vote, Kaimialana?

[no_id]

I answered mostly. Although I've had issues of discomfort regarding my body, it doesn't seem to be consistent with everyone who identifies as androgyne. I think you really captured the essence no_id, thanks for doing this.

Zythyra

Putting dysphoria between brackets (by common fluctuation).

And hey, it's my pleasure: I just follow my brain when it goes odd.

This set of frames doesn't really fit for me.

A very interesting statement that I can't help but reply to with further elaboration that I decided to keep behind the scenes due to the somewhat complicated nature.

There is quite a trick to these two threads that aren't very apparent on the surface:

Part I [Androgyne treated as an Individual (introspection)]: "What does Androgyne mean to you"
Part II [Androgyne treated as Subject (common perception)] "What does Androgyne mean"

In essence it's slightly bending the symbol-signify Communication Theory:
Part I [Symbol: Androgyne, Signify: Individual Frame of Reference]
Part II [Symbol: Frame of Reference, Signify: Androgyne]

Formula wise: AG = CFoR (AG + IFoR)

[evelynaGR]

Divine !!! heh!!!

Yessss, that's me...

Can't see any other connection (just joking).


Anyway: I can relate to it little

[Jaimey]

I picked "I can relate to it" because at some point in time, I related to all of those.  I don't feel gender dysphoric now, but as a child I certainly knew that I wasn't the same as everyone else.  I relate to most of them now, but transcendent and childlike are the closest for me. 

This is a really interesting topic!  Thanks, no_id!!!

[Kaimialana]

I answered mostly. Although I've had issues of discomfort regarding my body, it doesn't seem to be consistent with everyone who identifies as androgyne. I think you really captured the essence no_id, thanks for doing this.

Zythyra

Putting dysphoria between brackets (by common fluctuation).

And hey, it's my pleasure: I just follow my brain when it goes odd.

This set of frames doesn't really fit for me.

A very interesting statement that I can't help but reply to with further elaboration that I decided to keep behind the scenes due to the somewhat complicated nature.

There is quite a trick to these two threads that aren't very apparent on the surface:

Part I [Androgyne treated as an Individual (introspection)]: "What does Androgyne mean to you"
Part II [Androgyne treated as Subject (common perception)] "What does Androgyne mean"

In essence it's slightly bending the symbol-signify Communication Theory:
Part I [Symbol: Androgyne, Signify: Individual Frame of Reference]
Part II [Symbol: Frame of Reference, Signify: Androgyne]

Formula wise: AG = CFoR (AG + IFoR)

So, for those of us that aren't communicative theorists, sociologists or linguistic anthropologists, does this mean that while some things can be agreed upon, the diverse array of identifications makes it difficult to pin a definition down? Or is my understanding of symbolic maths completely lacking?

[Jaimey]

Glad I'm not alone...I didn't understand the formula exactly.  Is it AndrogyneGender=CulturalFrameofReference(AndrogyneGender+IndividualFrameofReference)?  Also, can we have an explanation of the symbol-signify Communication Theory?

It would be interesting to break the characteristics down between subgroups of androgyne people.  For example, androgyne-nongendered versus androgyne-bigendered, etc., since we are such a diverse group of people.

[no_id]

Just a heads up: I am working on an understandable elaboration, but with work I (unfortunately) don't have a lot of time on my hands. Nevertheless, I'll try to post before work tomorrow morning, and else a.s.a.p.

Yes, I do think it's important to let people know you're not ignoring their replies/questions

[Mia and Marq]

Again I'm having my doubts that androgyne applies to bigender/two-spirited but its nice to belong somewhere. Marq by purposes of association with Mia is gender variant and Mia may not even fall in the transexual category, so by default....


Marq and Mia

[Seshatneferw]

So, for those of us that aren't communicative theorists, sociologists or linguistic anthropologists, does this mean that while some things can be agreed upon, the diverse array of identifications makes it difficult to pin a definition down?

Something like that. I don't know too much about communication theory, but I'll try to explain my view, which is basically a linguistic one.

For background, we need the concept of a 'linguistic sign'. As proposed in the 1910's or so, a sign is a pair of form (that is, a series of sounds or letters) and meaning. In everyday terms, a word is a sign, but so is a sentence; modern cognitive linguistics claims that there is no sharp division between words and idiomatic expressions (or even things like sentence schemata, but let's not go there). In that sense, red, good-bye, and I'll be back are fundamentally pretty similar.

In order to learn a new sign, one has to see or hear it used. That is the main process for learning new language: not from reading a dictionary and a grammar, but from hearing, speaking and getting feedback. Kids obviously do a lot of that, but adults do it as well. Now, since the sign is a pairing of form and meaning, 'learning it' includes both its syntactic properties (e.g. whether one can say 'I'm an androgyne', or 'I androgyned last night') and its semantic properties (i.e. the meaning). On a different axis, 'learning it' involves integrating observed language use (that is, how others use androgyne) into one's own linguistic and cognitive system. In this process, the frame of reference (or conceptual domain, whatever one's pet theory calls it) is important, and so are the neighbouring concepts in the same frame of reference (in the case of androgyne, stuff like gender, male, female and what not).

What makes it interesting is that there is an interplay between the community and the individual: language is at the same time something defined by the collective speakers of the language and by each individual personally. A word does not have exactly the same meaning for two people, but the meanings are similar enough that communication is possible. Also, human conceptualisation is to some extent influenced by biology: for instance, the primary colours have a basis in how human vision works, and likewise it seems obvious that the gender terms are to some extent grounded in anatomy.

So, all in all, the formula says essentially that how I interpret androgyne in the discussions over here is derived from what I mean by the word, in the context of my internal frame of reference, all filtered through my idea of the common frame of reference that this community has.

Or that's how I understood it. 

  Nfr

[Kaimialana]

Again I'm having my doubts that androgyne applies to bigender/two-spirited but its nice to belong somewhere. Marq by purposes of association with Mia is gender variant and Mia may not even fall in the transexual category, so by default....


Marq and Mia

You know, Marq and Mia, I personally believe that bi-gender is a separate identification. Whereas androgyne describes a person with a mixed and unseparated gender identitiy, yeilding someone that displays characteristics of both gender (or not, depending on you define the word, I guess), a bi-gender separates the two, as you do, living as two people. Or am I wrong about that? There seems to be a distinctness between the two identifications, and I would never call myself bi-gender, understanding this.

Posted on: September 18, 2007, 07:12:41 AM

So, for those of us that aren't communicative theorists, sociologists or linguistic anthropologists, does this mean that while some things can be agreed upon, the diverse array of identifications makes it difficult to pin a definition down?

Something like that. I don't know too much about communication theory, but I'll try to explain my view, which is basically a linguistic one.

For background, we need the concept of a 'linguistic sign'. As proposed in the 1910's or so, a sign is a pair of form (that is, a series of sounds or letters) and meaning. In everyday terms, a word is a sign, but so is a sentence; modern cognitive linguistics claims that there is no sharp division between words and idiomatic expressions (or even things like sentence schemata, but let's not go there). In that sense, red, good-bye, and I'll be back are fundamentally pretty similar.

In order to learn a new sign, one has to see or hear it used. That is the main process for learning new language: not from reading a dictionary and a grammar, but from hearing, speaking and getting feedback. Kids obviously do a lot of that, but adults do it as well. Now, since the sign is a pairing of form and meaning, 'learning it' includes both its syntactic properties (e.g. whether one can say 'I'm an androgyne', or 'I androgyned last night') and its semantic properties (i.e. the meaning). On a different axis, 'learning it' involves integrating observed language use (that is, how others use androgyne) into one's own linguistic and cognitive system. In this process, the frame of reference (or conceptual domain, whatever one's pet theory calls it) is important, and so are the neighbouring concepts in the same frame of reference (in the case of androgyne, stuff like gender, male, female and what not).

What makes it interesting is that there is an interplay between the community and the individual: language is at the same time something defined by the collective speakers of the language and by each individual personally. A word does not have exactly the same meaning for two people, but the meanings are similar enough that communication is possible. Also, human conceptualisation is to some extent influenced by biology: for instance, the primary colours have a basis in how human vision works, and likewise it seems obvious that the gender terms are to some extent grounded in anatomy.

So, all in all, the formula says essentially that how I interpret androgyne in the discussions over here is derived from what I mean by the word, in the context of my internal frame of reference, all filtered through my idea of the common frame of reference that this community has.

Or that's how I understood it. 

  Nfr

Ahh, THATS the stuff. Yes, I definetly understood that. Comunnication isn't my branch of study, but I sure find it interesting. 

[Seshatneferw]

You know, Marq and Mia, I personally believe that bi-gender is a separate identification. Whereas androgyne describes a person with a mixed and unseparated gender identitiy, yeilding someone that displays characteristics of both gender (or not, depending on you define the word, I guess), a bi-gender separates the two, as you do, living as two people.

Here the question again is what we mean by androgyne -- or gender identity, for that matter. In itself, androgyne is merely a label used to describe gender (identity); for quite a few here it's more or less an overall term for anything that is not clearly male or clearly female. Used like that, bigender is one of the subcategories, just like neutrois (no gender at all) or ambi- or intergender (an unseparable mix of gender traits).

None of these is really anyone's gender identity, though. The identity is one's view of their place on the gender continuum, but saying one is bigender, or androgyne, is just an attempt to describe that location. It's quite a bit like colour, overused as that metaphor may be: even though my favourite colour is green, there are lots of shades that fall into that category that I can't stand. Similarly, it's quite correct to state that my gender identity is androgyne -- but even so, there are lots of gender variations within the androgyne spectrum that I really don't identify with, even though they are obviously valid for someone else.

If you can figure out whether this 'gender' thing is something to laugh at or cry over, please let me know. 

  Nfr

[Emerald]

Nfr-
I live in the Dark Ages... so I just simply use a dictionary as needed.

Kaimialana, Marq and Mia-
I also agree this is true and correct!
Bigender and Androgyne are not the same... just as Man and Woman are not the same.
True also, Bigender is not a subclass of Androgyne. Bigender is within the binary genders, a dual membership in both genders. Androgyne is outside of the binary genders.

'Bigender' is a newly coined word literally meaning "two gender' or 'twice gendered'. Two separate genders within one individual. Dual-gendered, alternately a man and a woman. A person who feels distinctly like a man, and a woman, over time.

'Androgyne' is an ancient word literally meaning "manwoman" which refers a blend or a mixture of what is male and female within one individual without a separation into what is male and what is female. Androgyne refers to a person who is both a man and woman simultaneously, to the point of being neither one nor the other... neither of the binary genders/sexes.

We already know about Male gender identity and Female gender identity. Both and Neither are a bit more difficult to understand
Here's one way to begin sorting it all out...

Bigender Identity - Both a Man and a Woman. A dual gender identity wherein one binary gender eclipses the other repeatedly over time.
Androgyne Identity - Neither a Man nor a Woman. An independent gender identity beyond the binary genders and and outside of the male/female gender continuum.

I suspect there is yet another gender identity classification... five different gender identities in all, no more no less.

Neuter/Neutrois Identity - Null-gendered. Completely devoid of gender, gender vacant, or gender deprived.

  1. Man
  2. Woman
  3. Both  (Bigender)
  4. Neither  (Androgyne)
  5. None of the above  (Neuter-Null-Neutrois, etc.)

Ah, but we shall soon see if this reflects the reality of gender and gender identity or if it's just my vivid Androgyne imagination. My opinions and observation are offered merely as a matter of satisfaction for my own curiosity and the common interest.

One last thing...
I have used a descriptive term for each gender classification, but I believe it is important for those who are actually in a particular gender group to choose their own descriptive term(s) as they see fit.

-Emerald

[Shana A]

We already know about Male gender identity and Female gender identity. Both and Neither are a bit more difficult to understand
Here's one way to begin sorting it all out...

Bigender Identity - Both a Man and a Woman. A dual gender identity wherein one binary gender eclipses the other repeatedly over time.
Androgyne Identity - Neither a Man nor a Woman. An independent gender identity beyond the binary genders and and outside of the male/female gender continuum.

I suspect there is yet another gender identity classification... five different gender identities in all, no more no less.

Neuter/Neutrois Identity - Null-gendered. Completely devoid of gender, gender vacant, or gender deprived.

Thanks for these Emerald. Funny, I sometimes describe myself as neither, sometimes as none of the above, occasionally as both... guess I have to make up my mind 

Really though, the term androgyne works best for me, both for describing the way I feel, and also at least partially because of it being an ancient and beautiful sounding word.

zythyra