Quote from: Ken/Kendra on September 19, 2007, 07:05:33 AM
Answering the question that the post is asking, (not divert it from one of the tangents already travelled):
I answered mostly.
The points that I dont agree with are the spiritual, religious, metaphysist stuff. To me those points are too much, and are more subjective. Also the words that are more children oriented.
Spiritual- I am not spiritual or religious or anything like that. To me this is a point of religion not of gender identity. My religion is a hybrid of zen/psychology, with not beliefs in god(s). More humanistic.
Divine- This was almost laughable. I assume this is following the standard definition of "of or pertaining to a god". Also a religious definition that would depend on one's view of god, in comparison to one's gender identity. Also denoting some sort of superhuman, god given powers or something like that.
Transcendent- Maybe if used in the proper context, but I think easily used with mysticism and new age context. Also much religious connotation. I hate words that try to show some sort of superior understanding or sage-ness.
Childlike- Maybe if used more metaphorically rather than literal. I am involved in a adult type relationship, and dont consider me anything near child-whatever. If used more in the sense of prior gender divide. But gender divide is a whole issue in itself. That would assume the existence of a real permanent gender divide, something which I am against. Although I have used in my own experience that I was divided, I think using such words have more connotation to pedophilia, middle age conflicts, and immaturity. I would rather at this point in my life, recognize the lack of division and fluidity of gender rather than boxes, divisions, and separation.
Naïve- If used in a wrong manner would assume lack of cognitive understanding. Also might mean that there is a truth outside that one does not yet realize. In other words might mean androgyne being more fantasy than reality.
I wonder if it is all in our understanding of those words. Despite having grown up in the Bible Belt, I was pretty lucky in the church that I went to as a child (no hellfire and brimstone for me, thankfully) and church was not a bad place for me. On the first "androgyne frame of reference" thread, I put that I felt evolved and elaborated that as a child, I actually thought that I might have been an angel or something else not human. Of course, I don't really feel that way now because I am not a religious person, but as a child, I knew of human existence and divine existence. Those were the things I knew and understood and that was my frame of reference as a child...I knew nothing of gender identity. I just knew I was different and I suppose the angel thing was my justification. We all need something to cling to, from time to time.
I do relate more to transcendent and childlike. Transcendent, according to
dictionary.com (my best friend at times
) defines transcendent as, "going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding." That's the first definition and it's the one that I identify with. I feel like I am beyond the normal binary. In a way, I almost feel superior to the binaries. Of course, that may just be my justification. I need to feel superior in order to not feel inferior. I don't dislike people who fit into the binaries. I'm just beyond the binaries.
Childlike is defined as "like a child, as in innocence, frankness, etc.; befitting a child: childlike trust." It is important to note that 'childlike' and 'childish' are different. To me, 'childlike' refers to innocence, but that's not to say I am innocent as far as adult issues are concerned. It's more of an approach really. I tend to take things at face value, I'm very direct and frank, I am trusting. I am a mature adult and I do mature adult things. But my approach to life is often similar to a child's. That's how I identify as childlike. There is something interesting that the professor of the gender studies class I took said about children. He said that small children are unaware that they cannot choose to be a boy or a girl whenever they feel like. He was refering to very young children, around 3 or so. A child that young is still going to be unaware of the binary social constructs. Yes, they know that there are boys and girls, but they aren't really old enough to understand gender identity. A child of that age, be it boy or girl, can at one moment be playing with costume jewelry and feather boas and the next want to play in the mud. I think that is part of the childlike frame of reference. For me, it might just be the inability to differentiate between the two.
It does get pretty confusing when we try to define "androgyne". I'm not big on labels or being labeled, though it is nice to fit into a group. At any rate, we can all relate to one another because we are non-binary, and really, being able to relate to each other is all that matters.
