According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006
Started by Ephilei, December 27, 2008, 01:54:36 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Zythyra on January 11, 2009, 12:20:34 PMQuote from: Ephilei on January 11, 2009, 11:43:25 AMMe too. But many times I don't look androgynous which is one reason androgyne doesn't fit me. One can be an androgyne (internal sense of gender) without necessarily having an androgynous presentation (external expression of gender).Z
Quote from: Ephilei on January 11, 2009, 11:43:25 AMMe too. But many times I don't look androgynous which is one reason androgyne doesn't fit me.
Quote from: Ephilei on January 11, 2009, 05:49:45 PMQuote from: Zythyra on January 11, 2009, 12:20:34 PMQuote from: Ephilei on January 11, 2009, 11:43:25 AMMe too. But many times I don't look androgynous which is one reason androgyne doesn't fit me. One can be an androgyne (internal sense of gender) without necessarily having an androgynous presentation (external expression of gender).ZYes and no. No because "androgynous" is the adjective form of "androgyne," so regardless of the official meaning, people will have a conotation of androgynous. That conotation even pervades previous parts of this thread!
Quote from: Ephilei on January 11, 2009, 05:49:45 PMYes and no. No because "androgynous" is the adjective form of "androgyne," so regardless of the official meaning, people will have a conotation of androgynous. That conotation even pervades previous parts of this thread!
Quote from: Zythyra on January 12, 2009, 07:28:17 PMAndrogyne is in my widget dictionary, states the origin as 16th century.Z
Quote from: Jaimey on January 12, 2009, 07:32:02 PMQuote from: Zythyra on January 12, 2009, 07:28:17 PMAndrogyne is in my widget dictionary, states the origin as 16th century.Zthen why does firefox keep underlining it?