Indeed Nfr... 
I have been pondering a very similar gender identity differentiation and classification system to the one you have presented.
A few differences, "not clear" was named "questioning" in my notes, etc.
Is this representative of your own independent research?

For the readers:
This is purely an exercise and inquiry into the nature of gender itself.
This is NOT a matter of segregation of actual persons.

-Emerald 

Quote from: Rebis on September 09, 2007, 11:27:54 AM
Androgyne; frame of reference; 

   childlike.  an 8 year old's sense of self not yet poisoned by social or cultural expectations (though the expectations are noticeable). 

   Inability to grasp the subtext passed between the Ms & Fs.

   Intuitive.

   Naive.

   Wise.

Me too!  I feel like I have a child's mindset a lot of the time.  And I really don't get the subtext passed between the Ms & Fs.  Also, I think I'm pretty intuitive, naive, and wise.  You're much better at verbal expression than I am!

Quote from: Jaimey on September 11, 2007, 03:29:00 PM

Quote from: Rebis on September 09, 2007, 11:27:54 AM
Androgyne; frame of reference; 

   childlike.  an 8 year old's sense of self not yet poisoned by social or cultural expectations (though the expectations are noticeable). 

   Inability to grasp the subtext passed between the Ms & Fs.

   Intuitive.

   Naive.

   Wise.

Me too!  I feel like I have a child's mindset a lot of the time.  And I really don't get the subtext passed between the Ms & Fs.  Also, I think I'm pretty intuitive, naive, and wise.  You're much better at verbal expression than I am!

It took me several passes to get there, young one.     My previous posts were sloppy; the exact kind of work I'd expect to be fired for.

Quote from: Seshatneferw on September 11, 2007, 08:26:25 AM

Something like that, yes. I'm more inclined to order these
1) male, female
2) male, female, neither
3) male, female, both, neither
4) male, female, both, none, not clear

That is, at stage 2 lump all non-binary groups together as androgynes (just like here  ); at stage 3 split off bigender; at stage 4 make a distinction between the no-gender and ambi/intergender androgynes. Further on it's possible to make even more fine-tuned categorisations, if necessary.

  Nfr

I like that, very nice but lets modify it slightly to this

0) Human
1) male, female
2) male, female, neither
3) male, female, both, neither
4) male, female, both, none, not clear

Quote from: Emerald on September 11, 2007, 09:45:44 AM

I have been pondering a very similar gender identity differentiation and classification system to the one you have presented.

It's nice to hear that I'm not totally off.  Thanks.

Quote

A few differences, "not clear" was named "questioning" in my notes, etc.
Is this representative of your own independent research?

I wouldn't call it 'research'; I certainly don't have a background in gender theory or anything that could be considered hard data. In that sense, this is more like a result of small-scale philosophising and running in hermeneutic circles, but admittedly influenced by my interests in cognitive semantics and conceptualisation. My 'not clear' category could be further divided into 'questioning' and 'mixed', I think, although I haven't given it quite that much thought. Anyway, the labels were mostly off the top of my head.

Quote from: Emerald on September 11, 2007, 09:45:44 AM

This is purely an exercise and inquiry into the nature of gender itself.
This is NOT a matter of segregation of actual persons.

Yes, indeed. We are what we are, each of us; the question is how people divide the relevant conceptual space. As an example, because of my own background I have a hard time considering 'pink' an independent colour: it feels odd that English has a separate term for pastel shades of red, but I have no problems accepting that those shades exist. Understanding how different people divide the gender spectrum, though, now that's something that might give a bit of a new insight into how people think, how gender works, and even how the society works.

  Nfr

Quote from: Seshatneferw on September 11, 2007, 08:26:25 AM
Something like that, yes. I'm more inclined to order these
1) male, female
2) male, female, neither
3) male, female, both, neither
4) male, female, both, none, not clear

That is, at stage 2 lump all non-binary groups together as androgynes (just like here  ); at stage 3 split off bigender; at stage 4 make a distinction between the no-gender and ambi/intergender androgynes. Further on it's possible to make even more fine-tuned categorisations, if necessary.

  Nfr

5) Fuzzy enough to waddle, not feathered enough to fly

Better late than never:

Androgyne: Failing at both, pretending to fit, unique, lonely, n, partially gendered, unrecognised, no treatment path, gender dysphoric, body dysmorphic, invisible, visible = danger, non-binary, freedom from prescribed gendered behaviour,

(Help, they're playing a pan pipe version of Evita)

Androgyne: Naive. Impulsive. Intuitive. Unfettered but Unsure.