Thanks everyone for the warm welcome!
I feel right at home already.

Now I jump in..

I was reading the forum's community definition of "Androgyne" when I noticed something that hit me.

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

The definition of androgyne in a way says more about the society which surrounds the androgyne than the actual androgyne.

What I mean by that is that since dress and behavior expectations are 100% constructs from society, this means that somewhere sometime in the past or future, the "androgyne" behavior I have today could be classified by another society as being strictly male or female.

Even though I would be the same person, I would not be classified "androgyne" another place, hence my claim that it doesn't really say anything about me.

I went further and checked the longer definition at wiki.susan's

"An androgyne is a person who does not fit cleanly into the typical masculine and feminine gender roles of their society."...
(Same as the one above.)

"Much in the same way as androgyny, androgyne can be used in two related ways: on the one hand, to refer to someone whose gender role or presentation is not typically masculine or feminine"...
(same)

"and on the other hand to someone who claims a gender identity outside male and female."

That last part is where I originally thought,
"there I am, this is me finally inside the definition!",

but then when I read what it says literally I thought,
"Wait a minute, my gender identity IS male for the simple reason that I AM a biological male."

What else could the words "Gender Identity" have to do other than biological identification since I myself reject the concept of internal identification with "Male" and "Female" terms.  I find it is a grammatical nonsense equal to saying I identify myself with my little toe.

O man, so where was I going with this...

I guess what hit me is that if I pretend to be ignorant of my communitie's male and female gender roles,
then I can't really call myself an "Androgyne" since I don't really know if I am in their eyes "neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine".
And how much percentage of a population does it take to officially define the society's gender role expectations? 

I'll write more tomorrow, as I am off home,

but,

Yes, what people see as androgynous will change over time, just as what appears male or female changes over time in terms of dress and behaviour.

If your gender identity is male and you are physically male, um are you still transgendered?

For me gender identity relates to my internal perception of my own gender. A MtF has a female gender identity despite having a male body. Maybe that is where you are getting stuck, they don't have a male gender identity. Also it sounds like you are stuck on the assumption that gender identity can only be male or female. Sex and gender are two different concepts and should not be seen as the same thing. I have a non-binary gender identity but a male body.

I don't think people that like to dress androgynously are androgynes (though by the sites definitions they are) - for me androgyne is a gender identity. So in a way from my perspective, someone that dressed androgynously but does not have the matching gender identity is really a cross-dresser.

Hi Eve,
.
Sorry, but you appear to be chasing your own tail a bit.
.
"The definition of androgyne in a way says more about the society which surrounds the androgyne than the actual androgyne."
.
I do agree with this, however, just because something says more about something else (society), doesn't mean that it says nothing about you.  You live in, interact with, and interact as, a part of this society...so as such, if you are a part of this society (instead of a hermit that is divorced completely from that society)...then it says something about you too.  Whether as a part of that society...or if nothing else...as something in comparison to that society that lives with and alongside that society.
.
What I mean by that is that since dress and behavior expectations are 100% constructs from society, this means that somewhere sometime in the past or future, the "androgyne" behavior I have today could be classified by another society as being strictly male or female.
Even though I would be the same person, I would not be classified "androgyne" another place, hence my claim that it doesn't really say anything about me.
.
Your argument appears to be this:  Since "androgyne" used to (or will in the future) have a different meaning...or currently has a different meaning in a different culture...it doesn't mean anything to/about you. 
.
One of the interesting things about language, is that the definition to any word you choose will have different connotations and meanings at different points in history.  Words that began long ago in Latin or Low-German or Middle-English etc.. then morphed, changed, and eventually became what we know them to be today...something unrecognizable to those who lived 400 years ago.   (Gay = merry or homosexual?  "Nice" was originally derived from Latin 'nescius' "not to know."  Awful originally meant "full of awe" or "wonderful" but means the opposite now.  There are countless more examples.)
.
To accept your above argument would negate the meaning of any word spoken/written anywhere, at any time...simply because things change.  In some ways, it can be said that the only constant in this world is change.   It would be a confusing world indeed, if everyone mixed the past, present, and future together without any point of reference or perspective.  Like jumping into a raging ocean, it can only result in getting lost in the flow with no rope or raft to cling to.  Any meaning would become meaningless without such a point of reference.  (Where in the ocean are you?  I'm by...)
.
Getting to my point:  Simply put, words and communication are based upon mutually agreed upon references.  While we may disagree on what those references mean exactly, such disagreement does not negate the meaning of, the existence of, or presence of those concepts/objects. (ie. "Androgyne" or "Gender" doesn't disappear because of these disagreements, regardless of whether or not you feel it applies to you)
.
Or, more simply and directly: Trying to relate to "Androgyne" while throwing out any meaning to the words "society" "male" "female" "gender" etc...simply because their meaning has changed with time...is kind of like trying to relate to "color" while throwing out your ability to see anything other than black, white, and gray.  You can't build a house if you throw out all the bricks that the foundation was made from.
.
I do admit that it is important and meaningful to keep some perspective...a window open to the past...an open mind to the future.  However, you live in the here and now.  People understand your words and meanings as from this this time period, and from this society.  That is your reference...your raft...your rope...while you communicate to others...amidst the raging current of change. 
.
That doesn't mean you can't disagree with what something means...or whether it's appropriate...or applicable...but you'll start chasing your own tail if you don't keep some point of reference to start from.
.
but then when I read what it says literally I thought,
"Wait a minute, my gender identity IS male for the simple reason that I AM a biological male."
What else could the words "Gender Identity" have to do other than biological identification since I myself reject the concept of internal identification with "Male" and "Female" terms.  I find it is a grammatical nonsense equal to saying I identify myself with my little toe.
.
Sorry, but I'll have to say that you either don't understand the terminology being used, or perhaps that we disagree upon its meaning/relevance.
.
In the simplest (if grossly incomplete) terms:
Sex = What's in-between your legs.
Gender = What's in-between your ears.
.
You appear to admit that society exists.
You also appear to admit that there is a difference between "male" and "female" in both physical as well as social meaning.
.
"Male" and "Female" are points of reference.   Crude, inaccurate, often stereotypical points, but points none-the-less.  A raft to help people explain to others where they are in that confusing ocean we call Gender.
.
You may hate landing on either shore (male/female), but to society there is a very real distinction...with a wide separation.  And while you are certainly free to choose to ignore the terms as archaic or outmoded, society will define you by them whether you like it or not.  (You can't deny the existence of the concept of Gender...but you can see those terms as ill-fitting for use on yourself.)
.
If your physical (sex) identification is male, and your social (gender) identification is also male, then perhaps "Androgyne" doesnt' apply to you. 
That doesn't appear to be the case though:

"and on the other hand to someone who claims a gender identity outside male and female."
That last part is where I originally thought,
"there I am, this is me finally inside the definition!"
.
Perhaps the best place to start, is to ask yourself, how do you differ from men/women that makes you conclude that you are outside of those terms/designations?  Is the very idea of such a rigid social distinction distasteful to you? (I'm not particularly fond of it myself)  Sometimes that in-and-of-itself can point to you being outside of the typical  binary gender schema....or...in other words..."Androgyne."   
.
Going any further than that...trying to define exactly where you are on the ocean, or in outer-space when you know you're not on either male-land or female-land....is a bit trickier. 

>>"If your gender identity is male and you are physically male, um are you still transgendered?"

Yes I consider myself transgendered for the following reasons.

I had said in my previous post that I would have to "pretend" not to be knowledgeable of my society's expectations, and only in that context it wouldn't be correct for me to call myself "Androgyne" since the term requires the specifications of the society to be usable. (for its smaller strict definition that is).

But in reality, I don't pretend ignorance of this, and I do know that my society expects me to hide my emotions, be less nurturing, tone down how much jewelery I wear, etc, simply for being male.
Since I like all of those things and challenge my society, I officially differentiate myself from it and therefore become eligible to the term "Androgyne" -> "Transgendered".

I just found it interesting that someone exactly like me that would not have knowledge of his society's expectations, or lived somewhere else that's more open, would not be able to call himself "Androgyne".  Just for being geographically elsewhere. (doesn't even need to be the past or future) (again with the small definition)

When it comes to personal identity in the sense of my core essence, I too perceive this 100% internal.  I consider myself internally neither male or female.  I was referring to biological identity as being male (which many androgynes are).

I checked the definition of "Gender Identity" and you are correct Nicky that gender identity can mean "neither male or female".  Thank you.
So I guess for that reason also I am an "Androgyne" -> "Transgendered". 

>>"then it says something about you too.  Whether as a part of that society...or if nothing else...as something in comparison to that society"

Good point, I hadn't really thought about it that way. 

>>"To accept your above argument would negate the meaning of any word spoken/written anywhere, at any time...simply because things change"

I think the definition of "Androgyne" is solid enough that its base meaning "Contrast between people and their society) will survive.
Kind of like the word "Popular" or "In fashion".  The definition of these words are stable over time, even though groups of people move in and out of being "popular" or "in fashion" in their society.
In the same way, it is the contrast itself that will change and disqualify and qualify new people from being androgyne. (according to the strict definition of androgynous only being a contrast)

What is considered popular does change over time,
but the definition of popular is always the same. ("what is liked by a lot of people")
When what is popular changes, things and people move in and out of being "popular".

>>"People understand your words and meanings as from this this time period, and from this society.  That is your reference...your raft...your rope...while you communicate to others...amidst the raging current of change."

Well put.

>>"Gender = What's in-between your ears."

Thanks for that Kay. So in that sense "Gender Identity" by definition really has nothing to do with what's between my legs. (or my little toe)
I didn't know this, and brought up the little toe analogy to point out how strange it sounds when identity is anything other than what's between our ears.
"I am penis" would be a pretty ridiculous thing to say.

I 100% agree that the terms are "Crude, stereotypical, archaic and outmoded". 

"Is the very idea of such a rigid social distinction distasteful to you?"

Absolutely, I've been on a journey in the past 4 years of building more self confidence to be able to "leek out my androgynous traits" publicly. Both in behavior and clothing.
And internally, it literally feels like a transformation process of becoming someone else that was always there.  I find it very liberating actually!

>>"Sometimes that in-and-of-itself can point to you being outside of the typical  binary gender schema....or...in other words..."Androgyne."

Quote from: eve_tg on October 21, 2009, 08:35:16 AMI just found it interesting that someone exactly like me that would not have knowledge of his society's expectations, or lived somewhere else that's more open, would not be able to call himself "Androgyne".  Just for being geographically elsewhere. (doesn't even need to be the past or future) (again with the small definition)

[emphasis mine]

I would say instead that someone who was not within a binary-minded society wouldn't need to call himself "Androgyne."

I see the label as saying, "I do not accept society's binary definition of gender."

-- Luke

Hi evie,

I think the difficulties are tied up with the word gender. Gender is not the physical part. If that male identity is tied up in the fact that you stride the streets with a meat and two veg and a deep voice, that's not gender, that's biological sex. You can still walk the streets with a male biological identity but an androgyne gender identity. The gender is more the psychological part, so you can be androgyne gender even if you are a big hairy biker.

As always that psychological element is then set in society, as all psychological things are. It is only society that feels that a person who sacrifices everything for the impersonal love of fame is someone to be admired and not a nutcase, for example.

Quote from: LightlyLuke on October 21, 2009, 10:15:32 AM
[emphasis mine]

I would say instead that someone who was not within a binary-minded society wouldn't need to call himself "Androgyne."

I see the label as saying, "I do not accept society's binary definition of gender."

-- Luke

I see any non-binary gender as saying "I don't fit in society's binary defination of gender
for me I accept that gender is seen by society as very binary and that I don't fit if me being me changes societies views great but thats not why i do what i do