Talk:Androgyny

Huh

"has also been on the increase in the 21st century and beyond". - when did we move beyond the 21st century? --87.63.83.70 (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Obligatory first heading

Needs to be moved to the correct spelling, "androgyny". -- Someone else 04:57 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC) Why didn't you just move it? Mintguy I tried, it failed. May have had something to do with the redirect that was already there? In any case, thanks for getting it done. -- Someone else 05:12 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Not a fan of this page - confuses sex and gender, and comes to conclusions that I don't think are universally accepted. Martin

---

Major trimmage performed. Take this as an example of nonsense removed:

"Gender-reassignment" surgery, for example, may make a man look like a woman, but in every other way, as in sexual reproduction capabilities, the man remains male.

Good work - this page is much better now :) Martin

---

Okay... I don't have the feintest clue where to begin fixing this, but regarding "androgynous" flowers (I guess somebody who had the term "perfect flower" on the tip of their tongue might start here): a disambiguation link to a disambiguation page ( requiring clicking two links to get where you're going) strikes me as a Bad Thing. Just a thought.

Johndodd 06:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Androgyny in Asian culture

As far as I am informed, androgyny and people changing sex is a rather common occurrence in original Asian culture (China and Japan). Can someone add info on this? If an article on this already exists, please add a link to it. SpectrumDT 14:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge Androgyne here?

Given that these two articles are essentially the same subject, I propose that the article Androgyne be merged into the article Androgyny. --AliceJMarkham 06:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as I'm not the one doing the work, I don't see why not. :) Seconded. Sephylight 08:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with this merge. I don't know why I never proposed this before.--(十八|talk) 23:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree; there is no reason for two separate articles on the same subject. Everyone would be better served by their merger. Aleta 06:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

All done! I did my best but there's probably still some repetition. Tocharianne 03:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

I'm not sure as to whether or not the reference to Sheik in the Video Games section is really required for this article. It doesn't seem like a particularly appropriate example and is in itself a major spoiler for the later parts of the games. I've added spoiler tags around that section (although I forgot to log in before I made the change) for the time being. --Defragged 20:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see the talk page before changing your edits. How do you like my fix? (If you want to remove Sheik as a bad example I have no problem with that.) Tocharianne 21:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll probably drop the example. I'm not sure Sheik could really be considered androgynous anyway. The reason the character is able to pass herself off as a male seems to be either due to clothing intended to disguise (her face is covered when she appears as Sheik), or possibly due to an apparent complete magical transformation (according to Princess_Zelda#Sheik anyway). Thanks for the help.--Defragged 20:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New page for "Famous androgynes"?

I think the time has come for a new page for this category. Also...this section really should have citations for verification, or people may begin to plug in hoax names. --Kukini 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC) The section IS getting too big. And some of the names amde me think, 'what??'.80.43.72.100 21:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While people like Sinéad O'Connor and Sanjaya Malakar may be androgynous in a certain way, they certainly never identified as such or gave anyone reason to believe they might be anything other than "normal" men or women, to my knowledge. I wish we could set some sort of distinction between "sort of" androgynous people, and people who are known for acknowledging and/or cultivating their androgynous persona. Greta 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mana

Mana is a crossdresser, NOT an androgyne. I've removed him from the list.

Anime Characters

Some of the anime characters listed doesn't seem very androgynous to me, for example, Cain and Abel from Trinity Blood. I haven't changed anything because I'm no expert of the subject, but I'm wondering if they were just put there because they have long hair. Ravenwolf Zero 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

??!!

Couple of days ago MJ was listed in the list. However, it was rightfully removed. Whoever added his name to the list must get his brains checked. --72.12.197.242 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this comment really need to stay here? CharmlessCoin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Famous Androgynes List

I cleaned up this list a lot. People like John Lennon, Little Richard, and Sinéad O'Connor may be eccentric but have never been widely recognized for expressions of androgyny. Let's try to keep the list accurate. Also I removed Amanda Lepore from the list as from what I can see, she is transsexual and does not combine or move between feminine and masculine aspects. In fact she seems to do just the opposite; playing up the "Barbie doll" image to extremes. I suggest RuPaul for the list, as they're actually known for cultivating their gender bender image. --Greta 22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Maintaining the list would require great effort, and a strict requirement for reliable sources. I've removed it; anyone re-adding should be willing to commit to paring the list down and finding sources. Deltabeignet 03:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Link from Legend of Zelda

I removed Link from the list,because hes very obviously not androgynous. Whoever put that probably just looked at a picture of him or something, and they only put he was from twilight princess, which only adds to my reasoning that someone added him without knowing what they were doing. Just cuz he has a tunic which looks like a skirt thing doesnt make him androgynous 10:06 PM, 25 June 2007

Sailor Moon

Zoisite and Fish Eye from Sailor Moon were listed twice as examples in this article: once under the anime/manga section, once under the video game section. I removed them from the latter, as it seemed silly to mention the same characters twice.

I keep forgetting to sign my comments lately Ilyeana 03:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Manga

Just how many manga characters do we need? It's enough, surely, to say "manga has many androgynous characters" and cite a couple of examples. Instead we have a huge meaningless list. I'd prune it back but I've no idea which are the most useful or relevant examples. Totnesmartin 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Griffith, Caska - straight - not androgynous

I deleted Griffith and Caska from the list. Reasons below.

                 <<SPOILER WARNING>>

Whoever classified them as androgynous has not read much of the manga (Berserk). In the manga, Caska is as clearly a woman as can be - there are extremely graphic illustrations which prove beyond doubt that she is a woman and identifies with being a woman. When shit hits the fan in the story, she loses her mind and acts like a child. This does not make her androgynous.

Griffith on the other hand is portrayed to be so beautiful that he looks like "a painting in the midst of the rubble of life....blah blah blah". But he rapes a princess and then goes on to rape Caska! And Caska gives birth to Griffith's child (ok, the manga says that the child is a ghost or something equally shady, but all that proves is that they [Griffith and Caska] might be kinky and participants in demonic sex of sorts, but definitely not androgynous)

                <<SPOILER ENDS>>

Heavynash (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Switch/The Matrix

Is there anything to actually back up the supposed rumours about Switch from the Matrix being a transgendered character, or is that simply pure rumour and hearsay? --Jayunderscorezero (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Androgyny in Literature

Help! I thought Jordan Baker from Fitzgerald's 'the Great Gatsby' would be a good addition to the list of androgynous characters in literature, although I don't know how to add to the page in so if someone could help. I've written which I think gives a good account of her androgyny  :

Jordan Baker in the Great Gatsby is often thougt to be an androgynous figure. This is suggessted by her adrogynous name - 'Jordan', her figure of 'a slender, small-breasted girl with an erect carriage which she accentuated by throwing her body backward at the shoulders like a young cadet', the way Nick notes 'a faint mustache of perspiration' on her upper lip and her career of professional golfer in the 1920's seems to masculinze her.

I also wonder whether it's worth mentioning that Fitzgerld doesn't directly state she is androgynous, it has been suggested by so many critics that it's generally accepted she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.31.187 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Style" list section

The list of musicians is growing apace, and no doubt could grow much further. There aren't good objective guidelines of who belongs on the list, and I fear it's likely to grow into listcruft. As usual, we could move the list to a separate article (which will run the same risk), remove it and replace it with a paragraph of prose with a few non-exhaustive examples, replace it with a category, or apply strict criteria to keep it in check. Thoughts? I generally favour the "replace with para" option, since I doubt that an exhaustive list is either attainable or needed. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur - replace with a paragraph. There's no need for a list of androgynous people - just name a few of the most notable. --Alynna (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Paragraphs are preferable to lists, and it needs to be kept in check with some sort of criterion--maybe a RS referring to their androgeny? Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we do the same with the anime list? It seems odd that a list of (arguably niche) fictional characters would be longer than the other groups of examples. Also, is there a reason that "anime" is listed in the "See Also" section? Lee-mei (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no-one seemed to like the existing situation, I've removed the better part of it. I retained the short paragraphs on music and anime/manga. New additions should be sourced as androgenous, and included in paragraphs, not trivial lists. As I believe I took care of the trivia situation, I've removed the tag. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

my information got erased

it could be said that some pepole veiw it as a fashion choice i don't have one place i get this information from but look at say emo do you honestly think that all of them do not veiw them selves as male an i am androgynous an veiw my self as male if you say that any one who is androgynous don't see them selves as being a part of the male gender then it not good information to be puting on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie6superstar (talk • contribs) 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your information got reverted for good reason: it did not present a neutral point of view, it amounted to original research, was not properly cited and made use of weasel words such as "It could be said." Aside from that, it was written in the first person and there were problems in grammar and capitalization.

I can see how a paragraph or two about andrgyny being persued as a fashion statement would fit into the article. However, such a paragraph or two would have to meet the standards of the Wikipedia if it is to remain. TechBear (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition

This page seems to be all about gender identity, but I've always heard the term Androgynous used to refer to mixed physical gender characteristics, synonymous with hermaphrodite. Shouldn't the page mention this usage? 118.208.141.207 (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That isn't really how it is used. And I believe it is mentioned as a historical usage. Zazaban (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you Zazaban, but you're wrong, and the OP of this question is right. 7rin (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

genderqueer

It is inaccurate to say that genderqueer is not a gender identity and simply describes unconventional gender behavior:

"Genderqueer is not specific to androgynes, does not denote gender identity, and may refer to any person, cisgender or transgender, whose behavior falls outside conventional gender norms."

In fact, this statement directly contradicts the opening paragraph on the genderqueer article it links to. It is true that it is a politicized term, carrying sociopolitical connotation, and may not be applicable to androgynous people.

Greenchilefrog (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whoever wrote that bit (if xie's still lurking) may correct me if I am off base, but my understanding of this sentence is not so much 'genderqueer is not a gender identity' than 'genderqueer is not necessarily a gender identity' or 'genderqueer doesn't necessarily imply a definite gender identity'. This usage makes sense. Genderqueer does double duty as an identity label and as an adjective for gender nonconformity in general, and many people who describe themselves as (gender)queer make it a practise to avoid fixed identities. I understand why it's there (the two terms aren't synonyms), but it's a good aim to prevent misunderstanding, and changing the phrase to '... does not necessarily denote ...' might fill the bill.
• By the way, the objection is reasonable and I support it, but I think it's good form to direct objections to directly quoted text rather than to an interpretation or paraphrase of the text. For one thing, that helps prevent people talking past each other (which is rich flamewar fuel), and for another, it keeps an editor focussed on the text rather than on hir emotional reaction to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.107.160.50 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's Pat!

I am shocked that there is no mention of Pat from SNL here. There was also a movie made from the SNL sketch It's Pat. Dreammaker182 (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

etymology: first appearance in Rabbinic Judaism?

Where does this piece of information come from? The word is already used by Plato (Symposium 189e) in the 4th century BC to describe a type of pseudo-legendary human being with both a male and a female body. Other classical Greek writers use it as a derogatory term referring to a male with perceived "womanly" or "effeminate" tendencies, a usage also documented by Plato in the abovementioned dialogue, nearly a century before Alexander the Great gave the rabbis any incentive to begin learning the Greek language. See Liddell & Scott: a Greek-English Lexicon for details.

80.221.23.26 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

More Flexible

the article reads "According to Sandra Bem, androgynous men and women are more flexible and more mentally healthy than either masculine or feminine individuals..." does this mean physical flexibility or personality flexibility? 50.47.140.236 (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Not NPOV

More recent research has at least questioned the superiority of A., it would be good to mention that. I tried and it was immediately undone by an overzealous editor. Just goes to show how poorly researched this article is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.210.76 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Overzealous? That's amusing... I'm just trying to prevent vandalism in this article, by undoing edits that do not conform to the rules for contributions to Wikipedia.

94.11.210.76, you provided no citations for your edits, and no explanations for them in the description fields. Without supporting WP:RS citations, these are poor edits. Period.

And your latest edit has a citation provided, but only in the edit description field, which is not available for review within the article itself as a proper citation... it needs to be placed within the article.

Sincerely, - bonze blayk (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

i don't know how to do so and anyway is it really the case that any edit that doesn't make its citations obvious is "vandalism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.210.76 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

you don't have to go far on google to find research that runs against bem's original stuff. i would expect someone to have some proficieny in the topic before calling seemingly reasonable edits "vandalism", which is appears you do not have... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.210.76 (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you got the impression that I was calling your edits "vandalism": my reverts to your edits are explicitly labelled "rv" for "revert" - not "rvv" for "revert vandalism". The remarks I provided for those reversions was:

"rv WP:POV edits with no supporting cites"

Most of my edits on Wikipedia are reversions, and most of those are of blatant vandalism, for example: [1].

Please note that I didn't revert your last edit, which at least had an indication in the edit description of the work referenced...

There's nothing wrong at all with inexperienced editors making edits; but it's a good idea to be familiar with the rules, which have become rather complex over the past five years or so?

If you want to make edits in Wikipedia that will stand the test of time you need to embed the citations into the article along with the text you provide. In the Edit page you get when you select "Edit", in the edit control area just above the text entry area, there's the label "Cite" - click on that, and another menu will appear, and you'll see a dropdown box on the far left labelled "Templates", which provide dialogs that make it fairly easily to insert references into your text using the (obscure) formatting that Wikipedia uses for the citations.

Also, it's a good idea to avoid language such as "More recent research has debunked this idea", which you used in your edit, unless you have strong support for it in a citation... "debunked" is a rather strong word, right? That's part of why I used the WP:POV label: really, you seemed to be expressing only your own point of view, which, no matter how correct it might be, needs to be supported with citations. An editor who is not an expert on a specific area within a topic - and though I've read some of Sandra Bem's work, I am not particularly familiar with it - needs to be able to figure out whether the edits are actually reliable.

thanks - bonze blayk (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)