Talk:Androgyny

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlisterMcG. Peer reviewers: Lwm1715, Ekaufman1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Bgiauque.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PranavDawar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kododendron. Peer reviewers: Kam.peyton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

I was wondering about that also

"The rise of androgyny in popular culture has also been on the increase in the 21st century and beyond" -- is this an historical fact, and is the author of this article on the Texas History Textbook Committee? Author seems to cite to an article that makes no such ridiculous claim. 75.76.145.74 (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2013 (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)

I was thinking the opposite and that "in Asia.[25] Japanese and Korean cultures have featured the androgynous look as a positive attribute in society, as depicted in both K-pop, J-pop,[26] in anime and manga,[27] as well as the fashion industry.[28]" to be rather biased. It is more that East Asians tend to be more feminine (c.f. the theroies of Kawai Hayao and his fatherly and motherly principles (genri)[1], Kozawa Heisaku and Okonogi Keigo where the mother takes centre stage in the psychological development of the child, Nakamura Chie where society is based upon the family, Takeo Doi where the fundamental emotion is not eros as in Freud, but amae or fawning) whereas flappers (as mentioned earlier in the article) and Westerners in general converge on the masculine, as argued by Simone de Beauvoir in "The Second Sex". I.e. It is not that Asians are more androgynous but in Asia there are more girly boys but few butch women and vice versa in the West. It could be furhter argued however, in line with SpectrumDT that sexual intransience is more important in a "father-principle" culture where others are either the objects of eros or they are rivals. Whereas in a mother-principle culture, others are all loved irrespective of their sex but depended upon whether they are adults or not, which perhaps noone ever is (again see Kawaii[2]). --Timtak (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2016 (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)

I feel that this section demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of the nature of performance. Although some of these "famous androgynes" may define themselves as androgynous in their private lives, most of the examples are of performers who created a character that demonstrated androgynous characteristics. The character is not the actor, and I feel that this section confuses this issue, and weakens the overall meaning and utility of this entry.--2601:D:CA00:840:D410:B3B6:41A0:FABE (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2015 (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)

I believe that a while back, I saw a video on YouTube of Belinda McClory speaking to someone (probably at a convention) about how the role was originally to be played by her and someone else, as Switch was one sex in the Matrix and another in real life. This is the gist of the rumour too, I believe. Unfortunately, I can't find that video now, but that's what I'd look for, for a citation. Alas, the 1996 (legitimate? It seems it) draft of the script floating around the Internet doesn't mention this, and neither does the shooting script published in The Art of The Matrix. It's mentioned at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr1556522 without a citation, as far as I can tell. Zoeb (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2012 (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)

i agree with you, Tequilatrinity. i came to this page from, i believe, a page about the Sybyl, and suddenly found myself delving into the vast arena of gender identity. i had to pull up, and scroll back up the page to remember what i'd started reading about here.Colbey84 (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2015 (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)

11 years late, but I assume the info came from the word being in the Mishnah, which was written circa 200 CE. I ended up here because I just came across the word whilst studying and was shocked to find it written and pronounced the same as we do today in English so I went to look up the etymology of the word. Palmer House (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2021 (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)

yes, good point. i found most of that section to be...suspect, i guess. it starts with an assertion apparently made by Sandra Bem, then has several statements that aren't sourced and, since not sourced, appear to be opinions of wiki authors/editors. the 2 sources in that section are NOT from Sandra Bem.

the 2nd para. here is especially problematic. i did put one request for citation there, but...it appears, based on this section (and from some earlier, also unsourced, statements, e.g., "They have a balanced identity that includes the virtues of both genders and may disassociate the task with what gender it may be socially assigned to."), that androgynous individuals are utterly amazing individuals who excel at everything and are the absolute best at relationships.

a bit of a side note--it might be good to note Sandra Bem's field of experience/expertise in the preceding section. especially since she is "quoted" extensively on this page, yet there is not one reference directly related to her (meaning, she didn't write any of them).Colbey84 (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2015 (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: [3].

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)

Questionable Source

reference 13. it's a forum. it's a forum on something called "echo chamber." and it's pointing specifically to a few posts by one person in this one topic on this forum site. now...i read some of it, and it was quite interesting, and it's relevant to some of the discussion on this page. BUT...i'm not sure it should be used as a source for a sentence that defines "agenderism." a term that is, i believe, not entirely accepted/settled? using a comment on a forum doesn't help to settle this word.Colbey84 (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Fashion Today

I recently updated the Fashion History section by adding in about Jaden Smith but now I'm thinking if he is worthy or not of being mentioned on this page? Or is that a silly question? I know he is no David Bowie or Boy George but was not sure who I should have mentioned to represent the time of now for androgynous fashion --Yazmin21 (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Poor article. Missing the main point of the subject matter?

I had assumed an article about androgny would talk about physically androgenous people - mainly. Instead there is barely a mention of people who are born with a body that is both male and female. The article seems to be largely about people choosing to wear masculine or feminine clothes, hairstyles etc.. Which, although relelvant, is a much smaller and much less relevant issue than genuine physical androgyny. The greek statue (pictured in the article) is virtually the only reference to physical androgyny. Poor article. Needs a substantial re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.145.156 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree 100%. This is a major mess.★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

What WP:Reliable sources do you have for "physical androgyny"? Or for the statement that "choosing to wear masculine or feminine clothes, hairstyles etc" is "a much smaller and much less relevant issue than genuine physical androgyny"? Also, not sure what you mean by "born with a body that is both male and female" unless you are referring to intersex people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This comment is clealy over a year old. I doubt you're getting an awnser. And I think some of the conntent they're talking about may have been removed since then. And either way all the political gender identity and modern fashion nonsense has got to go out of the article, that is all a heap of undue weigth and recentism.★Trekker (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Androgynous - "Partly male and partly female in appearance; of indeterminate sex." 'Quotes ‘a stunningly androgynous dancer’ and ‘he used surgery and cosmetics to make his face look pasty and bizarrely androgynous’. From Oxford Dictionary definition. For some people androgyny can be enhanced by wearing some clothes and similar but androgynous mainly means to be male/female mixed in appearence. Doesn't matter what clothes someone wears if they're super masculine or super feminine, they still won't look androgynous. Article should focus on the main meaning of the subject.★Trekker (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the comment is over a year old. And yet you replied to it. Clearly, my comment was made because of your "Agree 100%" comment, which can give the wrong idea to less experienced editors, which is that the literature on androgyny typically talks about "physical androgyny" and talks about it more than psychological androgyny, which this 2017 "A2 Level Psychology" source, from Psychology Press, page 237, defines as "having both traits that have traditionally been associated with masculinity (such as assertive) together with traits that are traditionally viewed as feminine (such as sensitivity). Such an individual is sometimes referred to as an androgyne." It also states, "Androgyny is a term used to describe individuals who have both masculine and feminine qualities. Physical androgyny involves having both male and female sex organs (an extremely rare condition in humans), such individuals are known as hermaphrodite." When most sources (the vast majority) speak of "physical androgyny," they are speaking of intersex people or of hermaphrodites (a term that is no longer considered appropriate for humans). This is easy to see by looking on regular Google, Google Books and Google Scholar. It is easy to see what the literature mainly means when it speaks of androgyny. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In his 1997 "Sex, Love, and Friendship: Studies of the Society for the Philosophy of Sex and Love, 1977-1992" book, from Rodopi, Alan Soble included the following passage: "Androgyny is a tricky concept; its literal meaning continues to raise questions. A mixture of male and female traits (andros means 'man' and gyne means 'woman') tells us nothing about how those traits are to be mixed; their desirable proportions; if all traits are equally valuable; whether a variety of mixtures is possible; or if these traits are psychological, behavioral, or physiological. The first task for anyone discussing androgyny is to specify precisely what meaning the term has." What is meant by "androgyny" varies, but the literature shows that sources are generally talking about a person who embodies both masculine and feminine traits, and the sources don't usually limit those traits to a person's face and/or body appearing to be a blend of male and female. There are butch lesbians who pass as male on appearance alone simply by cutting their hair short, binding their breasts, and wearing clothes that are considered masculine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

To be fair I did not expect a reply from the actual person, just to talk about the subject, which is that the article should be rewritten.

The layman term for the word, and the most common definition, which is the when a human looks both male and female in appearance. I assumed this was what the person meant by "physical androgyny". Now when I reread this I see they're clearly talking about hermaphroditism. My bad.★Trekker (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that the IP was talking about intersex people. I think it's just that the IP isn't aware of what "physical androgyny" usually refers to in sources. And, yeah, I know that you didn't expect the IP to reply. This section still being on the talk page, though, allows more people to comment on the matter and therefore add on to the sentiment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Extremely Unfocused Article

Does anyone else feel that androgyny in fashion, or specific people considered by be androgynous, are entirely separate topics? I'd like to split "Androgyny in Fashion" into a separate article. In addition, in order to use more neutral language, I'm removing all instances of "opposite" sex, and reorganizing the article to be clearer about the differences between the different, distinct meanings of androgyny (e.g. biological sex, gender expression, gender identity.) Kododendron (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a multi-use term. I think we should include both. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe it would be better to have something like Androgynous fashion, it takes up rather large part of the article as of now and I feel other subjects need more focus.★Trekker (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that what you consider unfocused has to do with the different meanings and different aspects of androgyny. This edit that you made to the lead, addressing the different meanings and different aspects, does better summarize the article.

As for a separate article for fashion, I'm thinking the content should stay in one article -- this one -- per WP:Content fork. If split, I feel that it will be a big WP:Original research (WP:OR) article unless you are using sources that are specifically about androgyny in fashion. There is already some WP:OR, or specifically WP:Synthesis, in the "Fashion history" section. Cleaning up that section first and then seeing if it's best as a separate article is the way to go. But the fashion material does relate to achieving androgyny by way of clothing choices. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

They should also remove content that relates androgyny to transsexuality, they are totally different things Hastengeims (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Genderqueer

Category:Genderqueer has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:Student editing

AlisterMcG, regarding this, this, and this, I'm not stating that the unsourced material should be restored, but you do know that WP:Reliable sources speak of sexual orientation/sexual identity with regard to androgyny and that this aspect should be covered in the article, don't you? Speaking of androgyny with regard to sexual orientation and/or sexual identity is not automatically conflating the two. And regarding that last URL link, I'm not sure what you are speaking of when it comes what is outdated and offensive.

I ask that you do not WP:Ping me if you reply. If you do reply, I ask that you reply here, not on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I do see what you mean, it does make sense to remain here. The same goes for the alternatives section, though I feel it's not necessarily an alternative to androgyny, but rather a similar line of reasoning in regard to each concept. As for gynephilic and androphilic, Mathglot explained it in their revision and I see why it should remain as well. My classmates and I were interpreting it incorrectly. Thanks for your feedback and support as I work on this page. AlisterMcG (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

too many mistakes

the article has several problems and has to be removed, the vandalism is too much and has too many errors Hastengeims (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

in this article it is confused with transgender people and androgyny and they are totally different definitions that is why this article has to be eliminated Hastengeims (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.bust0s23 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ethan.jl.

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.bust0s23 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ethan.jl.

Can characteristics be "expressed"?

@I dream of horses: ty for the welcome. I appreciate that my edit linking characteristics is to a disambig page but I do think the link aids critical thinking. "Expression" is "the action of making known one's thoughts or feelings." But Can characteristics be "expressed"? Can Primary sex characteristics be expressed? Can secondary sex characteristics be expressed? Hazardous to Health (talk) (INTJ IQ:149 culture fair) 00:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hazardous to Health There is rarely a justification to add a disambiguation link to the body of an article. It's so rare that I can't quite explain when it should happen. Aiding in critical thinking, or questions around what can be expressed, wouldn't be one of them. For more complicated words, there might be a justification to link to the Wiktionary article, but at the end of the day, we cater to people who are literate in English at an eighth grade level; if an eighth grader of average literacy knows the definition of a word, we shouldn't have to define it.

Of course, whether or not a disambig/Wiktionary link needs to be added is entirely separate from "Does it make sense to have this paragraph, phrased as it is, here?" Questions like that get discussed all the time. That's simply part of encyclopedia building.

Another question would be "Is this [whether or not characteristics can be expressed] a discussion that should happen on Wikipedia, or should it happen elsewhere?" Considerations with that particular question would include the fact that such a discussion would inevitably take time, which could be spent editing Wikipedia instead, but is less likely to result in changes to the article than the one in the previous paragraph. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

:@I dream of horses Well I am educated past eighth grade and being honest with myself I didn't know how to define it (before the link) leading to a vague feeling of being misinformed. Be honest, Would you have been able to define it? "Does it make sense to have this paragraph, phrased as it is, here?" I would answer no because the second line "Androgyny may be expressed with regard to biological sex, gender identity, or gender expression" is nonsense (and I suspect just original research). I have no doubt "foo" (...say sexuality) can be expressed with regard to biological sex, gender identity, or gender expression but not "Androgyny". I think you are saying "Don't worry about it - add another boiler plate to warn the eighth graders and move on? Hazardous to Health (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hazardous to Health "Characteristic," in the context of primary and secondary sexual sex characteristics (as you described in your initial message in this thread), means anatomical and chemical characteristics...does an individual have assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth anatomy, a combination of both, or a partial/complete absence of either? There's no need to complicate that.

Of course, androgyny is more complicated. I don't intend to ignore that. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Affiche Annie Lennox.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bill hater (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Alettertoelise79, NorthShoreLoon.

— Assignment last updated by NorthShoreLoon (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Shman" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Shman has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Shman until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)