Talk:Androgyne

The idea of pansexual and eunuch being related terms doesn't seem to make a whole heck of a lot of sense. A eunuch is simply someone born with male genitals who has undergone orchidectomy. Pansexual is a sexuality, not a gender identity. One can be a pansexual androgyne in a male body, or just as easily a heterosexual androgyne in a female body. Genitalia/chromosomal makeup, gender identity, and sexuality are three different things ~ what you are, who you are, and who you're attracted to. 68.233.12.105 05:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that it was you who put the POV-tag on this article? If so, I think there is no reason at all to do so. The things you mentioned are factually wrong given the common definition of the term, for the reasons you have named (and which have apparantly already been removed), but I do not think there is a strong judgmental tone or bias to be found. So, I'm removing the tag, although the article could sure use some major improvement. TheOtherStephan 4th February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, what the heck, maybe this should just be merged with Pangender, that article has much more factually-delicious content, from what I can tell. Anyone have thoughts on this? Anyways, I'm cleaning this article up a bit. I also made a similar note on Talk:Pangender. 68.233.12.105 07:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Pangender is an all-inclusive, scientific term; androgyne as a subculture term is much like Bigender in that it is used mostly as a self-reference, by the transgender community itself. As far as the definition goes it's mostly cognate with pangender, but it isn't always used in the same context. Then there is the issue with it being used in a lot of ways, including religious and anatomical. I would agree the article needs a cleanup, but as it is there is a justification for it being distinct from Pangender.--TheOtherStephan 01:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, cleaned this thing up because it was a MESS, though it still needs to be wikified and probably get some factual verification.

It does seem to have a lot of the content that the pangender article does. If they need to be merged, I would actually say that Pangender should go into Androgyne, if only because I've now cleaned up Androgyne and I think it's a little superior to the current incarnation of Pangender. I've also heard the term androgyne used much more frequently than pangender. Thoughts? Switchercat 01:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this with pangender would make no sense; they are two different topics. Also, my main point was to be to add more actual androgynes to the list of famous ones. Not just people who may look slightly femme/masculine. 86.3.209.94 07:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]