Androgyny is when secondary sex characteristics are not prominent, so it is not clear male it is of female. It is not used to describe gender neutral cloths, behaviour and even looks sometimes.

Do you mean it IS also used to describe androgynous looks and affected appearances?

I'd say it can refer to either. That's how it's used.

It can work to describe some aspects, but again - you can not conform to gender norms and still look like typical male or female.

I'm not clear what you mean here.

In Iran woman going without burqua in dress is gender nonconforming, for example.

Firstly Iran only imposes the hijab not he burqa. They do have the burqa but I guess is for more devoted or rural areas. You might be thinking of somewhere else like Aghanistan.

Secondly I'm not sure it works like that. Culture is not the exact same thing as gender.

What are they wearing instead of a burqa? Naked? That's not gender non conforming. They're likely wearing western style clothes in Iran if it's an urban area.

A person wearing clothes of different culture is being culturally different not gender non conforming.

What do you think they wear under coverings in Iran? Iran was more Western than a lot of surrounding nations before the revolution. In many ways it still is. The revolution was in part neoreactionary move against modernism.

We were talking about gender norms and gender stereotypes. Men-only shoes of 37th EU size would not be called "masculine", because that is very small leg. Yet it is male specific item.

Right, you mean because we, cultures, do gender items. And the fit, specific style or use isn't part of that.

Isn't that my point? Humans act on gender, I mean that social gender thing, it's emergent.

Gender norms are dictated by culture.

I mean I kind of agree but it emergent. Humans like to "gender." It's natural. Cultures are always going to have gender.

You can't have communities without culture or cultures without "gender."

What we see here as transwomen in other countries or cultures can be seen as masculine or typical men. What in America considered as butch lesbian or transmen, can be norm in communistic countries like Korea, Cuba or USSR, as there are a lot of buffed women with short hair hard-working and lifting weight on factories.

Butch women were never the majority social norm in any of these nations.

I'm not sure where you got this idea. This is just factually incorrect. It sounds more like a caricature based on socialist realism paintings, propaganda for either side and the 1970s East German athlete doping scandals.

A lot of the nations have gender norms far more intense than the West. Cuba imprisoned and deported thousands of gay men in the 60s and 70s.

Maybe you are thinking of some of the super harsh regimes like the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia?

Indeed, but white powder on face like they had is not associated with it, without the context. You need either "black metal" or japanese estetics around for it to be considered masculine. Without context it is neutral and "not masculine". At same time pink powder and red lipstick will be "feminine" instead.

Indeed, but white powder on face like they had is not associated with it, without the context. You need either "black metal" or japanese estetics around for it to be considered masculine. Without context it is neutral and "not masculine". At same time pink powder and red lipstick will be "feminine" instead.

The question of how innate masculinity and femininity go is interesting.

But it might as well be two empty categories that can contain anything but most contain something. If they must contain something they are likely to have some connection back to innate traits, one way or another.

Indeed, but we are talking about not following the norms. If many will start doing something, then it may became a new norm. Gender nonconformity in general works as a way to widen norms, to make "anything is fine" as a norm.

Gender non conformity basically means cross conformity.

Anything is fine still doesn't mean gender has gone away. Most people are conforming. A small minority are not. Acceptance of a small minority does not end gender. Just like acceptance of homosexuality does not end sexual norms.

If everyone became bisexual, that would end sexual norms. There would be no homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Why? No. There are a lot of other actions.

But not ones focused on gender. Gender is the context here.

If a man hangs in a tree and makes howling noises and a person says "act like a man." We know they are not referring to gender non conformity, it's about acting like a human.

If it is expected that man will try to compete and for woman to be led. However, if man instead of competing will cooperate, it will be not masculine and not feminine behaviour, but something else.

You mean in a relationship?

There are two gender norms, two sets of stereotypes. However, world is much wider than that.

But not that wide that gender disappears. Ever.

For example - it is expected that man will go angry and woman will start crying in one situation. And if you just do nothing - it would be already considered as weird behaviour from you, unexpected or "wrong".

To be honest that can sound like a lot of things like being emotionally remote or guarded.

Simple example - it is expected for women to wear pink, for men to wear blue. So to be gender nonconforming you don't need as a man to wear pink - you can wear green.

Green isn't viewed as gender non conforming.

It doesn't matter if pink and blue become unisex. Society, cultures will find ways to express and embody gender.

And a minority will be drawn to cross conforming.

That will be already gender nonconforming and at same time it will not be conforming to opposite gender stereotypes. There millions of ways to be and to live. Gender norms are trying to put everyone into two strict boxes to control. This was used really strongly against women through out the history and it was used against men as well to uphold authoritharism regimes or systems.

I don't think it's a choice between abstract rigid norms or ultra gender freedom.

There are rigid social norms that can be relaxed. But gender isn't "feudualism," it isn't a specific social construction that can be abolished like that.

That's why feminists were fighting against ideas of gender norms, identities and so on for centuries. In last 30-50 years those norms were challenged strongly (especially during times of David Bowie, Twisted Sister, punks later) and they were slowly being widened to include anything, but in last 10 years gender ideology became strong and it started reinforcing back strict boundaries of what is and what is not feminine or masculine.

Art rock, club culture aren't the end of gender. They are marginal sub cultures.

I don't think "gender ideology" is popularly associated with rigid gender norms. It's often commonly associated with anyone saying they can be anything they like. The very opposite of strict boundaries.