#ordinous

Non-axial describes genders that do not have an axis point and cannot be connected to them. It was something I came up with on a whim when thinking about genders that can’t necessarily be grouped into binary or abinary categories. Genders have another layer to them that I want to explore.

Genders that are non-axial cannot be compared to or contrasted with masculine, feminine, or neutral qualities. They exist outside these concepts and cannot be plotted on any sort of “graph” or placed in proximity to other qualities. In comparison, axial genders tend to have external reference points for where they are located along spectra of genders or larger categories (nonbinary, abinary, xenogender, etc.)

Examples of axial genders and qualities:

Masculine is understood in relation to masculinity, and so the masculine quality is axial.

Feminine is understood in relation to femininity, and so the feminine quality is axial.

Androgynous is understood through a relationship between masculinity and femininity, making it an axial quality.

Neutral is often understood through an absence of, contrast with, or disengagement from masculinity and femininity. It is axial because it relies on the existence of masculine and feminine.

Male and female are binary genders, their axis point being the binary (and they themselves are an axis point.)

Androgyne is a combination of male and female (or it can be in between them), and so its axis points are male, female, and the binary as a whole.

Genders like epicene or neutrois are neutral, which relies on the binary to exist in order to be considered something that isn’t binary. The binary acts as the axis point for these genders.

All of the above are axis points that exist within ordinosity, a word that groups together the male, female, masculine, feminine, androgynous, and neutral.

Genders proximal to male, masculine, female, feminine, androgynous, and neutral would also be considered axial, as they exist within proximity to those axis points.

All of these require reference points. They are axial because they exist within a framework of comparison.

The genders below are considered non-axial genders. For the sake of shortening their definitions, the word exordinous will be used (which describes genders that are not male, female, androgynous, or neutral.) Most non-axials fall within this.

Examples of non-axial genders:

Maverique: An exordinous gender that is based on a strong internal sense of gender that is not absent or ambiguous.

Ilyagender: An exordinous gender with a tangible presence of genderedness.

Péragender: An exordinous gender that lacks genderlessness, ambiguity, or confusion.

Kenochoric: A gender that is based on the sensation of kenopsia, felt in spaces that are typically populated but are now devoid of activity.

Vocorian: A gender that is loud, boisterous, vivid, and that makes itself known by taking up space.

Xenogender: A gender based on conventionally ungendered concepts such as aesthetics, emotions, objects, and sensations. These exist beyond the human convention of gender.

Xevetrine genders: Identities that are similar to genders and exist beyond concepts like binary, nonbinary, neutral, and xenogender.

Autonomous genders: Genders that exist as their own identities and are not typically sorted into categories like masculine, feminine, neutral, etc.

Ineffaline genders: Genders that defy categorization.

Agender: A lack of gender identity.

Many outherinities exist as non-axial genders as well as genders that exist simply on their own, like kenochoric and vocorian (which exist in a space that is sometimes considered semi-xenic or xeno-adjacent depending on the individual experience.) Xenogenders and xevetrine genders are non-axial by virtue of beyond the human understanding of gender, and ineffalinities may also fall within this framework as well (since “non-axial” is a descriptor and not a gendered category, and ineffaline genders can’t be categorized.) Autonomous genders are considered non-axial if unaligned and not combinatory, because then they become standalone genders.

Take a look at the graph below for a visual on axial versus non-axial genders:

The center of this diagram shows the binary, existing along an axis line that runs between male and female. You can see androgyne connected to the line in purple, showing that it exists in between or as a combination of male and female. Neutral is shown in green and while it’s not actually connected to the binary line, it has a relationship to it. There is a cyan circle to represent proxvir and a red circle to represent juxera - two genders that exist within proximity to binary genders and can still be found within this graph.

The center model is encased in a rectangle, to show that this entire model is its own self-contained concept. All of the orange circles are genders in 3D space that exist outside this framework, not connected to or related to it in any way. They’re sort of free floating around in space in their own little areas of existence, not bound by any lines or barriers.

Within the rectangle are the axial genders, while the non-axial genders exist outside of it.

How does this differ from simply calling them ordinous and exordinous genders? Take maverique for example. This is an exordinous gender - not man, not woman, not androgynous, and not neutral. On its own, it exists outside of these concepts and does not fall within them, between them, or in proximity to them (which makes it a non-axial gender.) However, if someone is maverivir - both a man and maverique at the same time - it is tied to the axis point of man and may fall within the binary in some way. Maverivir is an axial gender, even though it’s still exordinous.

Demimaverique, demi-ilyagender, demixenogender, and other demigenders might also be considered axial depending on the specific factors that make them demigenders in the first place. For example, someone who is demixenogender may be part xenogender, while the other part might be a binary gender. That other part might instead be neutral, another axial quality. These demigenders on their own, with no ties to an axial identity, would be non-axial instead.

I came up with some terms that I think will help in discussions about gender. I like flags, so these terms got flags, but it was mostly for fun.

Ordinous (left): A word to describe genders that fall within the common, pre-existing qualities of masculine, feminine, androgynous, epicene, and neutral. It also describes genders such as man, woman, androgyne, and neutrois and anything in between them. Ordinosity is the noun form of this word. When we talk about the ordinosity of genders, we're talking about the unifying quality of ordinous genders.

Exordinous (right): A word to describe genders that do not fall within ordinosity. This would include outherinity, maverinity, ilyaginity, xenity, itherinity, périnity, and anything else outside of ordinous genders or qualities. Exordinosity is the noun form. All of the previous examples of exordinous gender qualities have a unifying exordinosity to them.

This is a way to make conversations about gender a little easier. It's wordy to say "Such and such genders exist outside of the pre-existing qualities of masc, fem, neutral, and anything in between." It's much easier to say "These genders exist outside of ordinous qualities."

I'm willing to workshop these but I wanted terms that did not already exist, were easy to remember, and had suffixes that wouldn't be mixed up with gender qualities (such as adding the -ine ending that quality terms have.) I don't want to come up with an in-nature, quality, or spectrum term. These terms are simply meant to make language a bit easier when talking about genders that sit within or outside of convention.

If these terms are generally acceptable and useful, then feel free to use them. Add them to whatever wiki sites are out there. Put them on a Carrd. I think they'd really help.