Androgynous/Homosexual Deities?

[Riothamus12]

Though I cannot recall any cases of people historically honouring Jormungandr, I would of been suprised if people did not at some point make an offering to the serpent. Heck it could be argued that given how his fate is tied to Thor's and how much he is mentioned with grudging respect, that every time the stories were told he was indeed being honoured

We know the Jotunn were honoured/worshiped (the cult of Skadi was quite prolific), and even Loki's parents were likely the story remains of older more primal deities ( lightning strike and leaves/needles who together give birth to wildfire).

There is not a single mention of Jormungand in a positive sense that I can recall.

[Rae'ya]

I'm gonna respond to MonSno and Riothamus separately, seeing as they are about two separate points.

First, Riothamus...

I would trust more ancient gnosis before upg. I also think would be wise to avoid the reverence of that which even the ancients saw as the enemy of the holy ones. Until you can dig up something from back then that tells me otherwise, I want nought to do with Apep-Jormungand. I am not the most orthodox and I am highly eclectic, but I think people have a tendency to undervalue older sources. New does not always equal better.

Again I want to bring you back to the idea that not all of the people who work with Northern entities worship the Aesir, are sworn to the Aesir or consider them to be 'the holy ones'. Jormungandr may be considered an enemy of the Aesir, but if the Aesir are not my gods then S/he's not my enemy. Jormungandr is not responsible for any direct attacks against humanity or even animosity. And unlike Fenrir (who yes, is also considered a deity by many NTers and Rokkatru), Jormungandr is not even particularly destructive, chaotic or malign.

I guess I could ask what your definition of 'deity' is, because that may be the deciding factor in whether you accept what I, Ula and OptimisticDiscord are saying. I, and many others, do not define a deity as a being who had a cult dedicated to them in ancient times. My definition of deity is a bit broader and includes those that are revered in recent and modern times as well as those revered in ancient times. The fact is that people revere these entities now, and so that puts them within my definition of deity.

Getting back to the OP's original question, quite aside from deity-status, do you agree that Jormungandr is androgynous?

- - - Updated - - -

And now MonSno...

NO it didn't change their gender status it only changed their ability to father children. They were still male's.

You're confusing gender with biological sex here, MonSno. It's generally accepted now, even in the medical field, that gender is not the same as biological sex.

A castrated male may still be the same biological sex (ie still has XY chromosomes), but is not necessarily the same gender as an entire male. His gender is actually dependent on how he views himself, and how society views him. Gender identity is a lot more complicated than biological sex, and even biological sex is not that simple.

Unfortunatley were not talking about how gender is defined today or the PC desires.

Actually, we're talking about deities and entities who may be considered to be androgynous, genderqueer or homosexual. That is what this thread is about and what the OP asked. As I explained in my previous post, it's the term 'genderqueer' that makes gender identity relevant to this thread. 'Genderqueer' is a modern term and it refers to how gender is defined today. So from that we can assume that how gender is defined today actually is quite relevant to the discussion.

As far as "PC desires" go... well needless to say that this comment is perhaps an indicator of your own personal opinions regarding the issue of sexuality and gender identity.

The gods / goddesses and humanity were male or female and that's it for the most part.

I think the plethora of posts from other people in response to this thread is evidence enough to suggest that deities are certainly not that simple.

I am curious about your use of the word 'were' rather than 'are' though. Exactly how do you perceive the deities, MonSno? Because personally I'm a hard polytheist and I believe that deities are entities who currently exist within the Otherworlds and interact with people in this day and age. I wouldn't personally refer to them in the past tense any more than I would refer to any living being in the past tense.

Again using today's definitions of things trying to make them PC. It's more of the same rose colored glasses thing in trying to make them something.

And again we come back to you using the term 'PC', as well as 'rose colored glasses' in a discussion about gender identity. And seeing as you quoted me talking about what 'genderqueer' involves are you saying that you don't think gender identity or the entire gender spectrum is real?

Do you disagree with my response to the original post, or with my use of commonly accepted definitions about gender identity? Because I'm not entirely clear about what you are actually trying to say here.

Again highly disputable considering her relationship to Orion. the fact Apollo tricks Artemis into killing him because he was getting to close to her suggests there was a relationship. However, once again the PC group tries to ignore anything that doesn't support their position or agenda. Heck even when they conflate her with Diana they change or ignore lore to make their point of her being this anti-male eternal virgin type persona.

Did I say that Artemis never had a relationship with a male identified entity? No, I didn't. Nor did I say that She is anti-male. Needing no man doesn't mean never has sex with a man, is anti-man, or doesn't have any relationships. I didn't say any of those things nor did I imply them. So again, what are you actually disputing here? And how is it relevant to the original post?

NO i'd say once again were dealing with the PC crowd and the pick and choose to make things appear as you want it to be. I can doctor any lore to make any god / goddess fit nay desired agenda I wish to pursue but it doesn't make it correct of actual. I'd also say it is about historical validity of practice and belief regardless of how one wants to change or rewrite history to make it read like they want.

No one is trying to rewrite history or make it read like they want it to. But it seems to me that you are trying to invalidate current thought and knowledge about a subject because it's not supported in a narrow section of 'history'. I fail to see how historical practice invalidates the practices, experiences and knowledge of current, modern people.

And I fail to see how the original question and ensuing discussion are NOT about the deities and archetypes that resonate with people outside of a binary gender framework. The OP asked about androgynous, genderqueer and homosexual deities. I answered with a list of androgynous, genderqueer and bisexual deities. Surely that is exactly within the framework of relevance for the question?

[monsno_leedra]

..You're confusing gender with biological sex here, MonSno. It's generally accepted now, even in the medical field, that gender is not the same as biological sex.

But it doesn't change the fact one is dealing with stories and word usage from a distant past. Trying to take a word, usage or such and apply today's definitions to that word changes the whole content and context of the passage that is being utilized to justify or deny a point of view. The fact something is accepted today as a definition of a word changes nothing in regards to how the period has to be viewed or observed. Were that the case then we better had go back to the roaring 20's for instance and change Gay from being happy and joyful to being homosexual in all applications.

A castrated male may still be the same biological sex (ie still has XY chromosomes), but is not necessarily the same gender as an entire male. His gender is actually dependent on how he views himself, and how society views him. Gender identity is a lot more complicated than biological sex, and even biological sex is not that simple.

It doesn't change the fact that an archaic item which describes the way a person is viewed or seen does not change to match today's usage of a word. The castrated male is still a male and the only change is he is unable to father a child. Though one might argue from the aspect of full or part castration as to what extent he is seen as being manly which is still different than how modern terminology defines the situation.

Actually, we're talking about deities and entities who may be considered to be androgynous, genderqueer or homosexual. That is what this thread is about and what the OP asked. As I explained in my previous post, it's the term 'genderqueer' that makes gender identity relevant to this thread. 'Genderqueer' is a modern term and it refers to how gender is defined today. So from that we can assume that how gender is defined today actually is quite relevant to the discussion.

NO I'd say the argument still revolves about the notion of which definition one is using, today's or the definition of the word and its social implications for the time frame it was written in. I see the definitions being pushed aside to make them fit a perspective not reflective of what that society as a whole though of it. For it is clearly against today's assumptions and standards that one is trying to read the archaic edda's, stories, tales and such and make them fit to support a position.

As far as "PC desires" go... well needless to say that this comment is perhaps an indicator of your own personal opinions regarding the issue of sexuality and gender identity.

Not at all I just despise the rewriting of things to make it fit modern assumptions of how to properly view a thing or make something appear different than what a word actually means against that time frame.

I think the plethora of posts from other people in response to this thread is evidence enough to suggest that deities are certainly not that simple.

Not really all the other postings point to is Un-provable Personal Gnosis about a god / goddess. Usually quickly apparent between those who want to modify things to fit their agenda or perception versus those who read things or try to understand them against the social / political and ethical backdrops of the age they were written in.

I am curious about your use of the word 'were' rather than 'are' though. Exactly how do you perceive the deities, MonSno? Because personally I'm a hard polytheist and I believe that deities are entities who currently exist within the Otherworlds and interact with people in this day and age. I wouldn't personally refer to them in the past tense any more than I would refer to any living being in the past tense.

I perceive them as eternal and not vacillating between eras of history. Humanity is the vacillating force which changes what words mean or actions would suggest. Seeking to find something to support or justifying a current social change or agenda. The gods / goddesses are still just as fickle and demanding today as they were in the archaic period regardless of which pantheon one is dealing with. The only difference I really see is UPG has almost become an assumed "Truth" that is expected to be accepted because someone changed a perception of a word and its meanings.

And again we come back to you using the term 'PC', as well as 'rose colored glasses' in a discussion about gender identity. And seeing as you quoted me talking about what 'genderqueer' involves are you saying that you don't think gender identity or the entire gender spectrum is real?

It doesn't apply when appraising it against a time frame or accounts from those time frames when it was not a recognized factor. That a person acted as a contrary was more aimed at what it suggested or viewed against the social and cultural norms of that day. A contrary action in archaic Greece, Rome, Iceland, etc did not suggest the same things we assume it to mean today.

By the logic your presenting I would be correct to assume anything because I can change a perspective to reflect that and claim it is derived from a current perspective of what a thing means.

Do you disagree with my response to the original post, or with my use of commonly accepted definitions about gender identity? Because I'm not entirely clear about what you are actually trying to say here.

I disagree with the usage and assumption that how a word or concept is defined today is reflective of how a recorded action from antiquity is to be understood. That perspective and usage is one reason the usage of the word "Rape" is so hosed up as to what its usage implied to any archaic society. Yet all that UPG and today's usage is used to paint a picture of an individual being taken sexually against their will. At worse it implies our ancestors who lived, breathed and died by thier gods / goddesses didn't know them as well as those of today who claim to have rediscovered them and know them better.

Did I say that Artemis never had a relationship with a male identified entity? No, I didn't. Nor did I say that She is anti-male. Needing no man doesn't mean never has sex with a man, is anti-man, or doesn't have any relationships. I didn't say any of those things nor did I imply them. So again, what are you actually disputing here? And how is it relevant to the original post?

You wrote :

Artemis was Virgin (in the needs-no-man sense, not the never-had-sex sense), which puts Her into a genderqueer category. Even though She seems very binary-female in her associations and duties, She shuns the need for a man in Her life, is self reliant and self sufficient, and fulfills the role of protector for women and young maids. Many lesbian, butch, and feminist women consider her a patroness, and that draws her into the genderqueer deity category in much the same way that Athena is drawn in.

All the suggestion of your statement of shunning the need for a man or her position of self reliant and self sufficient implies the same old tired arguments used since the 70's to support the feminist perspective. An assumption that seldom if ever is supported by the literature that survives unless one doctor's it to match. No where is she seen as a protector of women but a protector of the young. Yet the assumption of a protector of women keeps being pushed when reality wise her role and perspective in nearly every item of lore is that of the unbridled girl who has not taken her place in society. One who revels in her freedom but recognizes the place of those social customs and the stability of the times it provided. Nothing says or suggests she doesn't acknowledge or need a man, the story of Orion very much suggests a male counterpart to her and a social relationship that is seen as something threatening by Apollo and potentially points to Artemis passing from the tomboyish pre-pubescent girl to a women in that society. Something that potentially would change her position within the Olympian pantheon, perhaps equating her then to Hera and her ability to bath in a pool and get her virginity back every night. Then when one expands it even further afield to her fertility and fecundity role a male presence is always assumed to be present in order for the rotation of the growing and birthing wheel to take affect / effect.

Yet it seems most of those groups who view her as a patroness rely heavily upon the story of Actaeon and his being torn apart by his dogs after being transformed into a stag. But then what is the actual purpose of the story, Proper bearing and respect or vengeance against a perceived transgression? It's hard to tell unless one tries to view it against the cultural backdrop of that era. I'd say proper respect and bearing considering the tale would be repeated again in a temple of Diana in Rome where a man was torn apart by dogs for raping a women who came to pray to Diana in her temple. A temple that there after would be avoided by men though again it's difficult to say if it was because of fear of what happened or disgust for how a man had transgressed against both the goddess and his role in society.

So a story is created and expected to be accepted because a group modified history to make it support or defend their position. BUt having a group take such a stance does not make the god / goddess in question what they need it to be to justify their position.

No one is trying to rewrite history or make it read like they want it to. But it seems to me that you are trying to invalidate current thought and knowledge about a subject because it's not supported in a narrow section of 'history'. I fail to see how historical practice invalidates the practices, experiences and knowledge of current, modern people.

When history is changed to suggest or support a differing conclusion then it needs to be resisted. When it is taken out of context to what it means or was suggestive of to the people who recorded it then it is not evolving it's simply being reworded, potentially even greatly changing its social / cultural meaning to support their agenda. It definitely is an example of picking and choosing only the parts that support ones agenda.

And I fail to see how the original question and ensuing discussion are NOT about the deities and archetypes that resonate with people outside of a binary gender framework. The OP asked about androgynous, genderqueer and homosexual deities. I answered with a list of androgynous, genderqueer and bisexual deities. Surely that is exactly within the framework of relevance for the question?

And you answered based upon your usage of modern terminology to redefine what others wrote years or centuries ago to make them appear as such. I answered based upon trying to know how the stories and such were utilized by those people and how they defined a word not how a word is defined by today's usage. But like I said anyone can make any account match their position or agenda whether the actual record suggests such or not.

[Rae'ya]

But it doesn't change the fact one is dealing with stories and word usage from a distant past. Trying to take a word, usage or such and apply today's definitions to that word changes the whole content and context of the passage that is being utilized to justify or deny a point of view. The fact something is accepted today as a definition of a word changes nothing in regards to how the period has to be viewed or observed. Were that the case then we better had go back to the roaring 20's for instance and change Gay from being happy and joyful to being homosexual in all applications.

You seen to be caught up in the notion that we're talking about a historical context here, which we aren't. The OP asked "Are there any androgynous, genderqueer or homosexual gods or goddesses?". The OP did NOT ask about historical accounts or historical thoughts and word usages. We are not viewing or observing a period of history, which makes your entire argument on this particular point irrelevant.

And quite aside from that, no one is taking a word or usage of a word and changing it's definition. The fact that you keep inferring that people are doing that despite me pointing out that no one has done so is counterproductive to the discussion.

It doesn't change the fact that an archaic item which describes the way a person is viewed or seen does not change to match today's usage of a word. The castrated male is still a male and the only change is he is unable to father a child. Though one might argue from the aspect of full or part castration as to what extent he is seen as being manly which is still different than how modern terminology defines the situation.

Again, we are not talking about the historical usage of terms, nor are we changing anything to match today's usage of terms. Frankly I'm already getting tired of repeating myself of this point and yet from your responses I see I'm going to have to continue repeating myself.

The Ancient Greeks saw Dionysus as a castrated male. I'm not disputing that. However, many modern people see the potential of a castrated male to self identify as something different to binary male. Therefore many modern people consider a castrated male to be genderqueer. That does not change the Ancient Greek usage of the term. It does not change the context of the situation. It does not mean that we are somehow trying to change history and rewrite the stories to suit ourselves. It means that we have new information which broadens our understanding of a past event.

The Ancient Greeks thought the world was flat. Are you also going to argue that the fact we have proved the world is round is just us being PC and changing historical views to support our own theories?

NO I'd say the argument still revolves about the notion of which definition one is using, today's or the definition of the word and its social implications for the time frame it was written in. I see the definitions being pushed aside to make them fit a perspective not reflective of what that society as a whole though of it. For it is clearly against today's assumptions and standards that one is trying to read the archaic edda's, stories, tales and such and make them fit to support a position.

How can the argument revolve around the notion of which definition one is using when the Ancient Greeks didn't have the term 'genderqueer'. There is only one definition of that word... the modern one. The time frame in which that word has been used is now.

Not really all the other postings point to is Un-provable Personal Gnosis about a god / goddess.

Oh really? So now you are asserting that every poster in this thread is posting un-provable personal gnosis about deities?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that this is an unfair and ungrounded generalisation. A lot of people have posted in this thread. And a lot of people have made suggestions about deities that are well grounded in the documented mythology. Every single person who has posted a deity name in this thread has made a valid answer to the OP's original question. To suggest otherwise is, in itself, ungrounded.

I perceive them as eternal and not vacillating between eras of history. Humanity is the vacillating force which changes what words mean or actions would suggest. Seeking to find something to support or justifying a current social change or agenda. The gods / goddesses are still just as fickle and demanding today as they were in the archaic period regardless of which pantheon one is dealing with.

Then by your own definition deities are not confined to the writings of a single, relatively short period in history.

You've contradicted yourself here, MonSno. In one breath you say that deities do not vacillate, yet in another you call them fickle. Poor choice of words, perhaps.

Are you saying that deities so static and unchanging that they are unable to evolve with the changing human condition? That they are unable to present to humans now in any form that is not exactly what it was a thousand years ago? That they are limited by the writings of a single narrow band of time and social context? That no other experience of them is or will ever be valid, because that's not what they thought in archaic times?

The only difference I really see is UPG has almost become an assumed "Truth" that is expected to be accepted because someone changed a perception of a word and its meanings.

Everything that has ever been written down about a deity started as UPG. Someone had an experience, then someone else had a similar experience. They got together, discovered that a third person's experience supported theirs and so on and so on until one of them decided to write it down. How is that different to the hundreds of people who are having experiences today which are supported by the experiences of those around them?

It doesn't apply when appraising it against a time frame or accounts from those time frames when it was not a recognized factor. That a person acted as a contrary was more aimed at what it suggested or viewed against the social and cultural norms of that day. A contrary action in archaic Greece, Rome, Iceland, etc did not suggest the same things we assume it to mean today.

Sigh. We are not appraising anything against a time frame aside from our own. And the term 'genderqueer' did not exist in archaic times. So what is your argument exactly?

And you didn't answer my question. So I'll ask it again. Seeing as you quoted me talking about what 'genderqueer' involves are you saying that you don't think gender identity or the entire gender spectrum is real?

Your answer will provide valuable context to your responses and bring the discussion back on topic. Because right now all you are doing is arguing in circles about the semantics of word usage context, which means nothing in relation to the discussion at hand.

I disagree with the usage and assumption that how a word or concept is defined today is reflective of how a recorded action from antiquity is to be understood. That perspective and usage is one reason the usage of the word "Rape" is so hosed up as to what its usage implied to any archaic society. Yet all that UPG and today's usage is used to paint a picture of an individual being taken sexually against their will. At worse it implies our ancestors who lived, breathed and died by thier gods / goddesses didn't know them as well as those of today who claim to have rediscovered them and know them better.

We're not talking about a recorded action from antiquity. You keep trying to bring the discussion back to this single, irrelevant point. Why?

Yet the assumption of a protector of women keeps being pushed when reality wise her role and perspective in nearly every item of lore is that of the unbridled girl who has not taken her place in society.

So NOW you are suggesting that Artemis is a deity who does not live within the accepted societal gender role. Well then, that's quite different from your earlier comments regarding her status as a potentially genderqueer deity.

... potentially points to Artemis passing from the tomboyish pre-pubescent girl to a women in that society. Something that potentially would change her position within the Olympian pantheon, perhaps equating her then to Hera and her ability to bath in a pool and get her virginity back every night.

And here you've just contradicted yourself again by stating that Artemis' role potentially changed from one thing to another. Could this possibly be an example of her "vacillating between eras of history?"

So which is it, MonSno? Because now I'm getting a bit confused as to whether you do think that Artemis fits the criteria of the OP's question or whether you don't.

When history is changed to suggest or support a differing conclusion then it needs to be resisted. When it is taken out of context to what it means or was suggestive of to the people who recorded it then it is not evolving it's simply being reworded, potentially even greatly changing its social / cultural meaning to support their agenda. It definitely is an example of picking and choosing only the parts that support ones agenda.

And again you have not actually answered my comments, only repeated ad nauseum your theory that we are all trying to change history to suit our own purposes, while ignoring any discussion to the contrary. That is not particularly relevant nor remotely constructive. If your really want to continue down this line of thinking you're going to have to come up with a better retort, because this one is not cutting it.

[monsno_leedra]

You seen to be caught up in the notion that we're talking about a historical context here, which we aren't..

You know you are right in that this is a useless discussion. I do not take modern words and then look back and try to layer them upon archaic writing in the hopes of saying this is what they really mean. As such none of these terms pertain to the discussion of the ancient gods / goddesses and the understanding we have of them that is derived from the writings of those ancient peoples.

To me this argument has descended into the _____ Child category in that the criteria used to claim such simply gets wider and wider to encompass more and more while ignoring the historical perspective of those people. The actual archaic words used by them are ignored in the hopes some group today can imply what they mean with the new definations of what those people were actually trying to say and how modern people can say it so much better than them.

So no need to continue with this discussion from my perspective. Take all your new definitions and place them upon the old writings and claim you know what they were actually talking about. Like all data sets the results are always schewed to support the desired end result and anything that opposes that is seen as an attack or prejudice against it because it doesn't match the position being proposed.

Sure Loki changed into a Mare because he was whatever best suits your position. Whether it be homosexual, androgynous, bi-sexual, gender neutral or whatever I'm sure you can change the definitions or UPG enough to support it.

[Ula]

Sure Loki changed into a Mare because he was whatever best suits your position. Whether it be homosexual, androgynous, bi-sexual, gender neutral or whatever I'm sure you can change the definitions or UPG enough to support it.

This particular story is not UPG it's from chapter 42 of the Prose Edda book Gylfaginning. Understand you don't like the position she's taken but no reason to rude about it. The conversation should and can be civil.

[Rick]

This conversation hasn't been civil in about a page and a half.

[Riothamus12]

I'm gonna respond to MonSno and Riothamus separately, seeing as they are about two separate points.

First, Riothamus...



Again I want to bring you back to the idea that not all of the people who work with Northern entities worship the Aesir, are sworn to the Aesir or consider them to be 'the holy ones'. Jormungandr may be considered an enemy of the Aesir, but if the Aesir are not my gods then S/he's not my enemy. Jormungandr is not responsible for any direct attacks against humanity or even animosity. And unlike Fenrir (who yes, is also considered a deity by many NTers and Rokkatru), Jormungandr is not even particularly destructive, chaotic or malign.

I guess I could ask what your definition of 'deity' is, because that may be the deciding factor in whether you accept what I, Ula and OptimisticDiscord are saying. I, and many others, do not define a deity as a being who had a cult dedicated to them in ancient times. My definition of deity is a bit broader and includes those that are revered in recent and modern times as well as those revered in ancient times. The fact is that people revere these entities now, and so that puts them within my definition of deity.

Getting back to the OP's original question, quite aside from deity-status, do you agree that Jormungandr is androgynous?

- - - Updated - - -

And now MonSno...



You're confusing gender with biological sex here, MonSno. It's generally accepted now, even in the medical field, that gender is not the same as biological sex.

A castrated male may still be the same biological sex (ie still has XY chromosomes), but is not necessarily the same gender as an entire male. His gender is actually dependent on how he views himself, and how society views him. Gender identity is a lot more complicated than biological sex, and even biological sex is not that simple.



Actually, we're talking about deities and entities who may be considered to be androgynous, genderqueer or homosexual. That is what this thread is about and what the OP asked. As I explained in my previous post, it's the term 'genderqueer' that makes gender identity relevant to this thread. 'Genderqueer' is a modern term and it refers to how gender is defined today. So from that we can assume that how gender is defined today actually is quite relevant to the discussion.

As far as "PC desires" go... well needless to say that this comment is perhaps an indicator of your own personal opinions regarding the issue of sexuality and gender identity.



I think the plethora of posts from other people in response to this thread is evidence enough to suggest that deities are certainly not that simple.

I am curious about your use of the word 'were' rather than 'are' though. Exactly how do you perceive the deities, MonSno? Because personally I'm a hard polytheist and I believe that deities are entities who currently exist within the Otherworlds and interact with people in this day and age. I wouldn't personally refer to them in the past tense any more than I would refer to any living being in the past tense.



And again we come back to you using the term 'PC', as well as 'rose colored glasses' in a discussion about gender identity. And seeing as you quoted me talking about what 'genderqueer' involves are you saying that you don't think gender identity or the entire gender spectrum is real?

Do you disagree with my response to the original post, or with my use of commonly accepted definitions about gender identity? Because I'm not entirely clear about what you are actually trying to say here.



Did I say that Artemis never had a relationship with a male identified entity? No, I didn't. Nor did I say that She is anti-male. Needing no man doesn't mean never has sex with a man, is anti-man, or doesn't have any relationships. I didn't say any of those things nor did I imply them. So again, what are you actually disputing here? And how is it relevant to the original post?



No one is trying to rewrite history or make it read like they want it to. But it seems to me that you are trying to invalidate current thought and knowledge about a subject because it's not supported in a narrow section of 'history'. I fail to see how historical practice invalidates the practices, experiences and knowledge of current, modern people.

And I fail to see how the original question and ensuing discussion are NOT about the deities and archetypes that resonate with people outside of a binary gender framework. The OP asked about androgynous, genderqueer and homosexual deities. I answered with a list of androgynous, genderqueer and bisexual deities. Surely that is exactly within the framework of relevance for the question?

Reverence alone does not make something a deity. They have existed long before the souls of mortals entered into bodies of flesh, they have never not existed, nor will they ever cease to be. Being deities is their nature. They were not "made" Gods and Goddesses. No one can make something a true deity except perhaps the holy ones themselves. Jormungand is the enemy of one of them, he is an enemy of the sacred balance, of harmony itself. The enemy of the Gods is also the enemy of the human race and all life. The Aesir are but a few among the ranks of the holiest of holies and I stand with them as I do with all others in this world and the next.

Also I think, in all sources I can remember, that Jormungand is referred to as "he". Of course, the gender of Jormungand has not been a great concern to me, so who knows?

[Ula]

This conversation hasn't been civil in about a page and a half.

Yes it has. I don't think anyone until that post has stated what they thought in rude way.

[Raphaeline]

Has anyone said Dionysos? Because Dionysos.
I have a toddler in my lap that's trying to help me type, just wanted to be sure it's been said.

I shall be back.