anon: could you talk a little more about allinity? ive never geard of that concept before but its really fascinating!

viscasi:

Sure, I’d love to!

Allinity identity refers to one’s understanding of themself as a masculine person, a feminine person, or an androgynous person, at their core.

There are two established allinity identity words as of now: Intramasculine (intramasc), referring to people who consider themselves masculine people, and intrafeminine (intrafem), referring to people who consider themselves feminine people. Any person of any gender or sexuality can be intramasculine or intrafeminine (or both, if they experience it fluidly.) In theory, an allinity identity label should also exist for those who consider themselves to be androgynous people, but little conversation about it has occurred thus far.

Intramasculine and intrafeminine are not, on their own, queer identities, in the same way that “man” and “woman” aren’t queer identities on their own. These terms were created to, in general, be used as universal descriptive words rather than queer identity labels– they serve as a way to give language to the phenomenon of people ascribing masculinity or femininity to their core identity– such as how most (mainstraight) straight men would describe themselves as a masculine person when prompted, even without knowledge of the word “allinity.” Most men are intramasculine, so “intramasculine man” isn’t necessarily a queer identity; most women are intrafeminine, so “intrafeminine woman” isn’t necessarily a queer identity.
However, there are people whose allinity identity is different from the one assigned to them– such as intramasculine women, and intrafeminine men. These identities are “metalline” (very freshly proposed term subject to change– explained in this linked post)– that is to say, “allinity identities across from what was assigned.” Metalline identities (such as “intramasc woman” and “intrafem man”) are considered queer identities.

This aspect of one’s identity is generally understood to be independent from their gender identity– for example, any gender can be intramasculine, and that intramasculinity is generally considered to be roughly the same experience across genders. Some people, however, feel that their gender identity informs their allinity identity– for example, women who feel that their intramasculinity is uniquely “womanly” and different from a man’s.

This aspect of one’s identity is usually fixed, i.e. it’s usually a lifelong, consistent experience. However, that’s not true for everyone– some people’s allinity identity is more fluid (in the way that gender can be fluid), or maybe changes depending on circumstance or stage of life.

Allinity identity can be easily confused for gender expression. What’s the difference between them? Allinity identity refers to the internal experience a person has of masculinity or femininity or androgyny– whereas gender expression refers to the external presentation of masculinity or femininity or androgyny; this may be the clothes they wear, the haircut they have, etc.

• Allinity identity is independent from gendered roles and associations, like what clothes you wear or what hobbies and skills you have. (For example: An intramasculine woman is intramasculine regardless of what she’s wearing– wearing a dress, for instance, would not change the fact that she is intramasculine.) Though, it should be noted that sometimes a person’s allinity identity will naturally affect other aspects of their identity, including gender expression. This is why there are some commonly shared experiences between people of the same allinity identity. For example, whether or not someone prefers to have short hair does not necessarily dictate whether they are intramasculine– but, it is also true that most intramasculine people prefer to have short hair, a preference which they usually feel is caused by their desire to communicate/express their intramasculinity.
• Gender expression can be a tool to communicate one’s gender identity and/or allinity identity nonverbally, but it isn’t always used that way by everyone. There are intramasculine people who dress in ways that are considered “feminine,” for example, and there are intrafeminine people who dress in ways that are considered “masculine.”
  Also: it’s important to note that whether certain objects or clothing are considered “masculine” or “feminine” is usually somewhat arbitrary and heavily dependent on culture, which means it often varies in perception from person to person and place to place.

I’ve only recently started tagging for allinity (the term for the concept was coined very recently), but bringing awareness to allinity identity is one of the major purposes of this blog and it’s what I post about most of the time. So, just by scrolling through my blog you can learn more about it.

This IMPORTANT post (linked here) elaborates on all the terminology I use on this blog, and it will give you a more comprehensive rundown of what allinity is, how it works, and how it’s related to other aspects of a person’s identity. Beyond that, I answered an ask (linked here) where I elaborated on allinity and its relationship to the virago identity, and what the general difference is between an intramasc woman and an intrafem woman. I also described what it means to me personally to be intramasculine, and how I figured out it was something separate from my gender expression in this post (linked here). One more post I can think of off the top of my head about this: I break down more thoroughly how I would personally conceptualize who is intramasculine and why in this post (linked here).

If you have any specific questions about allinity that I didn’t cover here, let me know!