What are your thoughts on agender people?

[abc567]

Hello mumset, I am brand new here and made an account because I'm curious about how GC women feel about agender people. This is purely for my own understanding as I've read several posts from GC women on this site saying they do not have a gender identity, and I wanted to explore further the reasons why this is.

From my understanding, there are two types of agender people:

1. gender apathetic i.e. people who don't have a gender identity and don't care (gender has no inherent value to them so they do not mind gendered language being applied to them)

2. gender averse i.e. people who don't have a gender identity and actively reject gendered language (they are distressed at the gendered aspect of their lives and are more likely to seek an androgynous appearance)

Do either of these concepts resonate with you, or do you still feel very connected to your female sex despite lacking a gender identity?

For me, it is female full stop. Whether you are a straight, gay or bi woman, you are still female.

Well put nepeta

That still doesn’t make sense to me though, because we have tons of “made up things” we cannot live without. Clothes, shelter, heat sources, tools, medicine,….lose any of these made up/invented things and we die.

And is usefulness limited to only those things essential to life? Objectively the invention of planes, trains and cars are useless by that definition and we can literally walk or push a wheelchair anywhere given enough time. Are only ambulances not made up because they are life essential? My iPad is very useful…even though it’s not saved or preserved my life (yet).

I just do not understand the thought process. I appreciate you trying to explain it though. I suppose I should disclose I am ND, not NT and so that could account for me not seeing how this train of thought goes from A to Z. It seems so random and arbitrary. 🤪

Same here - my sex is female - I’m a woman. I don’t have a “gender identity” or “identify as female”, or for that matter identify as anything “gender”. Agree that so much is narcissistic navel gazing, especially when people demand others affirm their “identity” - or that everyone must frame their language in that way about themselves.

I was a bit of a tomboy growing up, liked my hair short, trainers and jeans not shirts, still remember the awkwardness age 10 at the local roller disco when some lad asked “are you a boy or a girl?”, but that was fine because I was wearing my brother’s hand me down clothes and had shortish hair. But it was the ‘80s so that was fine back then as no-one tried to pigeonhole us girls into hyper feminised boxes, despite not being allowed to play football at school.

If I was growing up now, I dread to think how I might be dragged into all the current nonsense - as it is, I’m a heterosexual (maybe), sometimes feminine, sometimes not, woman - 100% woman, 100% female sex.

Gender is a concept.

I believe in sex. Which is real.

if others chose to believe in gender, that’s fine. But that doesn’t make it real.

Op, as others have said, the term gender has historically meant sex role stereotypes. Not just expected, but imposed.

And they have been used to disadvantage women.

For instance, women were considered too unaware to vote. They were considered too fluffy brained to educate to a professional level. They were not allowed to have their own mortgage, because they are irresponsible with money, or their own bank accounts.

Hell, as late as the early 1980s it was perfectly legal to refuse to serve an unaccompanied woman alcohol in a pub. She wasn't considered responsible enough. Or it was somehow 'inappropriate'.

And until 1992, rape within marriage was perfectly legal. Because let's face it, a woman's role is to provide sex, whether she consents or not.

So, irresponsible with money and alcohol, fluffy brained, not worth educating, doesn't understand governance, and expected to be ornamental and provide sex.

These are sex role stereotypes - gender. And they have been used, historically, to keep women powerless and oppressed.

That's why you will find feminists who call themselves gender critical. Being critical of those expected gender roles is a cornerstone of feminism.

What's the saying? Women are oppressed because of their sex, and gender is the way it's done.

These stereotypes which disadvantage women are clearly not innate. There's not an 'innate gender' that explains women's oppression.

it's imposed, by a sexist society.

And the greatest proponents of that sexist cohort are men who call themselves women, because they are aroused by the fetishisation of women's oppression.

The concept of an innate propensity for stereotyping is highly detrimental to women, and the men who fetishise it so vehemently are the ones driving it.

I don’t have a gender. It’s something that goes on in the mind.

it doesn’t go on in my mind.

This is stupendous Bamboux.

I don't even know how to explain my enjoyment of it!

It's as tho that last line is the final line in the most massive novel of all time, that I've been invested in for weeks and weeks, and finally get to the end.

@Onnabugeisha " we have tons of “made up things” we cannot live without. Clothes, shelter, heat sources, tools, medicine,….lose any of these made up/invented things and we die. "

Have i got news for you!...
You're going to die anyway! Those things only delay the inevitable, they do not guarantee eternal life. Even those people who are young and with those things freely available to them, are not guaranteed to get past today/tomorrow.
Water/food different matter.

Made things - created things. - physically made something imagined real. Something that others can interact with and so understand , observe and measure

Versus

Created - imagined , a mental image unique to the individual , like characters in a book

I think @Onnabugeisha the fact is clothes etc actually exist and people can see them and describe them. Gender identity does not exist, and is a bit like God. No one can see it, or prove that it exists, it causes people who believe in it to do crazy, sometimes violent things and is indefinable.

I think it's narcissistic bullshit (as is non-binary). I don't need to permit myself to avoid makeup, wear comfy clothes and shoes and not be up for sex much by giving my self an "explanatory label". It's who I am. And if you think I should be under some umbrella of "folx" for feeling that way, you can fuck off.

My thoughts on agender people… they need to get out in the fresh air more

OP this may have been said already, I don't have time to read whole thread.

But your question was a bit like saying "Hi people who say they are atheists, what do you think of heretics and infidels?"

Or it reminds me of when religious people describe people like me as "denying God" or "forsaking God" when it's neither. I simply do not believe in God. And as I don't live in a religious state, I am allowed to define my lack of belief from a position that is not from within one of the beliefs.

Gender is the system of regressive stereotypes which harm everyone but particularly oppress women. Gender ideology and religious/ deep conservatism are two sides of the same gender stereotype loving coin. Gender has caused me untold harm. It is traumatic when people forcibly define me in relation to it, whichever side of the gender coin they sit on. I want to do away with gender stereotypes altogether.

Do I believe other people have a gender ID? I believe they believe they do, sure. I accept that belief. Just as I accept Christian, Muslims, Jews etc. I am not compelled to believe in these things too though, unless we live in a religious/ neo religious state.

One more thing to add:

I have no problem referring to Lily Savage (or a pantomime dame) as "she/her" when in drag. I know it's Paul O'Grady and that he is a man.
Equally, I have no problem using they/them if requested by someone who identifies as agender or non-binary. I don't believe in it but I respect that someone else does, same as any religion. But we all still know that biology is real - if someone believes in their religion to the point where it replaces science (e.g. creation versus big bang) then I will quietly just pity them. A trans woman is a man. A trans man is a woman. Biology is science. Gender identity is belief.

Sex simply is a body type, that which is formed around reproductive roles. It was formed without any input from the person that was created as a result of the process.

Sex will continue to be the foundation of human life. Because it is the foundation of animals and most animals require the sex category of male and female to reproduce. And humans are mammals.

Gender is a belief. It is ideological and it is not based on reality, it is based on perception - and is unique and individualised. It is as ‘real’ as a personality is ‘real’. It is observable but lacks substance. And I find it laughable that people can even categorise it when you start analysing it.

Because sex is categorised not only by directly observable body parts of which there is a finite combination, but also the outcomes - Ie. The birth of a new human.

Genders can only be very loosely categorised (as can religions) as for every individual, the interpretation is unique meaning for every person, it is unique. What is the ‘outcome’ of gender if there is one?

Onnabugeisha, getting hung up on the word 'invented', or on iPads, won't get you anywhere.

The word 'invented' can mean 2 very different things.

"I've invented the iPad" means I used scientific principles to design and make an actual, tangible device of a type that didn't previously exist.

"I've invented a new Harry Potter character" means I have imagined a fictional thing in my head.

Gender identity is 'invented' in the latter sense.

Gender is a belief. It is ideological and it is not based on reality, it is based on perception - and is unique and individualised. It is as ‘real’ as a personality is ‘real’. It is observable but lacks substance. And I find it laughable that people can even categorise it when you start analysing it.

The 'genders' which really depress me are those relating to sex. Like the young women who don't want sex until they're emotionally involved with the person and call this a gender (i forget which one).

A perfectly normal, fairly universal attitude is having to be rubber stamped by an ideology in order to give it legitimacy. It's like they need a special certificate to wave around in order to not be expected to provide sex on demand.

Similarly women who want to wear androgynous clothing one day and floral fluff the next. It cant just be sartorial whim, it has to be an internal compulsion needing a label.

Having a personality isn't acceptable. It has to be an 'identity'. Which somehow gives it the authenticity it needs.

It's a weird phenomenon.

Especially when creepy cross dressers use the exact same phenomena to 'authentic' their fetish. And surgeons to 'justify' their unnecessary operations. And men everywhere to stick it to women. And, and, and...

Yep!

I have no problem referring to Lily Savage (or a pantomime dame) as "she/her" when in drag. I know it's Paul O'Grady and that he is a man.

Thats fine when everyone understands. The problem is that referring to men as 'she' as a form of politeness is being used as conformation that we believe and see them as women.

Its also confusing for small children. How can we teach them that eddie izzard should be referred to as she, but to raise alarms when he is with them in a female spaces?

Yes I think that @Onnabugeisha is really pushing it with the iPad.

JFC

Those quotes.

Men legitimising their belief that women are subservient because pretending to be a subservient woman makes their dicks hard.

It's that simple.

And only a patriarchal society would have fallen for what these men said. So here we are.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVo says "Its also confusing for small children. How can we teach them that eddie izzard should be referred to as she, but to raise alarms when he is with them in a female spaces?"

That's where the trampling on boundaries come in.

If Eddie Izzard is she, surely Eddie Izzard is allowed to be with small children in female spaces, and they have no right to raise alarms. Ditto any other man, in case he too is she.

Yes. And these are authors, academics, intellectuals. They have power and influence.

Serrano talks about the 'loss of male privilege' without a hint of self awareness or indeed, irony.

And then you have the 'gender spectrum' being taught to children.

What characteristics would they teach that a boy should possess in order to choose 'barbie'.