[AGTRT-BF95] The microscopy of neutral gender: agender, non-gender, non-binary, pangender, polygender, and omnigender

Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team

In FGT, we see neutral gender as non-male and non-female. The term binary gender, like non-binary, we want to avoid explicitly and implicitly because of its ideological connotations (see AGTRT-3). With that, neutral can be described as “non-male & non-female.”

In FGT, we see neutral as a gender but often read that there would be a spectrum of genders in addition to male and female. The descriptions are further blurred by the fact that in such an ramification, gender and gender identity are no longer distinguished. But the identification of gender and gender identity is a (gender) political position that cannot be seen as irrelevant or insignificant, and which, on the contrary, we do not want to assume in advance.

From FGT, there is a problem here: do we see neutral gender as a family of gender identity? In terms of characterization, this is not entirely convincing. But to see non-gender and agender as a gender, for example, is also unconvincing. Some kind of compromise is needed here, and that is that we see gender as a classification of persons and also as a classification of gender identities. Thereby, a classification mismatch may occur: person P with gender G1 has gender identity GI(P) with classification G2 (different from G1).

We can now formulate some principles:

1. The three genders (male, female and neutral) are classification labels, classification according to those labels may, can, and sometimes must have legal consequences.

2. Man here we read as “positive man” (where positive refers to some form of evidence or indication), woman as “positive woman,” and neutral as “not positive man” and “not positive woman.”

3. This creates space for the modalities (gender identities) “positively not male (but not positively female)” and “positively not female (but not positively male).” These two (so-called non-gender) identities are in category neutral, but both differ again from the (also non-gender) gender identity “positively not male and positively not female.”

4. So that classification in terms of gender (male, female, neutral) applies not only to individuals but also to gender identities.

5. We assume that the gender identity “positive male and positive female” is paradoxical and therefore does not exist.

6. The gender identity “male & female” then has as its classification neutral. We can read this as “not (positively not male) and not (positively not female).” It is questionable whether this gender identity is all prevalent (there is writing about it on Reddit), but conceivable.

7. For now, male is the only described gender identity with gender classification male. But it is clear from the above that it can be considered that “positively not female and not (positively not male)” is given as gender classification male. For example, such a person is physically gender male but nevertheless does not feel very comfortable with male gender identity.

8. Two plausible constraints arise:
   i) If P has male physical gender then P cannot also be positively female.
   ii) If P has female physical gender then P cannot also be positively male.
   
   In essentialism these constraints are stated, in co-essentialism they are rejected, and for MotR positions this is unclear. At this time, we do not know whether or not it makes sense to include these constraints as assumptions in FGT. FGT as we have developed it so far uses three gender identities and may require adjustments when different gender identities (of that gender) are assumed for male and female as well.

9. For now, female is the only described gender identity with gender classification female, but in a symmetrical way, variants are also conceivable here.

10. Classification neutral involves more options of gender identities that fall within it: including
    • Agender,
    • Non-gender,
    • Genderqueer (perhaps disused),
    • And perhaps non-binary can be seen as a gender identity (or group of gender identities) within neutral.

11. There is also room within neutral for further classification refinement:
    • Polygender (combining gender identities with, a total of 2, different gender classifications),
    • Pangender (combining gender identities with, in total, 3 either all available, different gender classifications), and
    • Omnigender (combining all different gender identities).

12. Given the importance of neutral gender, further clarification of the structure of that gender is desirable.

13. One complication that keeps cropping up is the possibility of classification mismatch. Such a mismatch arises, for example, with a person P with female gender identity who is himself male (that is, who has male formal gender).
    
    The claim that this discrepancy between gender and gender identity cannot occur, combined with the claim that a person is aware of their own gender identity (and can determine it for that reason) is called co-essentialism. Added to this is the belief that one’s own gender identity is a “fact” that society should respect.
    
    The assertion that this discrepancy between gender and gender identity cannot occur, combined with the assertion that a person’s own gender identity must conform to one’s own gender (self-determined by physical gender) is called essentialism.

We see here that essentialism and co-essentialism are two diametrically different routes by which the occurrence of classification mismatch can be avoided. And we come to the following assumption: with any MotR version of gender theory (an approach that lies between essentialism and co-essentialism), the occasional occurrence of a classification mismatch cannot be avoided.