The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Agender is an acceptable identification

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 436 times Debate No: 80624
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Agender: The state of having no gender. People say this is just as acceptable as having a gender, whether it be male, female, or trans. I say no. It's impossible not to have a gender of any sort! Whether you identify as something or not doesn't mean you really are that thing. If I identify as a table, does that make me a table? Same goes for this.


You forgot the hermaphrodites. Sure, one part works better than the other, but they still have the identities of both male and female. Second, who are you to judge life choices?
Debate Round No. 1


First of all on the subject of hermaphrodites. They have a just reason for identifying as both. They have the 'parts' of both men and women, and it is not the absence of a gender. I'm talking about having no gender, not two.

Second of all, I'm not here to judge people. I'm here to debate. I'm not saying it's WRONG to be agender, I'm saying it's illogical. This is a site to fight opinions, not to hate.


I wasn't hating. Calling actions illogical IS judging. Anyway, while some may choose to be both, many choose neuter. By the, using hermaphrodites as an argument was a bad choice, for a reason I pointed out but that you didn't: one part doesn't work. You also use a strange argument. These people aren't doing the equivalent of identifying as a table, they are merely expressing their inner turmoil, something we, as traditional representations of our sexes, can never understand. Also, why did you post this debate without specifying a gender? Makes it harder to argue...
Debate Round No. 2


Looks like it's time for the closing arguments. Time to make this one count.

You're right, I am judging. But I'm not trying to offend. That's all I have to say about that.

And my argument about the table is something I stand by. Just because I identify as something doesn't make me that thing. If I were to say I was a trigender (which is a real thing) that would be insane. There are two genders. Male and female. You can mix and match them all you want, but there is no more than that. Being trigender would require a third gender, which does not exist. Being agender is just as weird. The things that I identify as agender are just that: things. I would say a robot is agender, not a person. I can't go up to a person and call them an 'it'.

And there is no gender to talk about. Agender is the absence of one. I can't specify a gender if there is none.

And thank you for being in this debate.


Some people are born without reproductive organs. How can they be a gender? These people are born with fused legs, in a condition known as Sirenomelia. They have relatively short life spans. I've used up my bag of arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by InsaneSanity 10 months ago
I'm afraid you are confusing gender with sex. You could say that there is no absence of sex, which I have no idea if it is true or not, but it has been proven that some people can identify as in between male and female, a third gender, opposite gender as their sex, agender, etcetera by science. The brains of all of these people are different in the same way. Also, by saying that "Of course you have a gender" you are essentially telling people that you know them better than they know themselves, which is complete and utter bullcrap.
Your table analogy is ridiculous, we are all humans. And so is transracialism or whatever, because skin colour does not affect your brain, gender (or lack thereof) does.
Hopefully I have educated you enough to know that YOU are not the person to determine whether or not I or ANYBODY ELSE have a gender, and if so what it is. And in the future, try to consider something from a point of view other than your own. I am able to say this because for the longest time I considered trans* people in many different ways, and have come to this conclusion. As such, since I have the sense to know they DO in fact exist, I can now know that I do not have one of these "genders".
Also, does a person's gender or lack of such really matter to you enough to cause some people offense and social dysphoria because you can't see past the box of "male and female" that society has constructed? Consider what matters first, the life choices of other people, before using flawed logic that wouldn't matter even if it was true.
I will debate you on this if you challenge me, because both you and your opponent gave incredibly short answers that couldn't go in depth. :) Thanks for reading this, fellow human!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither of them forfeited any rounds, so they tie for conduct. I understood both of them pretty well, so they tie for spelling and grammar. Pro made the solid argument that some people are born without reproductive organs, making them sexless, which makes it completely logical to identify as agender. Con just stated that just because one identifies as something doesn't mean that one is that thing, but that doesn't mean that all identifications are invalid or illogical. Con falsely assumed that there are 2 genders, when in fact, there are many. Neither of them used any sources, so they tie for reliable sources.
Vote Placed by soccerisfun 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Only con made relevant arguments. Aff just called out Con for being something phobic. I didn't see any real arguments on aff.