Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

misspelling of agenda[edit]

Logically, this word should exist as {{prefix|a|gender}}... but it seems to exist only as an eye dialect spelling / mispelling of "agenda". Hah. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

gender-related definition[edit]

article referencing and defining 'agender'

"Many words have been created today around gender. These include transgender, gender fluid, gender bending, gender blending, trigender, pangender, agender and bigender. [...] The rest of the terms are understood from their prefixes. Thus, bigender denotes two, trigender, three, pangender all, and agender denotes none."

article referencing 'agender'

"Today, the National Center of Transgender Equality estimates that up to three million U. S. citizens regard themselves as transgender, a term referring to those whose gender identities are at odds with their biological sex. The term is an expansive one, however, and may apply to other individuals as well, from the person whose behavior purposely and dramatically diverges from society's traditional male/female roles to the “agender,” “bigender,” or “third gender” person whose self-definition lies outside of the male/female binary altogether."

book with 'agender' in the title

My Agender: personal stories exploring gender and sexuality

EllieMurasaki (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the links! - -sche (discuss) 00:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

Green check.svg

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.


Without gender. Plausible but just not in CFI-attestable use. The term "agender noun" (from the usex) is not found in a Google Books search. Equinox 11:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Since gender isn't an adjective, you shouldn't be able to put a- in front of it to form an adjective. Can anyone think of such a case (a noun prefixed with a- to make an adjective)? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, transgender is a prefix+noun yielding an adjective. And if there are good citations (doubtful) then we should accept agender regardless of its origins. Equinox 12:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Cited. Most of the Usenet hits are intentional/jocular (and, in a few cases, it would seem unintentional) misspellings of agenda. I'm also in agreement with Equinox that the word's origins shouldn't have a bearing on its validity. Maybe prefix + noun is an atypical way to form an adjective, but it's certainly not unprecedented. intersex is another example. Astral (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow! When I wrote on the talk page (a couple weeks before the entry was created), I didn't create the entry because it didn't seem to be attested... but you've found good citations. - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I really do think terms only attested on the Usenet should be labelled {{Internet}}, otherwise I feel like we are withholding relevant information. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I would say the pertinent point is not that the terms are only found CFI-attestably on the Internet (since I'm sure those newsgroup posters would use the terms in speech and writing too), but that they are not found in professionally edited publications — i.e. something like a "nonstandard" or "neologism" gloss is more suitable. Equinox 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Equinox once again. I don't think it would be appropriate to label agender as "Internet" simply because all of the citations we were able to find were from Usenet (for what it's worth, it looks like there's usable hits on Scholar, as well). To me, the "Internet" label is for terms which originated in and are used primarily within the culture of the Internet, things like lulz, fail (as a noun), newb, etc. Astral (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I, too, would label this a {{neologism}} (probably in addition to, rather than as a replacement form, the {{rare}} tag). - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to call the attestations that User:EllieMurasaki just added at Talk:agender as meeting CFI, and the internet usenet citations at this point are well enough established. At this point, I think we can close the RFV and say that it's a good term. --Neskayagawonisgv? 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Also the ones on the citations page are more than adequate, at this point this should have been closed a while ago. --Neskayagawonisgv? 17:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree and have detagged the entry. Thank you to everyone who helped cite the word! - -sche (discuss) 00:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks much! It was brought to my attention on IRC, very glad that this got dealt with as neatly as it did. --Neskayagawonisgv? 00:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


With over a million Google reported hits, perhaps we should remove the rare label--Simplificationalizer (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)