Quote Originally Posted by Ifni View Post
On "most people who say 'I'd be ok either way' just haven't thought about it much" - my suspicion is that a pretty large fraction of nominally-cis people actually do not have a strong attachment to their gender. I've seen this discussion play out in a couple of other places, and the result there was that roughly half the group had a strong sense of internal gender and couldn't believe the other half didn't feel anything of the kind, whereas the other half couldn't figure out what the first half was talking about and were disbelieving that so many people felt that way. My working hypothesis is that if you define "agender" to mean just "no sense of an internal gender", then a large fraction of the population (maybe 1/3, maybe 2/3, probably not 99% or 1%) is "agender".
I would be extremely wary of selection bias here. For one thing, a number of the cis people who are really attached to their gender and super committed to the whole "men are born men, women are born women, they're different and changing from one to the other is an abomination" thing. They have a tendency to end up really transphobic, and aren't as likely to show up in a discussion like that, particularly not one that isn't generally hostile. There's also the small matter of how many demands even cis people get to act their gender, the prevalence of terms like "man up" in language, etc - none of which is very consistent with a population where a big fraction just don't care. Heck, consider how mad a number of cis people will get towards being misgendered.