Blog

Non-gendered relations

9/13/2025

An interpretation of androgyny

Recently, I was forwared Susan Sontag's Androgyny Is The Future, an excerpt from a 1972 interview turned essay about the liberation of women (which you can read on Pioneer Works!). One of the captivating statements this essay puts forward is that

"a nonrepressive society, a society in which women are subjectively and objectively the genuine equals of men, will necessarily be an androgynous society."

What is an androgynous society? The essay answers this question in broad terms, but still leaves much open. Is such a society possible? What does it look like? Does it concern the androgynous gender identity, or just the gender expression? Does it involve our relationships? Or does she mean something else.

This article is a continuation of the thought put forward in Androgyny Is The Future. It should not be interpreted as a study of Sontag's work, or a scientific or literary study at all. These are proposed answers to questions I have myself. What I claim is based on credible sources as much as possible, but I don't write in any professional or scientific capacity. I am also very happy to accept feedback or recommendations of further reading.

Still, considering the nature of the topic, I should disclose my own position. I often express myself androgynously, and recognise in myself characteristics of more than one gender (although perhaps everyone can), but ultimately am comfortable with some core aspects of masculinity. The he/him pronouns, the father role, the genitals. I know this doesn't exclude androgyny! But more on that later. I do consider myself a feminist, and agree broadly with Sontag's views. Though not unconditionally with all of them, as could be expected in the case of social-political writings from more than half a century ago. My goals are to think critically and propose new well-founded ideas.

What an androgynous society is not

What is an androgynous society? It is not, as we would perhaps assume at first read, a society in which gender is non-existent, meaningless or completely unrelated to sex. That option is not discussed in the essay. Rather, it is described as one where the sexes are "depolarized" such that "women and men will no longer primarily define each other as potential sexual partners." We are then near the end of the essay, however, and the notion of androgyny is not explored further. Particularly, some more concrete ideas of what androgynous relationships could look like, sexual or nonsexual, are absent.

The idea I would like to take further here, is that androgyny is defined in terms of primary motivations. Androgyny as a gender identity is typically defined as one that has both masculine and feminine characteristics, and as such often being associated with the non-binary gender identity. Perhaps many more people could be considered androgynous than would self-identify as such, depending on what balance point we define it at. However, this too is not what Sontag talks about. This article speaks of men and women, and not of an androgynous gender identity (or any more than two genders, for that matter). Note that the question being answered is "how to depolarise the sexes", so it is those who identify with the gender associated with their biological sex (cisgender) whom Sontag is concerned with.

Potential sexual partners

Let's consider Sontag's idea that androgyny is not seeing others primarily as potential sexual partners. If we reduce otherness, Sontag claims, some of the energy of sexual attraction will decline. This is the primary point in the essay where I depart from her position. Having been involved in queer culture and scenes which I would consider fully sexually liberated (certainly in Sontag's definition), I would actually argue that sexual attraction has a strong tendency to increase there. She was right in suspecting that it will become more diffused, and in fact she correctly expected a decrease in exclusive homo and heterosexuality (which she says is learned) in exchange for "genuine bisexuality", though likely under a different flag and name. I believe this essay grossly underestimates the primacy of sexual attraction, even (or perhaps especially) between bisexual, queer or non-binary persons.

There is another problem with not seeing others as potential sexual partners. Namely that research has shown repeatedly that many of our inclinations towards, judgements of, and willingness to work for and with other people, are based on physical appearance. Some of which have "evolutionary explanations stipulating that the beauty premium results from positive physical appearance signaling better genes and mate selection." (source: Nature) It does not mean that we think of everyone as potential sexual partners. These behaviours can be small, and not everyone has them. But it does suggest they are deep rooted in biology and we cannot, collectively as a species, ditch them and move on.

Primary motivation

The more interesting part to think about is that of primary motivation. Humans have inclinations passed to us from biology, so much is clear, but when given time, we can transcend these too. In particular, we can reflect on our own motivations to much deeper levels than most animals (though I should mention the almost human capacities of chimpanzees, bonobos and other primates here!). Most relationships are still started over spiking hormonal activity, but their deepening through conversations, experienced, marriages and other life decisions goes much beyond it.

What if androgynous relations meant instead, that the primary motivation for a relationship is ungendered? This is not to say we can always know our own primary motivations! This may be buried deep in our subconscious, we can never say for sure. Sex hasn't been necessary for procreation for some time, romantic relationships have an endless history of ignoring gender and sex. Yet we aren't free of the ideal of the nuclear family. Or male dominated executive boards in the professional world. We may not need gender, but we can't ignore it yet. What we can do is follow and solidify our other, non-gendered motivations. Platonic love, trust, kindness. Let me put my philosophy studies to use and recommend some Aristotle here, since his virtues are an attempt to describe what we value in other human beings separate from their biology.

Most of all: it would mean that androgynous relations are something we strive towards. An indefinite goal, rather than a descriptive characteristic. We can't just go out and make them. We have to work on them, as long as they last.

Non-gendered relations

Humans are the first species that consciously separated gender from biological sex. Can we separate gender from our relations as well? Or, at least to the extent that it is not our primary motivation. Such a future seems to coincide with one where the sexes are equal, one like Sontag describes. But is it possible?

Examples exist aplenty to show that it is possible to have relations like this, whether professional, friendly, romantic or sexual. But how realistic is the scenario in which the majority of a society fulfills this definition of androgyny? I believe it is possible, but ultimately it is a question that can only be answered by attempts to create it. Perhaps the more useful question to be asking is: what's holding it back? Varying from culture to culture, we will find different variations of nostalgia, political scapegoating, misinformation and economic incentives that play against gender equality. To describe, question and resist these, is to create an androgynous society.