Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-99.247.238.117-20150816182822/@comment-1298029-20151026000632

TLDR version below.

You're right that "asexual" isn't the best word for it. I think it's being used because there's "asexual reproduction", which means reproduction without sexual dimorphism (i.e., without having males and females). For example, the budding of yeast. "asexual" as it's currently used is something quite different; as you say, it's usually taken to mean "without sexual orientation". So it's likely a case of people getting the two confused.

But I don't think "agender" is a good description, either. AFAIK, "agender" means "without gender identity" (or possibly "with identity of having no gender"?). Gender identity is a psychological thing. Physiologically, humans can only be male or female (or, in very rare instances of developmental disorder, born with mixed sexual characteristics). An "agender" person will still have the physical characteristics of whatever biological sex they were born with (unless they opt for cosmetic surgery, etc.).

What we're looking for for the Goa'uld's is to say that they have no physical sex, right? In that case, I would most likely go with "sexless" or "no physical sex" as the description. I think the word "gender" is mostly used today to refer to the psychological part of being male/female/whatever, rather than the biological part, which is usually termed "sex", right?

I suppose one could use "genderless" like that wiki you linked to, as well, but for me at least, the word "sex" implies something related to biology, whereas "gender" implies either the psychological part, or the whole biology + psychology complex. Since we want, ultimately, to say "does not have biological male/female distinction but thinks of itself / presents itself as guy/girl" about the Goa'uld's, I would use "sex" for the category we're talking about to make it clear we're talking about the biology part (as the psychology part is covered in the next line with the "male/female personality").

Of course, we'd need to verify somewhere that the regular symbiotes really have no physical sex. But if they're incapable of reproduction (we've only ever seen the queens spawn more Goa'uld), it's practically a given that they don't have a sex. On the other hand, if a normal symbiote can produce offspring with a queen, then these symbiotes would all nominally be male. Is there some sort of official reference?

TLDR version: ''I agree that "asexual" is not the best choice; probably it's there due to confusion with the term "asexual reproduction", which means something else. However, I don't think "agender" is a better choice. AFAIK, "gender" means either the psychological part of sexual identity, or the combination of the biological and the psychological. What we need to say is that the Goa'uld have no biological sex. Which is why I also wouldn't use "genderless" like the wiki you link to. I would use "sexless" or, perhaps better, "no physical sex". The psychological part is then covered in the next line of the table with "male/female personality".''

''Also, we should check in some official resource that the regular non-queen Goa'uld really have no sex. If they can't reproduce, then logically they have no sex. But if they can, in fact, reproduce with a queen (e.g., Heru'ur was said to be the "son of Ra and Hathor", and many Goa'uld took queens), then they would be, biologically, nominally male (regardless of host and psychological identification).''