What is an agnostic?

I learned today that the first agnostic was ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’, Thomas Henry Huxley. He attended the Metaphysical Society, an extremely broad selection of England’s foremost thinkers who gathered in London nine times a year throughout the 1870s to discuss the ultimate questions. He tried all the usual appellations: atheist, theist, pantheist, materialist, idealist, Christian. He found all of them wanting. All the various ‘-ists’, he felt, ‘were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,“-had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insolube.’ Thus, negating the term ‘gnostic’, he coined ‘agnostic’.

Thus for Huxley, as with all the first agnostics, the term did not intend the metaphysical neutrality it’s often taken to mean today. For Huxley, it’s a positive epistemological assertion: sure, I don’t know, but neither do you: the matter is in principle unknowable. ‘Agnostic’ is not a way for Huxley to diplomatically sidestep metaphysical debates without having to take a side, it’s a confrontational view which contradicts the theist, the atheist, and all the rest.

I wonder what people in my life think of this, who have described themselves as ‘agnostic’. Did they mean what Huxley meant, or did they mean something more irenic? Does Huxley’s approach challenge them? Is neutrality really an adequate stance?