GENDER: A Primer

Transgender describes a number of non-normative gender identities and expressions that share a
gender experience that does not conform to societal expectations of gender as binary and
unchangeable and dictated by one’s assigned sex at birth. Transgender as a term is often contrasted
with the term cisgender, which describes an individual whose gender identity is fixed and aligned
conventionally with their assigned sex at birth. In other words, people who identify as a boy and man
(gender) and as male (sex at birth) or as a girl or woman (gender) and female (sex at birth) are
cisgender. Truly understanding Trans identity requires a thorough understanding of related but
different concepts: biological sex, assigned sex at birth, gender essentialism, and the Western
model’s gender binary.

Biological Sex and Intersex

Biological sex, which is believed to be innate and unchangeable, is also assumed to be binary and
mutually exclusive, meaning a person must be either male or female and cannot be neither or both.
However closer scrutiny of the idea reveals a lack of consensus from the scientific community on just
what exactly constitutes a male or female. If it is genitalia, then castrated males would hypothetically
become sexless; if it is chromosomes, individuals who are born with XXY chromosomes theoretically
could not be sex categorized; if it is reproductive ability, individuals who have had a hysterectomy
hypothetically would no longer be females; if it is hormone levels, then a great number of those who
consider themselves females must hypothetically be male—as many females have higher levels of
testosterone than males. So many exceptions exist to whatever rules constructed to define biological
sex that we can reasonably conclude that no universal definition is readily available (Herdt 1994). In
1955, a series of studies done at John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, on intersex
individuals—individuals whose genitalia, physiology, or other characteristics do not match up with
binary notions of “biological sex”—led to the conclusion that sex was a label that could be
(re)assigned. John Money and his colleagues concluded sex needed to be assigned as either male or
female in an effort to maximize the baby’s ability to properly function in society, focusing on
reproductive ability and overall psychological well-being (Money, Hampson, and Hampson 1955).
Existing paradigms in the medical community strongly shaped the prioritization of these goals, and
continue to set the standards by which sex is still assigned today.
That John Money and his colleagues prioritized reproductive ability as a key aspect of societal
functioning is no coincidence. Reproduction as a societal good emerged in no small part due to
perceptions of reproduction as a biological mandate, an ideal promulgated by Charles Darwin.
Darwin, in his examination of reproduction in animal species, theorized that the purpose of sexual
dimorphism—the differentiation of “males” and “females” of a species—is procreation, and that
genitalia were the primary means by which this reproduction takes place. Darwin advocated strongly
for the idea that humans too are sexually dimorphic, fundamentally and biologically organized into
“male” and “female,” with differentiated genitalia evolved for the purpose of reproduction. This
seemingly elegant solution took hold in the scientific community, and sexual dimorphism has been the
norm since Darwin’s time. As a result, biological or physiological variation has been viewed as an
“abnormality” or “disorder,” contraception became an impediment to the natural outcome of sexual
inter course, and same-sex intimate partnerships become vilified as flouting the “essential” order of
the biological world.
Intersex people may vary on the number or type of sex chromosomes, number of ovaries or testicles,
estrogen or testosterone levels, internal reproductive anatomy, and/or external genitalia. However, of
all these potential sites of variation, only two are relied upon for sex assignment: reproductive
anatomy and external genitalia. Fausto-Sterling, in Sexing the Body (2000), describes the guidelines
for sex assignment, which state that “genetic females should always be raised as females, preserving
reproductive potential . . . in the genetic male, however, the gender of assignment is based on the
infant’s anatomy, predominantly the size of the phallus” (57). Babies born with an organ deemed too
small to ever be able to adequately penetrate as a penis are often assigned to be females through a
complex series of procedures often involving surgery, hormone monitoring and treatments, and a
mixture of therapy and “psychosocial” rearing of the child. The underlying assumption is almost
always that an individual’s happiness and ability to function in society depends on there being an
unambiguous match between genitalia, sex, and gender, and that “corrective” treatments are always
in the individual’s best interests—even when the individual in question is scarcely a day out of the
womb and unable to consent (Dreger 1998). Colloquial usage of the term “sex” often makes no
mention of it as an assigned characteristic at birth and rarely acknowledges the border between male
and female as socially constructed. Most often, “sex” is used as shorthand for the term sex category:
a descriptor for either of two perceived preexisting groups, male and female. Sex categorization, or
the assignment of an individual into a sex category, is an automatic activity that people take part in
upon interaction (Blair and Banaji 1996; Brewer and Lui 1989; Stangor et al. 1992). People often rely
on other’s secondary sex characteristics, including presence of breasts, facial hair, voice pitch, size of
hands and feet, hip-to-waist ratio, and muscle mass, as well as their gender expression, including hair
style, style of dress, and mannerisms, as cues when engaging in sex categorization. The factors that
cause us to categorize each other as “male” or “female” are not solely attributes of biological sex, but
also expression of gender, which then lead us to make assumptions about genitalia, assigned sex at
birth, and gender identity. If we run into a stranger whom we sex categorize as female, we assume
that this individual has a vulva and uterus, has XX chromosomes, identifies as a woman, and uses
she/her pronouns. If we run into a stranger whom we sex categorize as male, we assume that this
person has a penis and two testicles, has XY chromosomes, identifies as a man, and uses he/him
pronouns.
Gender and Transgender
Ridgeway and Correll (2004) describe gender as an “institutionalized system of social practices for
constituting people as two significant different categories, men and women, and organizing social
relations of inequality on the basis of that difference” (510). In other words, the gender binary is
created and recreated on every level of society, from how children are taught gendered behavior and
recreate it to how larger communities, organizations, and societal institutions reproduce and reinforce
the separation of man and woman. Individuals are raised with the understanding that men and
women correspond not only to penises and vulvas, but also to blue and pink, and assertiveness and
passivity, tuxedos and dresses. From our first moments in this world as children, the system of
gender is placed onto us—in this way, we can think of not only sex but gender as something that is
assigned at birth. Gendered differences are taught and reproduced through a complex and enduring
system of gender socialization and behavioral policing at the interactional level and pressure from
institutions in society, including the family, scientific-medical community, education system, and
media. Gender identity describes an individual’s subjective understanding of their own gender
experience constructed into a self-identity. Gender identity refers not only to the gender label people
assign themselves, but also to each person’s understanding of what that label means. In this way, it is
possible for two individuals with the same gender identity to have very different conceptualizations of
the meanings of that identity Our society is constructed with strong cultural tendencies to assume that
gender identity is binary and always corresponds to assigned sex at birth. In other words, babies who
are assigned a male sex at birth are assumed to grow to identify as a boy and then later as a man.
Babies who are assigned a female sex at birth are assumed to grow to identify as a girl and later as a
woman. Everyone is assumed to be cisgender—to identify as the sex and gender they were assigned
at birth. Socially defined feminine or masculine characteristics, mannerisms, items, and occupations
exist separately from an individual’s self-identity. In fact, although society constantly glorifies the
hyper masculine man—agentic, dominant, strong, intelligent, conventionally attractive, heterosexual,
and virile,—and the hyper feminine women— communal, dependent, docile, alluring, conventionally
attractive, heterosexual, and fertile—the vast majority of individuals in society fail to meet these
prototypical definitions. Gender identity is constructed often in acknowledgment of gender
expectations, but almost never fully conforms to prescriptive stereotypes. The idea that gender
identity exists independent of assigned sex and gender at birth is prominent in most trans individuals’
conception of self-identity. That is, trans men often identify as men and trans women often identify as
women regardless of their assigned sex at birth. Because gender identity is not solely inherent,
individual gender identity must also be affirmed in interactions with others. Its legitimacy is
necessarily affected by social perception. In other words, an AFAB man must have his identity as a
man validated by the world around him in order for that identity to hold social legitimacy. For trans
people, this societal legitimation of their gender identity is often of high importance. For this reason,
while Ridgeway and Correll define “gender” as “almost always a background identity ... [which]
operates as an implicit, cultural/cognitive presence that colors people’s activities in varying degrees
but that is rarely the ostensible focus of what is going on in the situation” (2004: 516), we argue that
trans people often interact with gender identity in the foreground of their consciousness. In order to
have their gender identity recognized and validated by society, individuals often must have a gender
expression that matches their gender identity. This gender expression is often a means by which
individuals “do gender,” a concept that West and Zimmerman originally describe in their seminal
piece by the same name published in 1987 as “a situated doing . . . an emergent feature of social
situations: both as an outcome of and a rationale for various social arrangements and as a means of
legitimating one of most fundamental divisions of society” (1987: 126). Gender expression is more
than an action made to satisfy personal identity; it is a bridge between the self and society, a way of
performing a personal identity for the outside world. Gender expression is a means by which gender
can be displayed and performed—dresses, makeup, and crossed legs are all forms of gender
expression that perform femininity; business suits, facial hair, and expansive body posture are all
forms of gender expression that perform masculinity. Gender expression is not limited to outward
displays like clothing or behavioral mannerisms. Physical characteristics such as shoulder and
ribcage width, facial bone structure, and size of hands and feet, along with secondary sex
characteristics, including breast shape and facial hair, also carry gendered associations. While many
of these characteristics are not “performed” in the same way that gendered behavioral mannerisms
are, there are many ways to alter these physical expressions of gender. Makeup can be used for
facial contouring to give the appearance of more masculine or feminine bone structure; padding can
be used to simulate more feminine breasts and hips; chest binders can be used to compress breasts
to give the appearance of a flat chest. Surgeries are also options for modifying these physical
characteristics, giving individuals more control over their expression of gender. Transitioning can be
described as a series of steps a person can take toward a more genuine gender identity or
expression. This can describe an internal transition, focused on internal changes to gender identity, a
social transition, focused on changing outside perceptions of gender identity, or a physical transition,
focused on changes to physiology or gender expression. The interaction between gender identity,
gender expression, and gendered expectations demonstrates the highly variable nature of trans
identity. Gendered expectations act on both gender identity and gender expression by establishing a
baseline for self-identification and personal construction of an authentic gender expression. At the
heart of this interaction is the concept that identity and expression are determined by the self—an
individual who self-identifies as a woman may in fact reject societal beliefs concerning womanhood;
an individual who describes their gender expression as feminine may in fact reject societal beliefs
concerning femininity. It is the act of existing in a social world, however, that necessitates doing
gender in order to legitimate self-identity. Those clashing intersections of self-identity and outside
labeling—for example, an individual who self-identifies as a man who is labeled by others to be a
woman—embody the difficulties many trans people face on a daily basis.

Passing
Passing is used to describe the successful categorization during interpersonal interaction of a trans
individual into a normative gender group, usually accomplished through intentionally shaping a
gender expression conducive to the desired sex categorization. A trans person who passes as a
cisgender woman would be perceived as a woman on the basis of characteristics like voice, hair,
clothing, verbal and behavioral mannerisms, and accessories. Passing often draws not only on
societal ideas about what it means to be a man or a woman, but also intersects with societal ideas
about race and age. For example, passing as a young black man involves a different set of
categorical rules compared to passing as an older, white man. In many trans communities, passing is
a goal: being perceived and treated as a cisgender man or woman is for many people the primary
motivation to modify gender expression, and for some the primary motivation to transition. Passing is
an either/or designation; an individual either passes or doesn’t. Trans communities, particularly
communities of trans women and trans femmes, have developed an extensive lexicon to describe the
many outcomes associated with passing. Trans people who do not pass are said to be read or
clocked as trans and are often mis-gendered, or referred to with the incorrect language or gender
pronouns. Calling a trans woman a “man,” referring to her as “manly,” and using the pronoun “he” are
all examples of mis-gendering. Perhaps in recognition of the difficulties that non-passing trans people
experience, many trans communities that utilize the language of passing, reading, and clocking also
engage in community efforts to critique, comment on, or offer tips to trans people who do not pass,
with the intent of helping them do so. While many trans people make significant efforts to pass to
lower their discomfort with their appearances, bodies, or gender presentations, there is also
significant motivation from society to pass. Being perceived as gender-nonconforming may negatively
affect interpersonal relations, intimate pursuits, and workplace experiences. For this reason, some
trans people who are able to pass as cisgender often choose to hide their trans identities and history
—go stealth—in order to avoid the discrimination and prejudice experienced by non-passing trans
people. Stealth often refers to intentional efforts on the part of a trans person to pass as cisgender,
and be perceived, treated, and interacted with accordingly. While stealth tends to refer to a specific
environment or situation in which a trans identity is hidden or not made salient, deep stealth describes
a situation in which an individual is stealth to virtually every person they know within all conceivable
domains in their life. Often, these individuals have taken significant social and medical efforts to pass
successfully and seek to blend back into society, no longer seen as trans. While going stealth or deep
stealth may lead to significant improvements in quality of life, trans people, especially those in deep
stealth, often experience fatigue from constantly working to maintain their stealth status (Meyer
2003). Hiding a past trans identity requires significant amounts of physical work, including dealing
with the governmental bureaucracy in an effort to modify all identifying documents as well as the
cognitive energy expended in the careful monitoring of gendered behaviors, actions, and activities.
Concealing a stigmatized identity causes notable psychological distress, and is linked with worse
health outcomes in the long term (Quinn and Chaudoir 2009). Up to this point, we have explained
concepts in relation to communities trans men and trans women. However, trans experiences are
often far more complicated than AMAB people identifying as women and AFAB people identifying as
men. While many people who identify as trans do choose to identify as a man or a woman, others
identify with a variety of non-binary gender identities.
Non-binary
Nonbinary people face a set of problems at once both similar and strikingly different from those faced
by binary-identifying trans people. While binary-identifying trans people often describe themselves as
simply moving from one end of the gender binary to the other, non-binary trans people instead
choose to situate themselves in between or outside of the binary all together. Because society is so
invested in the gender binary, those who defy binary conceptions of gender can face societal
exclusion due to their rejection of what is thought of as a fundamental and unquestionable identity.
The difficulties that come from simultaneously existing as a social actor in the world and rejecting the
basic social framework of gender are immense. Some non-binary people today identify as gender
queer, a word that Heather Love describes as “the refusal of all categories of sexual and gender
identity” (2014: 173). Used as early as 1995, in Riki Anne Wilchins’s “In Your Face,” published in the
spring newsletter of Transsexual Menace, the term “genderqueer” as an identity has since
proliferated widely through communities of alternative sexual and gender identities (Stryker 2008). In
the 2002 anthology Gender Queer, Riki Wilchins describes the adoption of the term “Gender Queer”
in response to a perceived failure of the intended umbrella term of “transgender” to include narratives
outside the experiences of trans men and women or otherwise binary-identified, medically
transitioning identities (Nestle, Howell, and Wilchins 2002). Today, the term “genderqueer” continues
to function both as an umbrella identity encompassing non-binary gender identities and as a stand-
alone identity. In both contexts, it has become a unifying term that has been adopted by many
gender-diverse people and communities. While we have described gender up to this point as
intersecting along the axes of identity, expression, and perception, gender also varies for many
people as a function of time. Our society readily accepts the idea that for all individuals their
perception of their gender identity changes across the life course. A young boy’s understanding of his
gender identity is not the same as his understanding of it as a teenager, nor is it the same when he
grows to be an elderly man. We have complicated this narrative so far by suggesting that perhaps an
AFAB infant may later grow to identify as a woman or as a non-binary individual. However, implying
that this is the extent to which gender may change is drastically oversimplifying the concept. Gender
identity, like all identities, can change multiple times over the course of an individual’s life. The
adoption of a new identity does not negate the legitimacy of previous ones, despite the popular
saying that past identities were “just a phase.” When these changes occur on a short timescale, say,
weeks, days, or even hours, individuals may identify as gender fluid. Gender fluid individuals may
experience their gender identity as fluid, in flux, or varying over time. Their gender identities may vary
between any combinations of binary or non-binary identities. Some gender fluid people feel that their
identities shift for no discernible reason, while others find that their gender identities are influenced by
their environment, situation, or personal desires. Gender fluid identity often intersects with
genderqueer identity in a number of ways. Some gender fluid people may view their genderfluidity
itself as a form of subversive gender queerness, while others may fluctuate into a genderqueer
identity as one of the various gender identities that comprise their gender fluid experience. Others
may fluctuate only between binary genders and not identify their gender fluidity as genderqueer at all.
Given this broad overview of gender diversity within the “trans” umbrella, is there a parsimonious way
to define what it means to be “trans”? We choose to define “trans” in its simplest form as: Self-
identified deviation from normative gendered identities, bodies, or experiences.
Trans cannot be boiled down to a stable identity or set of identities, nor can it be understood as a
group defined easily by a simple set of characteristics. While some trans people identify as outside
the gender binary, many do not. While some trans people’s bodies differ from the binary norm, man’s
do not. And clearly, while many trans people’s stories share similarities, just as many have
experiences and narratives unlike those of any others. Understanding the spectrum of trans people’s
identities and experiences requires reevaluating commonly held ideas about the gender binary,
gender essentialism, and identity politics. Judith Butler, in Bodies That Matter (1993), writes that “if
the term ‘queer’ is to be a site of collective contestation . . . it will have to remain that which is, in the
present, never fully owned, but always and only redeployed, twisted, queered from a prior usage and
in the direction of urgent and expanding political purposes.” Just as the queering of identity defies
definition, so too does the constantly evolving cornucopia of trans identities, bodies, and experiences
defy boundaries. Among our interviewees, we could see this immediately in how definitions of the
same term varied immensely. It rings true that the boundaries of being “trans” lie only in the
boundaries of our imaginations, and in the possibilities of human experience.