Arabella Williams

In their 2014 article, Tate, Youssef, and Bettergarcia propose a means of better representing the process of gender self-categorization in both transgender- and cisgender-identified individuals. They contend that much of psychological research studies trans and cis individuals separately, unnecessarily emphasizing differences between them. According to Tate and colleagues, these trends reinforce assumptions of cisnormativity and binary conformity, promote skewed perceptions of gender identity development, and overlook important developmental trends in adulthood. In order to more accurately reflect and understand experiences of gender self-categorization, Tate et al. recommend an integrative personality psychology approach.

 

Tate et al. build this proposal on the notion that gender is multidimensional, composed of five interacting facets. They focus particularly on the facets birth-assigned gender and gender self-categorization, as the relationship between them can be usefully modeled within personality psychology. Particularly, Tate et al. advocate for the examination of gender self-categorization as a personality trait, such that continuity and change over time in gender identity can be empirically assessed without placing value on any particular group (e.g. cis, trans). 

 

Moreover, Tate et al. critique the asymmetry promoted by literature on gender identity, specifically assumptions that cis individuals are not actively developing their gender self-categorization while trans people are. Language such as male to female (MTF) and female to male (FTM) is used to describe trans individuals, yet cis people are not described as female to female (FTF) or male to male (MTM). This language assigns unnecessary value to one’s prior identity as well as linguistically denoting false disparity between these groups’ gender identity development. They propose that for both trans and cis individuals, gender self-categorization is an active psycho-socio-cultural development and should be labeled as such. Thus, trans and cis descriptors (e.g. trans woman, cis male) should be used to express an active process of development that focuses on the endpoint rather than the start. Tate et al. also contend that research on the development of gender identity often fails to consider gender identity dynamics after the age of 18. As many trans individuals do not reveal their gender identity until later in life, these trends overlook the process of gender development in the trans community. As such, Tate and colleagues propound that, much like personality traits in personality psychology, gender identity should be researched in both cis and trans populations throughout the lifespan. 

 

Tate and colleagues further argue that the assumption of binary gender conformity neglects experiences of those who have moved beyond gender categories. They suggest that a significant portion of the trans community does not identify within a gender binary, and as such models of gender self-categorization should include measurements of one’s degree of overlap with gender categories in a given context. Tate and colleagues propose the use of the umbrella terms genderqueer and nonbinary, as well as more specific terms genderblend (self-categorization is male and female) and postgender (self-categorization is neither male nor female) to refer to these individuals. 

 

Tate et al. suggest various personality psychology methods that may be of use when studying gender identity. In order to assess an individual’s gender identity onset and stability, they advocate for the use of longitudinal studies and retrospective studies. Moreover, they contend that self-reports may be useful in measure one’s overlap with gender categories, particularly with a Likert-type scale to denote the degree of overlap. Such methods, by integrating trans and cis individuals along a common theme (gender self-categorization), reduce practices of marginalization in research. Furthermore, they clarify many previously-overlooked ambiguities of gender, providing insight into the true diversity of gender identity. 

 

However, Tate et al. are not the only people striving for inclusivity in scientific research. In particular, Sari van Anders’ Sexual Configurations Theory (SCT) provides a multidimensional methodological and conceptual tool for precisely representing diversities in sexual orientation. Directed at redressing current theories’ exclusion of nonbinary sexual attractions and omission of many other salient aspects of sexuality (e.g. desired number of partners, kink-identification, desire for eroticism/nurturance), van Anders proposes a model that represents this sexual variety rather than ignoring it. Though their focus is different (gender versus sexuality), SCT and Tate et al.’s recommendations are remarkably similar in many of their underlying principles. Concerned with representing often-excluded lived diversity, both Tate et al. and van Anders aim to remedy marginalization within scientific research. 

 

In order to accomplish this, both van Anders and Tate and colleagues go beyond the normative binary. They make space for individuals who do not fall into established gender and sexuality dichotomies (e.g. bigender, genderqueer, pansexual, polyamorous). Both van Anders and Tate et al. propose that assessing the degree of one’s overlap with relevant gender/sexuality binaries will provide valuable insights into people’s experiences. Both researchers also account for fluidity in one’s gender/sexuality over the lifespan. van Anders specifically recognizes that sexuality is not necessarily fixed in nature and includes possibilities for change in any dimension of sexuality during one’s life. Tate and colleagues acknowledge that gender self-categorization occurs in adulthood for many trans individuals, and even utilize the term ‘current gender identity’ to allow for temporal fluidity in gender identification. 

 

Furthermore, both van Anders and Tate et al.’s baseline understandings of gender/sexuality are multifaceted. While van Anders’ understanding of sexuality includes far more intricacy in terms of various dimensions and subdimensions, both researchers view their domain as far more complex than scientific research posits. van Anders critiques the heterosexual-bisexual-homosexual trinity commonly used to designate sexuality, and rather encourages mapping of identities, statuses, and orientations based on any possible combination of sexual characteristics and dimensions. The primary dimensions of sexuality proposed by van Anders are gender/sex sexuality, partner number sexuality, and parameter sexuality, each of which encompasses subdimensions denoting binary versus nonbinary preference and degree of strength/specificity. Much like van Anders, Tate and colleagues criticize models of gender that force those into a binary (e.g. male or female) as well as those that denote active participation in gender identity development for trans but not cis people (e.g. MTF, FTM). Tate et al. also recommend a mapping of gender that is multifaceted, including features such as birth-assignment to a gender category, self-categorization to a gender category (current gender identity), recognition and adherence to gender group norms, gender expression/performativity, and evaluation of gender in/out-groups. 

 

Similar in their aims of promoting inclusivity in scientific research, both van Anders and Tate et al. provide more comprehensive alternatives to the particularly restrictive empirical methods commonly used to measure gender and sexuality. Though Tate et al. contend for the studying of various facets of gender separately to gain insight into how they work together, van Anders recommends a comprehensive examination of identity (one that takes into account all facets). Despite theoretical differences, both Tate et al. and van Anders work to address the lack of diverse representation in scientific literature, making historical progress in empirically legitimizing nonbinary and non-normative gender/sexuality. 

​

References

​

Tate, C.C., Youssef, C.P., and Bettergarcia, J.N. (2014). Integrating the Study of Transgender Spectrum and Cisgender Experiences of Self-Categorization from a Personality Perspective. Review of General Psychology, 18, 302–312.

​

van Anders S. M. (2015). Beyond Sexual Orientation: Integrating Gender/Sex and Diverse Sexualities via Sexual Configurations Theory. Archives of sexual behavior, 44(5), 1177–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8

​