‘I Can Construct It in My Own Way’: A Critical Qualitative Examination of Gender Self-Categorisation Processes

Gender Self-Categorisation in Psychological Theory

Viewing gender self-categorisation in an essentialist way, wherein gender is thought to be binary, immutable and congruent with sex, is directly harmful to transgender and gender-diverse individuals (Schudson, 2021). Schudson has called for psychology to take responsible stewardship for gender in research, noting that psychology has played a significant role in the pathologisation and marginalisation of non-normative genders and gender expressions. Here, feminist psychology has a role in challenging dominant understandings of gender to allow better care and affirmation of diversity in gender.

Historically, theories of how a persons’ gender self-categorisation is developed have come from developmental psychology and primarily focused on children (e.g., Martin et al., 2002), and these developmental understandings of gender self-categorisation continue to underpin much current research on gender cognitions in children and adolescents. As a result, there are many implicit cisgender biases in research findings (Jackson & Bussey, 2022), where cisgender is a general term indicating a congruence of current gender and gender assigned at birth. Cognitive developmental theory of gender and developmental gender schema theory, two key theories of gender development, posit that children reach a developmental stage where they can cognitively ‘recognise’ themselves as either a boy or girl (Martin et al., 2002). This self-categorisation is then cited as motivation for children to search for more information about their own gender group to adhere to group norms, albeit through different mechanisms for each theory. Comparatively, social cognitive theory recognises that social experiences impact children’s gender self-categorisation, as children are understood to come to a categorisation based on reactions from others to their behaviour alongside their own sense of self (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). In these theories, self-categorisation is normatively presumed to be stable, congruent with physiological sex and binary (Jackson & Bussey, 2022).

More recent gender-related research with children and adolescents has moved away from theorising about the formation of gender cognitions to instead focus on the interrelationship of these cognitions. One model of gender identity which gained popularity is the multidimensional approach to gender identity (Egan & Perry, 2001; Perry et al., 2019). This approach described specific cognitive dimensions of gender experiences, such as self-perceived similarity to the gender groups, that could potentially be observed in individuals of all ages. The emphasis on dimensionality in this approach to gender identity permitted individual experiences of gender to be understood with greater nuance than a single categorical classification. The most commonly used dimensions from the multidimensional approach to gender have been gender typicality (self-perceived similarity to a specified gender group) and felt pressure for gendered behaviour (perceived pressure from parents, peers and the self to avoid or adhere to specified behaviours). However, the ways these dimensions have been operationalised in research reveal limitations in theoretical understandings of gender self-categorisation.

Theoretical Limitations Revealed in Research Methods

The operationalisation of gender typicality and felt pressure point toward underlying issues with how gender self-categorisation is understood in gender research. Gender typicality and felt pressure have been recognised to operate along two dimensions: cognitions related to one’s own gender and those related to the other gender (Jackson & Bussey, 2020; Martin et al., 2017). This own/other conceptualisation relies on the identification of participants’ gender category to designate which is an ‘own’ gender group cognition and which is an ‘other’ gender group-related cognition. The use of gender categorisation in this way has been critiqued for excluding nonbinary participants as there is no ‘own’ gender group for nonbinary participants in studies that use instruments that measure cognitions related only to male and female groups (Jackson et al., 2021). Some of these shortcomings have been addressed through methodological adjustment (e.g., Jackson et al., 2021), but there remain theoretical assumptions that are constrained by these methods.

By using participants’ gender category to interpret scores on other measures, gender self-categorisation is presumed to be static and cisgender (Perry et al., 2019). Although researchers may personally understand that gender extends beyond a cisgender binary of male and female, the existing conceptualisation of gender self-categorisation in research methods can prevent true inclusivity of diversity in gender. Specifically, conceptualising gender self-categorisation as binary, stable and cisgender in research methods has prevented a consideration of the nature and processes (e.g., developmental or experiential) of gender self-categorisation. Thus, in order to advance the methodological use of gender self-categorisation in research, theoretical understandings must first be advanced.

Advancement of Gender Self-Categorisation Theory

The experiences of transgender individuals can be drawn on to advance the concept of gender self-categorisation. Tate et al. (2014) contended that self-categorisation is analogous for cisgender and transgender people, is not binary and is an active process for all individuals. However, the process of self-categorisation can be more apparent for transgender individuals as their current gender categorisation differs from that assigned at birth, and thus, the literature tacitly frames self-categorisation as passive among cisgender people who appear to remain identifying with a single gender. Tate et al. therefore suggested that the activity of gender self-categorisation is present for cisgender and transgender people but has been more visible among transgender people. However, the specific processes associated with this activity of gender self-categorisation have yet to be explored beyond theoretical analysis (e.g., Jackson & Bussey, 2022; Tate et al., 2014).

Research which has theorised sexuality and gender/sex by prioritising marginalised experiences of sexuality and gender/sex has developed novel ways of discussing gender self-categorisation with participants. Abed et al. (2019) used methods which prioritised marginalised experiences of sexuality and gender/sex to develop a gender/sex visualisation tool. The visualisation task was then demonstrated to be useful for participants of all genders, both cisgender and transgender, and many cisgender participants showed nuance in their descriptions of self beyond a clear, single categorisation. However, Abed et al. (2019) did not consider in detail the processes specifically which produce an individual’s gender self-categorisation.

On the one hand, developmental theories of gender outline some processes associated with gender self-categorisation, but these have been limited by presuming a cisgender development. On the other hand, the multidimensional approach has allowed a more nuanced understanding of gender but has a limited theoretical explanation of the specific processes associated with a gender self-categorisation. Therefore, the central aim of the current study was to investigate processes associated with gender self-categorisation and prioritise the experiences of binary and nonbinary transgender people.

Current Study

The current study used qualitative methods to investigate gender self-categorisation among a sample of young adult, binary and nonbinary participants. Qualitative methods were chosen to allow the experiences and perspectives of participants to direct how gender self-categorisation was described. Qualitative methods align with Tate et al.’s (2014) suggestion that more attention be given to the unique experiences of transgender participants that might otherwise be missed in using existing methods based on cisgender assumptions. Young adults were selected as a partial control for age-related differences (e.g., similar levels of exposure to information regarding diversity in gender in current mainstream and social media) and as recent studies have examined multidimensional gender cognitions among this age group (Andrews et al., 2019). A further reason for including this age group is the ability to be reflective on adolescent developmental experiences, a key time of identity formation. Below, two key choices regarding approach and method are explored further: recruitment of a majority transgender sample and the critical orientation toward qualitative analysis.

Transgender Perspectives in Gender Research

The choice to recruit a majority transgender sample for the current study was directed by the current trend in drawing on transgender expertise when examining gender and the valuable insight gained from those who have actively considered their gender self-categorisation. The idea that transgender individuals can provide important insight into gender due to their position in contrast to ‘normative’ gender is not a recent idea (e.g., West & Zimmerman, 1987), but it is only recently that this trend has solidified in psychological research. The value of approaching gender research from the perspective of individuals who challenge normative conceptualisations of gender was demonstrated by Tate et al. (2014) whose analysis, described above, showed how self-categorisation may have been under-examined in previous theories and research due to a presumed inactivity of the process among ‘normative’ cisgender individuals. Similarly, the gender/sex visualisation (Abed et al., 2019) evidenced how innovation from transgender perspectives can allow greater insight into gender for both cisgender and transgender individuals. Considering gender from primarily a cisgender perspective, as has been the case in past theory and research, may thus have resulted in a model which under-emphasises important processes or may even fail to identify key factors made invisible by normative experiences. Therefore, the current study took the perspective that insight might be gained from data collection and analysis which prioritises the experiences of transgender individuals.

Taking a Critical Feminist Orientation

Critical research orientations aim to recognise, engage with and challenge how social norms impact how concepts are understood and studied. Further, feminist psychology attends to the ways psychology, including the psychology of gender, has historically viewed cisgender men as the idealised norm. A critical, feminist approach was necessary for the current study as gender research and theory in psychology has primarily taken a binary, cisgender focus that has resulted in the marginalisation and delegitimisation of transgender identities (Jackson & Bussey, 2022; Riggs et al., 2019). This critical approach further aligns with a trend in current psychological literature on gender which has sought to disrupt the privileging of cisgender identities in gender research (Levitt, 2019; Morgenroth & Ryan, 2021).

A major manifestation of the critical approach to psychological gender research has been the application of ideas from cultural theorist Judith Butler’s critical engagement with gender (Morgenroth & Ryan, 2021). This work has sought to describe how an individual’s gender comes into being through gendered actions and behaviours (termed a gender performance by the authors) and critically engages with the consequences of disrupting the normative patterns of this performance (i.e., gender nonconformity and transgender experiences; Morgenroth & Ryan, 2021). Butler (1993) further contends that it is this gender performance that produces ‘gender’ at the societal level. Specifically, the gender groups are created collectively by individuals repeatedly engaging in verbal and nonverbal acts that are normatively associated with these groups, a process often termed gender performativity. This collective understanding of the specific verbal and nonverbal acts associated with each gender group thus constitutes a social norm. Through repetition, these norms become naturalised wherein they are no longer perceived to be intentionally maintained but are thought to be self-evident.

Although cultural norms are recognised to be an important part of the psychology of gender, the specific ways these interact with individual self-categorisation has not been examined in detail. Rather, even when norms are recognised as malleable, most previous research has treated the norms of gender to be a theoretically constant variable which exists external to individuals (e.g., Gülgöz et al., 2019). Comparatively, the current study recognises the co-constructed nature of the social norms around gender and further that norms regarding transgender identities have developed in psychological understandings of transgender experiences (Riggs et al., 2019). Thus, the critical approach to this research follows the trend of challenging exclusion of transgender experiences by recognising that norms have been co-constructed to reify cisgender, binary identities.

A better theoretical understanding of gender self-categorisation is needed to account for diversity in gender identities and allow advancement of research findings and methods. The current study therefore aimed to develop theoretical understandings of gender self-categorisation processes. To achieve this aim, the current study utilised a critical qualitative approach to investigate the processes of gender self-categorisation among a sample of binary and nonbinary transgender participants and considers how this approach may apply to all individuals. The current study was underpinned by the following research question: how do participants understand their gender self-categorisation, and how does this categorisation come about?

Method

Participants

Fifteen interviews were conducted with binary transgender and nonbinary participants, and one interview was conducted with a cisgender woman to comprise a negative case analysis. Recruitment comprised purposive sampling of transgender and gender diverse individuals aged 18–26 years through the circulation of flyers in online LGBTQ+ and queer networks (i.e., university Facebook pages and on Twitter). Participants were invited to share as much or as little as they wanted regarding their demographic information with the question ‘please tell me a bit about yourself’. Table 1 outlines the demographic information shared by participants.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant Demographic Information.

Participant	Gender	Pronouns	Age	Ethnicity	Other Information
Participant 1	Nonbinary, both masculine and feminine	They/them/any pronouns	26	White	Rural background, bisexual
Participant 2	Agender	They/them	19	Indigenous Australian	Student
Participant 3	Trans, nonbinary, genderfluid	She/they	22	Undisclosed	Rural background, bisexual
Participant 4	Woman	She/her	18	Undisclosed
Participant 5	Nonbinary	He/him	21	Southeast Asian	Student, employed
Participant 6	Man	He/him	18	Undisclosed
Participant 7	Genderfluid, nonbinary	-	20	Mixed Mexican and White	Low-income family
Participant 8	Man	He/him	20	Hispanic (from the United States)	Student, straight
Participant 9	Binary trans woman	She/her	23	Undisclosed
Participant 10	Trans man	He/him	21	Mixed Hispanic and White	Student, gay
Participant 11	Nonbinary, genderfluid	Any pronouns	-	Nicaraguan	Pansexual
Participant 12	Nonbinary	They/them	23	Undisclosed	Student, queer
Participant 13	Trans guy	He/him	19	Undisclosed	Student
Participant 14	Binary male	He/him	19	White
Participant 15	Nonbinary, trans femme	They/them	20	Jewish	Queer
Cisgender participant
Participant 16	Woman	She/her	26	Caucasian Australian	Postgrad student

Procedure

Approval for the current project was given by the authors’ institution. Potential participants who saw recruitment invitations (circulated in English) were encouraged to email the first author to express interest, after which the first author provided detailed information about the study along with the consent form. Once potential participants agreed to participate, an interview time was scheduled over Zoom (chosen due to data collection occurring during COVID-19–related restrictions in 2020). Sample size was determined by ensuring representation of a wide range of genders and recruitment ceased once no new concepts emerged during interviews.

Interviews were semi-structured and conducted by the first author, EFJ. The interview guide was developed by the EFJ in collaboration with the third author, KB, and was informed by prior research on the concept of gender self-categorisation. Initial questions remained broad (e.g., ‘Could you please tell me about your gender?’) with a number of potential prompting questions (e.g., ‘How has your understanding of your gender changed over time?’) to be used if participants were unsure what to speak about. As outlined in the introduction, the concept of gender self-categorisation has recently been most fully described in the context of the multidimensional approach to gender identity. Thus, participants were then asked to give feedback on the concepts proposed in this approach (e.g., the concept of gender typicality) and how these related to their gender self-categorisation. The interview then concluded with questions about potential ways to assess gender self-categorisation. Responses to these questions were separated from the main interview transcripts for separate analysis (Jackson & Bussey, 2022) to inform a discussion on the assessment of gender self-categorisation.

Following interviews, participants were reimbursed with a flat rate payment of AUD$20 via PayPal or gift card for their time. Interviews were then transcribed using a voice-to-text program and corrected by the first author and a research assistant. Overall, transcripts amounted to approximately 110,000 words, and individual interviews ranged from 50 to 75 minutes. Transcripts were then imported into NVIVO version 12 for analysis.

Analytic Strategy

Data was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (RTA; Braun & Clarke, 2019, 2021). The central steps for analysis followed those outlined by Braun and Clarke (2019) with inductive analysis guided by the research aim of examining the processes of gender self-categorisation. Specifically, data was inductively coded by paying attention to how gender self-categorisation was reflected in participant responses. EFJ and VS independently coded data (EFJ coded 100% of all data in this first round and VS coded 40% of all data) and then discussed codes and proposed themes. EFJ further undertook a full second round of coding to ensure that proposed themes remained supported by data and base codes. Themes were then refined and defined by EFJ and VS in a recursive manner. Finally, at the stage of writing this paper, the authors identified theoretical frameworks which aligned with themes constructed in analysis and ensured that the reporting of themes allowed clear connections to be made between results and theory. Specifically, social cognitive theory (Bussey & Bandura, 1999) and cultural intelligibility (Butler, 2005) were identified as in alignment following consultation with expert colleagues.

To ensure the quality and trustworthiness of findings, a negative case analysis (Given, 2008) with one cisgender participant was conducted following the central analysis, and this is reported in a separate section below. This negative case analysis was useful as one aim of the study was to learn about gender self-categorisation for all people, including cisgender people, by drawing on transgender perspectives. The negative case analysis thus provided an opportunity for a preliminary investigation on the generalisability of the findings of the current study to cisgender self-categorisations. In addition, feedback on proposed themes was gained from cisgender and transgender colleagues while themes were refined and the report was written. As further assurance of quality, reflexive processes were undertaken throughout the conceptualisation, data collection, analysis and report writing of this project. As part of reflexive practice, the first author and primary researcher of this paper (EFJ, a young, White, queer woman) journaled throughout the research process. Then, during analysis, EFJ and VS undertook a reflexivity discussion to consider how the data were approached.

Reflexivity Statement

Journaled reflections from EFJ indicated a search for ways to make sense of gender informed by a position as a queer woman whose gender does not fit easily into heteronormative systems. Due to this, EFJ noted a position as a semi-insider due to placement within the queer community, and this increased participants’ trust during interviews. Feedback from participants indicated they were comfortable to share their experiences: Participant 11 said that ‘it was nice to talk to somebody’ about their experiences, and Participant 10 thanked EFJ for ‘asking the questions [EFJ] did; [EFJ] came at it from a very respectful standpoint’. VS brought a different perspective to analysis as a cisgender person of colour who has worked closely with the queer community. Both EFJ and VS reflected on the ways cisnormativity shaped understandings of the data, in particular resistance of gender essentialism.

Overall, the process of analysis was underpinned by a constructivist epistemology informed by principles of feminist psychology. This project was an endeavour to listen to how participants made themselves and their gender known to researchers and to create a framework which could be used to describe this process. Constructivist approaches to qualitative work understand that research outcomes are produced by researchers and participants through the process of interview and subsequent analysis. Specifically, the interviewer and participant co-construct meaning in conversation, and then during analysis, researchers are active in forming and articulating research findings. The semi-structured nature of the interviews allowed participants to direct attention to concepts that were important to them and for the interviewer (EFJ) to clarify ideas to further make meaning. Then, feminist approaches to psychology supported the constructivist epistemology by focussing analytic attention on non-majority genders and taking a critical orientation towards gender norms. In some ways, the outcome of analysis, that is, defining gender self-categorisation as an active, ongoing and constructive process, reflects an epistemological understanding that knowledges are subjectively constructed.

Results

All participants were able to provide a clearly articulated gender self-categorisation. Participants’ gender self-categorisation was observed in responses to demographic questions and in responses to the first interview question ‘tell me about your gender’. Participants stated, named and described their gender: ‘I currently identify as nonbinary’ (Participant 7), ‘I identify as trans masc’ (Participant 5), ‘I personally describe myself as teetering between nonbinary, but also just like no gender’ (Participant 2) and ‘I’m pretty binary male’ (Participant 14). Variation was then observed in how participants understood this self-categorisation and how it arose in their life. The nature of this gender self-categorisation thus constituted the core analytic focus of the current study.

Several themes and thematic relationships were formed during analysis. Major themes were active self-categorisation, internal sense of gendered self, gendered attributes, other people’s perceptions and knowledge of gender in the world. Each major theme, except for internal sense of gendered self, held sub-themes which are described in greater detail in each section. Figure 1 outlines the major themes and their relationship to one another in a thematic map. Internal sense of gendered self-captured participants’ ‘internal sense of [what] is right’ (Participant 5) regarding their gender. Gendered attributes included participants’ embodied experiences of gender (e.g., ‘clothing and the way I present myself is important’ [Participant 10]), and enacted experiences (e.g., ‘I do a lot of housework, which some people wouldnt really see [as] typically male’ [Participant 6]). Other people’s perceptions related to how self-categorisation was impacted by ‘how people interact with [them] when it comes to gender’ (Participant 14). Participants evaluated their understanding and experience of themselves in each of these three themes to inform their active self-categorisation wherein participants explored or decided on a label, pronouns or gender group membership which ‘‘fit so much better’’ (Participant 8) than other ways of categorising themselves. Overall, this process of categorisation did not occur only once, but instead was ongoing and could change across contexts depending on the needs of a particular situation (e.g., using different labels with friends than with medical professionals; Participant 13).OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Process Map of Gender Self-Categorisation.

Participants articulated a bidirectional relationship between all active self-categorisation, internal sense of gender self, gendered attributes and other people’s perceptions, as is visualised in Figure 1. One participant astutely described how gendered attributes (i.e., fashion) were related to an internal sense of self, which was then related to other people’s perceptions: ‘if you can say “I can be quite a fashionable man”, then that’s your kind of internal performativity, which I think then manages to come across to people externally’ (Participant 5). Then, self-categorisation bidirectionally influenced each of internal sense of gender self, gendered attributes and other people’s perceptions, as a correct or incorrect categorisation, could shift how participants saw themselves in other domains: ‘the way I see myself and feel about my own body changes depending on how I categorize myself’ (Participant 3). The reciprocal relationships between these themes were reflected in how participants linked together experiences from across domains when explaining their experiences, and this interweaving of experiences is evident in the in-depth exploration of each theme below.

Finally, the theme knowledge of gender in the world provided the context to allow this process of categorisation to occur, represented in the thematic map as the box surrounding the interrelationships of other themes. Specifically, participants’ process of active self-categorisation was dependent on their knowledge of gender in the world. Indeed, many participants noted how they were unable to categorise themselves in their current gender until they had learnt about transgender identities, experiences or people. Below, each theme will be outlined in greater detail, followed by a negative case analysis conducted using responses from one cisgender participant.

Knowledge of Gender in the World

Participants gave varied accounts of how they understood gender to function in the wider world. An understanding of gender took the form of a theoretical view for some participants, whereas for others an understanding of gender in the world was revealed through their descriptions of norms and stereotypes. For all participants, this understanding was related in some way to their capacity to actively self-categorise their gender, either through the evaluation of themselves against what they understood to be a typical member of a gender group or requiring knowledge of particular identities to be able to self-categorise.

Socially Constructed Gender

Many participants referenced an understanding of gender as socially constructed in line with some academic theories of gender. Some participants described how this understanding of gender allowed them to better understand and articulate their own gender: Participant 5 described how ‘in terms of self-categorisation for [themselves], figuring out that the binary was a social construction really helped, and then [they were able to say], oh, so if it’s constructed, then I can construct it in my own way’. Participant 5’s own understanding of gender as socially constructed thus facilitated their capacity to self-categorise their own gender. Other participants described how they were ‘not so much on the side of gender as a social construct’ (Participant 14). For Participant 14, gender was seen to be ‘at least partially a neurological thing’ saying:

I think if gender was simply a social construct, I don't think I would have the desire to transition because I don't think of it as a basis of “well, I'm a guy, so therefore I should transition so that I can look like how guys are supposed to look.” It's more my desire to transition comes first. And from there I identify as a guy.

This description demonstrates how Participant 14 formed an understanding of gender in the world that was congruent with his experience and which aided his self-categorisation.

Complexity of Gender Norms

Generally, participants’ understandings of gender were varied and complex. Participants themselves acknowledged that gender is ‘vague, it’s not set in stone’ (Participant 3), ‘something we all made up… and it’s kind of stuck around’ (Participant 7) and ‘different for everybody’ (Participant 10). However, participants did note that ‘society [has said] this is for girls or this is for boys’ (Participant 13): ‘art is seen as a very feminine thing’ (Participant 6) whereas men ‘like cars and monster trucks and energy drinks’ (Participant 10) and these characteristics are ‘small things that form a whole’ (Participant 14). Regarding emotions for men, Participant 10 shared:

Sharing emotions is really important, and you shouldn't really react to negative news in a violent manner. But that's what men are portrayed to do on television, and that's how young boys think that they're supposed to act. And it's better to kind of, in my opinion, look at those things and figure out ways to change the dynamic and change the narrative while still respecting the fact that people can like, identify as a man and not have those negative stereotypes.

There was less consistency in the characteristics noted to be appropriate for gender groups which were not binary. Rather, participants more commonly reported a rejection of a single ideal nonbinary person, including the perception that they ‘don’t think that there should be a body type’ specific to nonbinary people (Participant 11). These responses evidence participants’ knowledge of gender norms wherein characteristics are understood to be appropriate or inappropriate for people based on their gender group. A complex relationship was present between norms and self-categorisation as participants, described vividly by Participant 7:

The whole complicated part of being non binary is that you both reject and rely on gender stereotypes [and] norms to define yourself, I think. And one part of me is like, I just reject all of it right. But then at the same time, I find affirmation in stereotypical things, which is a weird relationship. I find the whole thing is really complicated.

Gender Norms and Whiteness

The impact of norms on the process of self-categorisation was complicated by intersections with other aspects of identity for some participants. Specifically, a few non-White nonbinary participants articulated how nonbinary people in media are ‘tall, they're skinny, they’re White’ and that as non-White nonbinary people, they did not ‘fit any of those… it didn’t really suit’ (Participant 5). Further, Participant 2 emphasised that ‘gender in general is a colonial sort of construct’ and that ‘colonialism has just majorly enforced heterosexuality and gender to the point where even trans people and nonbinary people are forced into a categorisation… [and] othered’. Participant 2 further explained:

Queer narratives were just completely erased alongside Indigenous narratives and so we don't know jack shit about Indigenous queer people in history. Or there's emerging stuff but it's really not much. But I know along with that erasure came a majorly enforced traditional gender roles [sic], sexuality, stuff like that. And even when we look at contemporary forms of queerness and identity and stuff like that, they're all viewed as there is the heterosexual, then there's the homosexual, like this is all viewed as a form of otherness. Especially when we look at colonial interpretations of gender, especially nonbinary trans.

Transgender-Specific Knowledge

The importance of knowledge of gender in the world to the process of gender self-categorisation was also evident in participants’ knowledge about transgender identities, both binary and nonbinary. Participants described learning about transgender identities (either binary or nonbinary) as ‘eye-opening’ (Participant 8) which prompted them to begin ‘analysing everything’ (Participant 10) and question themselves, asking themselves ‘am I really this gender?’ (Participant 11). Consistent with what most children are taught, prior to learning about transgender identities, participant understandings of gender were generally that gender matched assigned sex at birth and was binary:

When I was younger, I didn't really know that this whole thing [transgender identities] existed. You know, it was much more like you're either one thing or you're the other thing, and that's like cement. You know, you're born as male, so you're going to be male till you die. (Participant 4)

Further, some participants did not ‘realize there was anybody else on earth who would have this similar experience’ (Participant 8) of the incongruence of their gender assigned at birth.

Then, upon learning about transgender identities (binary or nonbinary), many participants ‘reconsidered everything in [their] life at that point’ as they realised that ‘you can be that kind of thing’ (Participant 3). This ‘everything’ involved all gendered attributes, internal sense of gendered self and other people’s perceptions.

Places of learning about both binary and nonbinary transgender identities included ‘online communities’ (Participant 7), ‘YouTube channels’ (Participant 8), ‘gender and feminist theory books’ (Participant 12), ‘someone [else] who was trans’ (Participant 13) and friends. Further, ‘seeing other trans people… helped’ (Participant 2) participants in their self-categorisation, in particular when this was in a ‘situation where [being transgender] wasn’t a negative thing’ (Participant 13). Comparatively, participants described how they learnt about the characteristics associated with binary, cisgender identities at a young age from places such as parents, family and school. Overall, for participants to actively self-categorise into a specific gender, the gender had to be known to the participant, the capacity to self-categorise with that gender had to be known and participants required an understanding of the characteristics associated with that gender group so as to evaluate which group was the best fit.

Active Gender Self-Categorisation

Participants’ active self-categorisation involved making meaning out of gendered attributes, an internal sense of gendered self and other people’s perceptions to be able to articulate or describe these experiences to both the self and others. This active aspect of self-categorisation was evident in participants’ evaluation of their understanding of themselves to find a self-categorisation which ‘fit’ (used by nine participants) and ‘made sense’ (used by four participants). Specifically, participants evaluated their internal sense of self, gendered attributes and other people’s perceptions against the characteristics associated with specific gender groups to decide which of those gender groups was a best fit. As outlined above, the characteristics associated with specific gender groups were formed by participants’ knowledge of gender in the world, and thus, participants’ particular knowledge of gender impacted this evaluative process. Further, this active categorisation to others was not always a process that participants desired to engage with, but rather was necessary only because the ‘greater society demands that you categorize yourself so that the norm can understand’ (Participant 1).

Navigation of Pronouns and Labels

The evaluation of the appropriateness of a particular gender self-categorisation was shown in participants’ active navigation of labels and pronouns. For Participant 10, it ‘felt better to have a label for [his gender dysphoria], even if [he] wasn’t super sure what to do with that label at that point’. ‘Some people may experiment with different labels’ (Participant 10) and, after selecting one specific label, ‘other labels would make sense’ even if participants ‘just don’t connect with [the alternative label] as much’ (Participant 7). Other participants noted how they ‘find labels very, very stifling’ (Participant 15). Further, when participants felt they did not fit the characteristics of a specific gender group, categorisation with that group felt prevented: ‘I can’t be a guy, I did ballet for eight years as a child’ (Participant 8). The process of choice and experimentation shows that the use of a label is not passive but rather participants actively form a gender self-categorisation which meaningfully communicates their gender to themselves and others.

Similar to labels, participants described how they ‘experimented a lot, especially with pronouns’ (Participant 8) before finding pronouns which best reflected their understanding of themselves informed by an internal sense of gendered self, gendered attributes and other people’s perceptions. Participant 13 related how using the new pronoun ‘“he” when [he was] talking to [himself]… developed over time’. Comparatively, Participant 12 spoke about their queer community as an opportunity to test pronouns and then confidently self-categorise:

I had a pretty nice queer community surrounding me, which made this experience a lot easier for sure. I was just like, “hey, this is something I'm thinking about, do you mind using they/them pronouns for me?” And it went within like a week from like, “oh, maybe this is something I'm considering” to like, “yes, I'm nonbinary, this is the pronouns I'm using, this all feels very natural.” So that was a pretty nice transition. And from that point, it was just slowly coming out to other people.

These responses evidence how the active selection and ‘trialling’ (Participant 2) of pronouns allowed participants to self-categorise to themselves and others in line with their understanding of themselves.

Moment of Realisation

Many participants described a moment of realisation when they began to self-categorise to themselves as a gender other than their gender assigned at birth. For some participants, this realisation was a moment which ‘hit… all at once’ (Participant 14), like an ‘epiphany’ or the moment an ‘egg cracks’ (Participant 3), whereas other participants ‘took… a long, long time to realise’ they were not cisgender (Participant 1). For many participants, such a realisation moment was noted to only be possible ‘because [they] had heard about trans[gender] people before’ (Participant 14), and thus they had the requisite gender knowledge to re-categorise themselves. One participant’s explanation of their moment of realisation emphasised that self-categorisation is an ongoing process and that a new self-categorisation did not necessarily invalidate past self-categorisations:

I'd never thought of myself as anything but like a girl. When I looked back at my past experiences and stuff like that and thought, well, since I see myself that way, clearly I am nothing else… And I just guess just realizing that there is a point between being nonbinary and still accepting my experiences that felt like female experiences. I didn't have to discount all of that [previous female experiences] in order to realize that that was not necessarily where I was coming from anymore. (Participant 12)

Participant 12 further noted that this view was ‘kind of controversial in the trans community’.

An Internal Sense of Gendered Self

All participants spoke about their experiences of self-categorisation in a way that indicated that there was an internal sense of themselves which underpinned their gender self-categorisation. Participants noted that ‘there’s a mental aspect to the way that you perceive your gender’ (Participant 13) and described this as an ‘internal realization and an internal thing rather than a deliberately external thing’, (Participant 3) and something that was ‘inside’ of themselves (Participant 15). This internal sense of self could also involve ‘having no gender’ or having an ‘own sense of self [that would] fluctuate’ (Participant 2) across ‘different days’ (Participant 7). The description of fluctuations in participants’ sense of self is important as it indicates that the stability of a sense of gendered self can vary across individuals.

Some participants less directly articulated their internal experiences. These participants more commonly referred to a sense of self obliquely, describing how aspects of gender, such as appearance, ‘felt right’ (Participant 9) or were ‘not the way [they] should be’ (Participant 4) when contrasted with their sense of themselves. The use of ‘should’ by Participant 4 indicated a sense of aspiration toward an ideal gender, a sentiment that was echoed in Participant 6’s description of how as a child he ‘wanted to represent those characters that [he] saw in [his] dad’s video games’. The expression of aspiration suggests the presence of a difference between participants’ internal sense of what ‘felt right’ for them and their external experiences, thus pointing to the independent role of this internal sense of self. One participant described the difference as a ‘mismatch… that shows that there’s a difference between…the emotional [or mental] makeup of gender and the biological makeup of gender’ (Participant 13).

Gendered Attributes: Embodied and Enacted

The theme gendered attributes denotes how participants described a range of experiences which were related to gendered experiences of body, appearance, interests, personality and/or behaviour. Generally, these experiences fell into two groups, experiences related to physical or external attributes such as appearance (embodied) and experiences related to the things that people do or feel such as behaviours, interests or personality traits (enacted). Grouping embodied and enacted experiences of gender together into a single major theme opened the opportunity to consider the ways these gendered attributes related to individuals’ active self-categorisation. This focus allowed greater attention to be given to the importance and function of these attributes in participants’ lives alongside a list of examples of types of gendered attributes.

Embodied Experiences

Embodied experiences were those experiences relating to the body and appearance. All participants made some reference to aspects of their appearance, which included statements regarding mode of dress (‘I feel like I can dress a little more feminine’, Participant 12), hair (‘I cut my hair off’, Participant 10) and bodily features (‘I’ve also got big hips’, Participant 5). Some participants also explicitly mentioned experiences of gender dysphoria linked to bodily experiences (‘there is dysphoria involved, like regarding my body’, Participant 7). Embodied experiences were noted as related to participants’ capacity to gender self-categorise. Participant 3 described how her perception of her body was related to her capacity to gender self-categorise:

As soon as I struggle to see the person I want to see in the mirror, my mood falls and… I have more difficulty actually confidently saying that, yeah, I'm a woman or I'm nonbinary, and it starts to feel more and more like a joke.

This experience described by Participant 3 emphasises that embodied gender experiences can disrupt participants’ process of gender self-categorisation. Comparatively, other participants asserted that ‘expression and things like that solidifies… identity’ (Participant 2). ‘Caring for’ and ‘deciding’ on aspects of appearance further aided participants in feeling ‘grounded in [their] gender’ (Participant 10). These appearance-related experiences also provided the opportunity for participants to join in with other members of their gender group, as Participant 9 noted things like ‘buying nice clothes and looking nice and… doing makeup’ are ‘a nice way to connect with a lot of the girls [she] knows’.

Enacted Experiences

Most participants described how their enacted experiences were not strongly related to their sense of gendered self. Enacted experiences encompassed aspects of personality traits, interests and behaviours. Participants described how they might be ‘perfectly happy [to]… actively engage’ with enacted experiences which were stereotypically associated with a binary gender group, but that it ‘becomes a problem’ when this engagement was ‘used in a way that invalidates [their] gender’ (Participant 14). Indeed, regarding ‘defining your own gender identity…if you just don’t believe in any of those stereotypes’, Participant 8 asked, ‘why should your identity matter or change at all?’ However, Participant 14 further clarified that ‘it wasn’t necessarily the [gender] roles, but the way the roles interacted with everything else’ which were significant to self-categorisation. In response to this comment, EFJ clarified what Participant 14 meant and he agreed with the summary that he was not uncomfortable because he was required to do feminine things; instead, he was uncomfortable because this requirement meant people thought of him as a woman.

Other People’s Perceptions

Other people’s perceptions were important to participants in the communication of their gender to the self and others. The addition of another person (or imagined other person) impacted the process of self-categorisation to the self and to others, and gendered attributes were noted as particularly important to this process. The responses of other people to a gender self-categorisation changed some participants’ capacity to self-categorise to themselves. This change could be to make it ‘hard to feel good’ about their identity (Participant 3). As Participant 10 explained, ‘my neutral state was “boy”, but then when someone would perceive me as a girl, it would throw that off completely’. Alternatively, other participants described how ‘being seen as [the correct gender] made things click into place’ (Participant 9).

Appearance

Appearance was noted as important to actively communicating a gender self-categorisation to other people. Participant 9 described appearance as key:

The first thing I always think of is appearance, because it's the first thing someone will use to judge your gender and that's how they will assess it. Other stuff comes along, like your voice and your mannerisms and how you act and what you're into. But appearance is always first. It might not be forever, but [at] the minute I feel it is. And I guess that's what people struggle [with] when they see someone who they can't quite work out what they are, it confuses and angers people because they don't know what kind of interaction they should be having.

The importance of appearance was echoed by other binary participants as they described putting ‘a lot of effort into passing’ (Participant 8) as a cisgender member of their gender group through visual presentation. More generally, clothing allowed people to ‘better express themselves in a visual manner’ (Participant 14), despite the attitude from many participants that they ‘don’t think fashion has a gender’ (Participant 15).

Pronouns

Another common way to self-categorise to other people was through the specification of pronouns, as some participants knew that ‘people will default’ (Participant 1) to incorrect pronouns if pronouns are not specified. However, for nonbinary participants, ‘it can be a struggle really being able to categorise… as nonbinary to people who don’t understand what nonbinary means’ (Participant 3) as ‘it is easier for people to categorise based on binary conceptions’ (Participant 5). Thus, despite participants’ best efforts to self-categorise their gender in a way that was accurate for themselves, this was sometimes disrupted by a lack of knowledge from other people:

I'll feel like it’s a legitimate thing [to identify as nonbinary], but that either the people I tell are either going to just dismiss it or at worse challenge me … I won’t stop considering myself to be nonbinary, just it is hard to feel good about myself, really, when I’m in a group of people who don't agree with how I see myself. (Participant 3)

Context

Many participants further outlined how their gender self-categorisations would change across different contexts due to real or anticipated responses from other people. For some binary transgender participants, this was connected to their capacity to pass as a cisgender member of their gender group, only categorising as transgender when ‘somebody wanted a technical term… like in a medical context’ (Participant 13). Regarding social situations, participants noted that it was important to surround themselves with ‘people who do see [them] as [the correct gender] and don’t question it’ (Participant 10), with some participants noting that they ‘don’t think [being transgender] is necessary for someone to know if [they are] just friends with them’ (Participant 13). Participant 13 did note, however, that ‘in a situation like a romantic relationship… I’d categorize myself again as a trans guy… out of respect for them’. There were also situations that required different self-categorisations with potential negative consequences for a non-cisgender categorisation:

There’s been a few situations where have been sort of staying closeted, you know, among certain family members or whenever I'm doing work in a certain place just because I find it easier as someone who's still able to pass as a cis[gender] woman to just move through life like that, and that sucks. But all of those things were discouraging me from coming out and I guess I just figured you don't have to [come out]. I'm not obligated by law or anything to come out to every person I meet… And do you put your pronouns in your email signature? Is it going to cause employers to not want to employ you? (Participant 7)

Negative Case Analysis: Application to a Cisgender Participant

Like other participants in this study, Participant 16 was able to clearly self-categorise her gender, saying ‘I do identify as female and have my entire life’. Also, like other participants in this study, Participant 16 had a comprehensive knowledge of transgender experiences, describing how she had ‘a lot of gender diverse friends’ and had participated in a LGBTIQ+ diversity training program which ‘talk[ed] about gender’. Participant 16 spoke about this training program a number of times throughout the interview, outlining how it had been a place of learning and self-reflection. According to Participant 16, the program coordinators encouraged her to question herself, asking ‘are you female because you’re being told you are female… or because you believe you are female?’ She described the result of this self-reflection thus: ‘I’ve had those times to check in with myself, but I have realised that every single time I am female’. She noted a desire to ensure she was not ‘blindly accepting’ that she was female and instead wanted to ensure this categorisation was ‘on [her] terms’, and ultimately decided that ‘female is correct’.

As part of this ‘check-in’, Participant 16 would ask herself ‘what do you feel?’ and upon deciding on the category of female, she noted that this helped her to ‘feel better’ and ‘feel more correct’ about herself. This correct feeling echoed how other participants spoke of their internal feelings of a gendered self, suggesting a similar sense of self in Participant 16. Further in line with other participants, Participant 16 spoke a number of times about appearance as a way to ‘express [her] gender’, noting this was ‘quite classically in the fact that [she does] dress overly feminine’. However, Participant 16 further noted that society requires ‘femininity… to be expressed a specific way’, saying ‘if I wear different clothes… it doesn’t change my gender at all’. These sentiments are in line with the process mapped above which indicates that embodied experiences of gender, such as appearance, inform a self-categorisation but that these characteristics only contain meaning due to social norms.

Of note, Participant 16 did not identify other people’s perceptions to be as important as was identified by other participants in this study. The reason for this may have been due to the presumed congruence between her gender assigned at birth and current gender. This reason is suggested in the way she noted how prior to learning more about gender from friends and in the diversity training program she ‘actually didn’t ever question [gender] before’. Instead, prior to learning more about transgender experiences, she described categorising her gender as a process of ‘just ticking the boxes, getting it done’, suggesting that her experiences of categorisation during that time were implicit.

Discussion

Gender self-categorisation involves the selection of a best-fit gender group based on gendered experiences, an understanding of the self and other people’s perceptions, and the communication of this gender group to others using language and gendered attributes. This study mapped a process of active gender self-categorisation from the ways that participants described their gender and experiences of gender. Overall, this map showed how participants’ active self-categorisation was reciprocally informed by participants’ internal sense of gendered self, gendered attributes and other people’s perceptions. Further, this process was informed by participants’ knowledge of gender in the world, specifically that participants’ understanding of specific identities and the norms associated with these identities allowed participants to actively self-categorise with their current gender.

Self-categorisation has been identified as a component of overall gender identity alongside cognitions such as gender typicality and felt pressure for gendered behaviour in a multidimensional approach to gender identity (Perry et al., 2019). Previous theoretical conceptualisations have proposed that gender self-categorisation, also termed current gender identity, is a specific type of cognition that is independent of (but in relationship with) sex assigned at birth and which is active for all people (Tate et al., 2014). The findings of this study contribute to this multidimensional approach to gender identity by exploring and describing in greater detail the processes associated with this active self-categorisation. This exploration further provides a foundation for future research to develop novel methods of gender self-categorisation assessment that are grounded in theory.

The complexity of gender can confer an overlap amongst the dimensional components in the multidimensional approach to gender identity. For instance, gender typicality and self-categorisation (as is proposed in this study) both involve an individual’s evaluation of their gendered attributes. However, the purpose of these evaluations is different. For assigning degree of gender typicality to themselves, individuals evaluate how similar they are to other people in gender groups in order to gain a sense of their overall similarity to these characteristics. Comparatively, in self-categorisation, an analogous evaluation occurs in order to determine group membership. These two cognitions may work in a reciprocal manner, as changes in an individual’s gender typicality may prompt them to engage in a re-evaluation of their gender self-categorisation. Viewing gender self-categorisation as an active, ongoing process rather than static allows the interactions of self-categorisation with other cognitive components to be examined more fully.

Alongside alignment to the trend of accounting for transgender experiences in gender research, the findings of the current study further align with other theories of gender. The components of the process mapped in this study include personal factors, behavioural factors and environmental factors, each of which are components of social cognitive perspectives on gender (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Further, the way that participants spoke of their experiences of self-categorisation as a process of communicating a gender to both themselves and to others evoked Butler’s (2005) cultural theory of intelligibility. Considering the findings of the current study in light of social cognitive theory and cultural intelligibility allows the concepts suggested in the results to be connected to broader feminist and queer projects, examined theoretically and the wider implications discussed. Thus, the process of active self-categorisation mapped in this study will be discussed first in relation to Butler’s consideration of intelligibility to consider implications for feminist and queer psychology, and second in relation to social cognitive theory to allow the findings to be situated in broader psychological theory.

Un/Intelligible Gender

The process of self-categorisation as an articulation of one’s sense of a gendered self requires drawing on the language, gestures and indicators of a specific given gender group to successfully categorise as a member of that group to the self and to others. Further, a successful categorisation relies on a common understanding of the constituent attributes of this gender group. This common understanding is then used to make a categorisation which is comprehensible to others and the self, where comprehensible means understandable, readable and intelligible. The concept of intelligibility as it relates to gender was explored by Butler (1993) who wrote that intelligibility concerns how individuals are recognised as a ‘gendered being’ (p. 58, Undoing Gender). This recognition is reliant on a set of norms which have become implicit and naturalised and, in this study, participants drew on these norms to render themselves and their gender categorisation intelligible to EFJ as interviewer and researcher. Participants discussed ways in which they fit or did not fit specific gender stereotypes (as dictated by their understanding of gender-related norms), related childhood experiences, described social experiences and outlined medical treatments so that EFJ as the researcher would correctly recognise, and affirm, their gender. In this way, gender self-categorisation (i.e., making oneself intelligible) was contingent on knowledge of gender in the world (i.e., norms).

Importantly, participants in the current study not only endeavoured to make themselves intelligible to others but also sought to find intelligibility for themselves. The requirement of knowing about the possibility of a transgender identity, either binary or nonbinary, as necessary to gender self-categorise indicated that participants needed a particular knowledge of gender in the world in order to be comprehensible to themselves. Applying the idea of intelligibility to examine participants’ changes in gender self-categorisation, there is shift in perspective towards evaluating the tools that individuals use to understand themselves and then articulate this understanding of self to others.

Results from this study indicated that language was one tool used by participants to render themselves intelligible to themselves and others. Previous research has outlined the function of language as legitimising experiences and identities for transgender people, emphasising that language holds cultural meaning which can allow individuals to see themselves reflected (Levitt & Ippolito, 2014). In the current study, participants’ interest in labels and pronouns suggests the meaning attached to shared language allows them to find a way to communicate themselves to others. As one example, Participant 5 used the words ‘trans masc’ to emphasise masculinity in his categorisation, potentially because his ‘big hips’ visually contradicted this categorisation. Further, learning the meaning and norms associated with new language, for example, ‘nonbinary’ or ‘genderfluid’, prompted participants to reconsider themselves and find new ways of understanding themselves.

Engagement with or rejection of specific embodied attributes was another common way participants sought to make themselves intelligible: some participants dressed femininely to pass as a cisgender woman, and others cut their hair to communicate their gender. Using these characteristics to render a gender intelligible is reliant on a shared set of norms which confer gendered meaning on otherwise neutral characteristics. As was noted by participants, fashion does not have a gender, but clothes are a useful way to convey a gender categorisation. The results section on knowledge of gender in the world outlined how participants understood the norms that define the characteristics associated with gender groups. Participants then described how they selectively engaged with or rejected these characteristics to align themselves with these norms. Notably, when talking about other people’s perceptions of their gender categorisation, participants commented most on their appearance as one way which allowed or prevented a successful communication of categorisation to other people. Comparatively, enacted experiences were not commonly discussed as related to communication of self-categorisation to others. Instead, participants described how they critically engaged with the norms of enacted experiences to challenge how specific interests or behaviours were normatively associated with a specific gender group.

In the same way that knowledge of norms allowed individuals to make themselves comprehensible to themselves and others, a restriction in norms might foreclose ways of understanding oneself or communicating about one’s identity. Specifically, individuals can encounter unintelligibility wherein their gender is incomprehensible to themselves or others (Butler, 2005). Vipond (2019) suggested that specific stories are used to make transgender identities intelligible, and these narratives have allowed transgender authors to make themselves comprehensible to a cisgender audience. These narratives form a set of norms through which transgender identities are understood and legitimated. For example, the ‘born in the wrong body narrative’ communicates to a cisgender audience that transgender individuals are truly their gender but have incongruent physiology and thus are legitimate members of their gender group. Vipond’s analysis further contends that reliance on these norms to ensure transgender intelligibility renders alternative ways of being transgender unintelligible. Specifically, rendering a transgender identity intelligible through specific norms prevents articulation and understanding of transgender identities which are outside of these norms.

This experience of unintelligibility was articulated by some participants in the current study. The clearest example of struggles with unintelligibility was in how non-White nonbinary participants reported they found it difficult to be intelligible as nonbinary due to the norm of Whiteness in nonbinary communities. The experiences of these participants suggest that restricted Western norms can disrupt the ways individuals understand themselves because when individuals evaluate themselves against the norms of a gender group and do not fit these norms, they are less able to see themselves as fitting into the group. Further, participants had reported how other people may be less able to recognise the participants’ self-categorised gender if the participant did not appear to fit the norms of that gender group. Indeed, participants noted how other people could dismiss or challenge participants’ attempts at intelligibility due to perceived non-adherence to norms or lack of knowledge about nonbinary identities. A further implication is that transgender individuals themselves may not be aware of nonbinary identities and thus choose a binary transgender identity as a best fit when a nonbinary identity may also be a good fit. However, this categorisation should not be seen as ‘incorrect’ by outside people, such as researchers, but rather questions could be asked about the individual’s knowledge of gender in the world to consider how the individual forms their current self-categorisation.

The ways identities become unintelligible have important implications for how transgender identities, and gender overall, is understood in psychology. On the one hand, the restriction of psychological examinations of transgender identities to the clinical context has medicalised understandings of transgender identities and retained a focus on treatment that aims to produce a gender that is as similar to cisgender identities as possible (Riggs et al., 2019). On the other hand, traditional theories of gender development in psychology require gender to be articulated in line with sex assigned at birth to be viewed as a legitimate identity (Jackson & Bussey, 2022), thus making experiences outside this gender/sex congruence unintelligible for all individuals. Just as using intelligibility shifted considerations of gender self-categorisation to focus on the tools of intelligibility, a consideration of unintelligibility provides a new perspective through which to view norms related to cisgender and transgender experiences. Specifically, a consideration of unintelligibility provides the opportunity to look for ways that gender norms may restrict individuals’ capacity to confidently self-categorise their gender. Future research could thus draw on the ideas of unintelligibility to analyse boundaries and restrictions in self-categorisations which may result from normative understandings of gender and thus contribute to existing literature which details barriers to affirming a transgender identity. Further, the analysis in the current study draws on an aspect of feminist theory that is underutilised in psychology and thus provides an example of how to apply feminist theory for future psychological research.

Social Cognitive Theory

The process of gender self-categorisation proposed in this study points towards evaluative processes which underpin how individuals’ gender self-categorisation is transformed by their internal sense of self, gendered attributes and other people’s perceptions. There are a few key parallels between the findings of the current study and the social cognitive theory of gender which suggest that the evaluative processes outlined in this study could be further theorised using a social cognitive approach. The most straightforward parallel is that social cognitive perspectives theorise gender processes as ongoing across the lifespan (Bussey & Bandura, 1999), just as is suggested by the findings of this study. The interactivity of the themes outlined in the present study further parallels the dynamism of social cognitive theory. Specifically, participants described how interactions with social norms and other people impacted their self-categorisation in a reciprocal way: participants would dress in accordance with the norms of their self-categorised gender in order to make their gender intelligible to others, and when other people affirmed this gender, participants described how they were then more able to confidently self-categorise.

The theme of other people’s perceptions identified in the current study is perhaps the most complex component as it was reliant on participant perceptions of the response of other people to the participant themselves. The cognitive processes outlined in social cognitive theory provide a potential explanation for how and why other people’s perceptions impact what might otherwise be a very personal categorising decision. One participant had described how their capacity to self-categorise had been ‘thrown off’ when other people did not gender them correctly, suggesting that the participants’ self-efficacy to correctly self-categorise was related to other people’s perceptions. Self-efficacy in this context can be seen as the extent to which individuals believe they can achieve their desired self-categorisation. Indeed, participants described more confidence in their self-categorisation when other people were correctly able to recognise their gender categorisation, that is, when they mastered a successful categorisation. Conversely, when participants failed to render their categorisation intelligible to others, participants described a reduction in their capacity to self-categorise. Social cognitive theory identifies such mastery experiences as the most important way self-efficacy is built (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Social modelling is another influence on self-efficacy; participants noted that observing other transgender people successfully achieve their desired categorisation boosted their confidence in their self-categorisation. Further research could investigate how individuals’ self-efficacy in their self-categorisation might be impacted by positive or negative responses from other people.

Integration of the findings of the current study with social cognitive theory has implications beyond theorising the cognitive mechanisms of the process of active self-categorisation. One interesting implication is consideration of the person–environment interaction which social cognitive theory sees as reciprocal. Social cognitive theory proposes that not only does social environment influence an individuals’ behaviour, but further that individuals can seek out or construct an environment which aligns with their needs (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). In line with previous research on social media use among transgender individuals (Cannon et al., 2017), participants in the current study noted social media and friends as important places to learn about gender diversity, suggesting self-selection of an environment which was conducive to learning about transgender identities and allowed them to enact behaviours consistent with their sense of gender. Indeed, one participant described asking their friends to trial using new pronouns, showing how they acted to modify their environment to reflect their needs.

Another important implication of the parallels between social cognitive theory and the current study is that social cognitive theory was developed based on research with (presumed) cisgender participants. The similarities thus bolster the suggestion of the current study that self-categorisation is an active, interactive process for all people and not only transgender people. The negative case analysis reported in this study provides some preliminary insight into how this process of active self-categorisation may be applicable to cisgender identities. At a general level, as was posited by Tate et al. (2014), the process of gender self-categorisation can be less visible for cisgender people as there is no direct incongruence of themselves with the norms that are associated with their gender assigned at birth. The invisibility of the processes may make it more difficult for cisgender individuals to recognise how they come to categorise themselves. However, as was indicated in the response of the cisgender case analysis in this study, the process of self-categorisation may become more discernible through education and opportunity for reflection. This finding aligns with previous research which has suggested that encouraging cisgender people to examine their experiences of gender prompts them to speak about their gender/sex with nuance beyond a simplistic categorisation (Abed et al., 2019).

Limitations and Strengths

The findings of this study should be contextualised by the limitations. First, the age range of participants was restricted through recruitment. The focus on young adults (aged 18–26 years) allowed age-related differences to be minimised. For example, participants shared similar experiences regarding the availability of information on the internet. Although participants provided reflections on their childhood and adolescence, this may have been impacted by recall biases. Thus, caution should be applied regarding the theorised applications of the findings of this study to other age groups. Further, although there was a range of gender identities and ethnic/cultural backgrounds, caution should be given when generalising this study’s findings to other demographic groups. In particular, as non-White participants articulated unique challenges with self-categorisation. Further research is needed to better explore how self-categorisation processes intersect with other aspects of identity.

A second important limitation that contextualises this study is the restrictions of language used to speak about identities and experiences. Throughout the preparation of this manuscript, the authors made the decision to speak generally about binary and nonbinary transgender experiences to allow broad similarities and differences to be assessed among participants. Some research in psychology has begun to recognise that some individuals reject the labels of cisgender, transgender, binary and nonbinary (e.g., Beischel et al., 2021). However, this perspective has not yet been widely adopted in psychological research, and thus, the decision was reached to use terms familiar to readers. Within this choice, the definition of transgender noted in the introduction frames the use of the term as an adjective that describes experiences related to gender rather than only as an identity category. The terms binary and nonbinary can similarly be viewed as both identity categories and descriptors of experiences. The use of these terms as adjectives calls attention to the subjective experience of individuals, recognising that binary and nonbinary experiences of gender are nuanced and contextual. In particular, it is important to note that transgender people who align themselves with a binary gender often experience this binary gender differently than binary cisgender people. ¹ Therefore, in grouping participants in this way, some nuances of self-categorisation experiences may have been minimised.

The third limitation is the use of only one participant for the negative case analysis, and these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the personal context of this single participant. Specifically, the cisgender participant demonstrated ample knowledge about transgender experiences and had further described significant self-reflection regarding her gender categorisation. Levels of knowledge and self-reflection differ among all people; thus, the process proposed in this study may manifest differently among cisgender people with less knowledge and self-reflection. Future research could give attention to how this may occur.

Practice Implications

Recognising the active processes associated with an individual’s gender self-categorisation has implications for researchers, educators, parents and clinicians. For researchers, the implications are more straightforward. The role of context for circumstances surrounding categorisation indicates that researchers should be aware of how the research will be perceived by participants and how context clues about the research (e.g., if the research is in a medical context) can impact individuals’ capacity to confidently self-categorise. The contextual factor in self-categorisation may give rise to circumstances where individuals may volunteer different identities based on these context clues, regardless of the inclusivity of the measures of gender categorisation. Researchers should therefore consider not only the wording of the questions used to assess gender but also the overarching context of the research as factors which may impact data collected about gender/sex and interpret this data with appropriate caution. Further, the findings of the current study provide a strong theoretical basis for the development of novel assessments of gender self-categorisation.

In a clinical context, the process of self-categorisation proposed in this study also provides an opportunity to shift away from the critiqued model of diagnosis which often frames discussions of treatment for transgender clients. While there remains division in guidelines for transgender healthcare regarding the necessity of a diagnosis (usually of gender dysphoria; Drescher, 2015), the onus placed on diagnosis to determine treatment is decreasing. However, a clear alternative to diagnostic criteria that can be used to structure conversation between clinicians and clients to determine whether specific treatment is needed and what that treatment may involve has not yet emerged. The process proposed in this study provides a potential alternative on which to base conversation. The components of the process outlined in this study can provide a structure through which clinicians and clients can discuss client experiences and client knowledge to gain a sense of how clients come to categorise with a specific gender group. The inclusion of the component related to knowledge of gender in the world is an important departure from the diagnostic model which presumes a specific, medicalised transgender experience. Comparatively, the model proposed in the current study allows an understanding of gender group membership to be personalised and contextualised for the client. An attitude of flexibility in categorisation reduces the pressure for clinicians to determine if a client is ‘correctly’ identifying as transgender, shifting the focus to a consideration of the specific experiences of individual clients and thus what individualised treatment may be most appropriate for that time and for a client’s context or even if treatment is necessary.

Recognition of the process of self-categorisation as active and ongoing may further relieve pressure on individuals and families to determine a ‘correct’ gender, an attitude which may have implications for treatment (as outlined above), education and social policy. Participants indicated that gender categorisation is not stable and consistent through life, as is often presumed in research (Jackson & Bussey, 2022). Regarding schooling and education, viewing self-categorisation as an ongoing process may reduce the concern that parents have about an ‘incorrect’ categorisation as transgender if children are taught about gender diversity at school. Instead, viewing categorisation as a responsive, exploratory process which may change at different stages of life encourages an attitude of acceptance of individuals’ current gender in that context and at that time of their life. Indeed, research indicates that transgender children and their siblings recognise more flexibility of gender than age-matched cisgender peers (Olson & Enright, 2018).

The topic of gender education in schools is generally controversial, and voices in opposition to education about diversity in gender often assert that learning about transgender identities is one potential cause of children’s later identification as transgender. ² The findings of this study in some ways support this notion due to the link participants drew between learning about transgender identities and their categorisation. However, the process proposed in this study contends that all people engage in this process. Cisgender individuals are equally able to successfully categorise themselves into their gender group due to their knowledge of gender in the world, but this process may be more salient for transgender individuals, in particular, nonbinary individuals. Viewing self-categorisation as dependent on knowledge for every person can reframe how education about gender is be understood; education already demonstrates the roles of men and women and specific education about diversity in gender could be seen to allow people to confidently self-categorise their gender as they have greater context on which to base this categorisation. Psychologists could therefore leverage this aspect of this study’s findings to advocate for better gender education in schools.

The findings of the current study could be further used to advocate for support of exploration of gender self-categorisation in education and legislative contexts. Psychologists can be drawn into public conversations due to the perceived placement of gender as a psychological phenomenon and could use the findings of this study in these conversations to reframe dominant understandings of gender. The applicability of this study’s findings to a school context is outlined above and psychologists are well-placed to advise the implementation of affirming gender education in school contexts. Alternatively, policy debates around legitimisation of transgender identities could be aided by viewing gender as contextually dependent and subject to change; one potential implication of this study could be to challenge the requirement of a single, immutable gender category that an individual uses across all contexts. We as authors encourage fellow psychologists to consider not only how their own work might be impacted by viewing gender self-categorisation as an ongoing process, but further to promote (where safe) the attitude that gender self-categorisation is an active and responsive process for all individuals.

Conclusion

Gender self-categorisation is used across research, social contexts and in clinical contexts to communicate important meaning about an individual’s sense of self. The insight from transgender participants in the current study drew attention to the complexity of the processes involved in a gender self-categorisation and indicated that a categorisation is not always a simple, straightforward process. The model constructed in this study outlined how an active, ongoing gender self-categorisation is interactively informed by individuals’ sense of gendered self, gendered attributes and other people’s perceptions. Further, the interactivity of these components is contextualised by individuals’ knowledge of gender in the world wherein a gender self-categorisation is contingent on how individuals understand the constituent parts of the gender groups. The process of self-categorisation described in this study aligns with Butler’s (2005) cultural theory of intelligibility and social cognitive theory (Bussey & Bandura, 1999) in showing the importance of individual and contextual factors to an individual gender self-categorisation. The process outlined in this study describes how individuals categorise themselves within a gender group without prescribing the characteristics of these gender groups. As a result, the proposed model retains flexibility, and the model can be adapted to account for a broad range of gender identities. The model is equally applicable for cisgender, binary transgender and nonbinary individuals.