Authenticating and Legitimizing Transgender Identities Online: a Discourse Analysis

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2019-08-26 Authenticating and Legitimizing Transgender Identities Online: A Discourse Analysis

West, Alyssa Megan Marie

West, A. M. M. (2019). Authenticating and Legitimizing Transgender Identities Online: A Discourse Analysis (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110840 master thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Authenticating and Legitimizing Transgender Identities Online:

A Discourse Analysis

Alyssa Megan Marie West

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

CALGARY, ALBERTA

AUGUST, 2019

Abstract

The number of Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming (TGNC) individuals who are presenting for counselling is increasing, and yet counsellors feel unprepared and lack confidence working with gender-variant people, which has resulted in negative therapeutic experiences.

Consistent with social-justice practice, knowledge of how clients understand themselves is necessary to ensure the outcomes of counselling (Arthur & Collins, 2010a). A key resource

TGNC individuals are using to engage in identity exploration are online communities. In this research I applied Potter and Wetherell’s (1987) approach to discourse analysis to explore the talk and text of three such online communities. I identified that the participants made sense of their identity using three discourses: (a) felt sense, (b) authenticity, and (c) legitimacy. I discuss these findings within the context of the current social climate and existing literature regarding

TGNC individual’s identity development. I offer suggestions for infusing this insight into trans- affirmative counselling practice(s) and discuss implications for future research.

iii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, thank you to all of the gender-diverse individuals whose voices were the foundation of this study, scholarly or otherwise; they are at the heart of this research. To my co- supervisors, Dr. Tom Strong and Dr. Kaori Wada. I cannot count the ways in which I have benefited from your mutual contributions. I am so grateful for the time and wisdom that you have shared with me. Thank you to my family, who were the first to instill within me the values I held at the center of this project, and who have always, without question, encouraged my pursuits. In particular, thank you to my parents for teaching me determination by leading with their example. To my friends, thank you for every check in, reassurance, and reminder that there was an end, which helped immensely to get me across the finish line. I am also grateful for my second family, the Chudiak’s, who are a constant source of laughter and sustenance. Finally, to

Tyler. Thank you for your unwavering belief in me.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii Table of Contents ...... i List of Figures ...... iii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Current Study ...... 5 Defining Key Terms ...... 6 Personal Influences and Positionality ...... 8 Overview of Chapters ...... 10

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 11 The Social Construction of Sex and Gender ...... 13 Historical and Contextual Considerations...... 14 Biological-Essentialist Discourse...... 15 A Medical Discourse of Incommensurable Difference and Deviance...... 17 Psycho-Medical Discourse...... 21 Social-Centric Discourses ...... 27 Feminist Discourses ...... 32 Trans-exclusionary discourses...... 34 Queer and Transgender Discourses ...... 36 TGNC Individuals and the Internet: Digital Discourses ...... 39 Online identity exploration ...... 41 Chapter Summary ...... 45

Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 47 Qualitative Inquiry and Researcher Reflexivity ...... 47 Social Constructionism and Discourse Analysis ...... 50 Interpretative repertoires...... 53 A theory of dominating discourses...... 58 The digital as discourse...... 61 Data Source ...... 65 Data Collection ...... 68 r/NonBinary...... 69 r/genderqueer...... 70 r/asktransgender...... 70 Sample selection...... 71

Section summary...... 72 Data Analysis ...... 72 Quality of Research...... 73 Chapter Summary ...... 75

Chapter 4: Findings ...... 77 Discourse of Felt Sense: Analytic Example...... 84 Discourse of Authenticity: First Analytic Example ...... 88 Discourse of Authenticity: Second Analytic Example ...... 91 Discourse of Legitimacy: First Analytic Example...... 95 Discourse of Legitimacy: Second Analytic Example ...... 98 Discourse of Authenticity and Related Sub-Discourses ...... 101 Exception to the gender binary...... 101 Affirmation...... 104 Exploration...... 105 Discourse of Legitimacy and Related Sub-Discourses ...... 106 Biological essence discourse...... 107 Social constructionism suggests fabrication...... 109 A note on social constructionism...... 111 Chapter Summary ...... 111

Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 113 Discursive Constraints ...... 114 Revisiting the Epistemological Framework ...... 116 Authenticity and Legitimacy: Connections to the Literature ...... 119 Contextualizing differences between the discourses...... 123 Implications for Counsellors ...... 125 Strengths ...... 131 Limitations ...... 133 Implications for Future Research ...... 135 Closing Comments and Conclusion ...... 138

References ...... 140 Appendix ...... 167

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Screen shot of Reddit homepage...... 66

Figure 2. Screen shot of an original post and discussion thread within a subreddit community. 67

Figure 3. Analytic mind map demonstrating direct quotes from data and analytic memoing. .... 79

Figure 4. Discourses and sub-discourses identified through analysing subreddits...... 84

Chapter 1: Introduction

It is becoming increasingly clear that we are now facing with what might accurately be

called an educational crisis, especially in the field of affectivity and sexuality. In many

places, curricula are being planned and implemented which ‘allegedly convey a neutral

conception of the person and of life, yet in fact reflect an anthropology opposed to faith

and to right reason’

—Congregation for Catholic Education, Male and Female He Created Them, 2019

In Western culture, transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals endure pervasive oppression and discrimination simply because they do not identify with or embody dominant ideologies consistent with the two-sex model: the belief that there are two sexes, male and female, and the differences between the two are biological, essential, and correspond to one another (Laqueur, 1990; Libbon, 2007; Sanz, 2017). By ideology, I refer to representations of the world, and the philosophies a society believes in, values, and follows (Bishop, 2002). The ideologies within Western culture draw primarily from moral and material philosophies, or

Christian and biological justifications, respectively (Collins & Arthur, 2010). Ideologies delineate cultural boundaries concerning what is real, right, and important (Bishop, 2002).

As applied within the two-sex model, one’s sex is believed to rightfully align with one of two mutually exclusive genders. The existence of the two-sex model is reflected within the conventional definitions of sex and gender. According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, sex is commonly regarded as the division within species into male or female based upon outward reproductive structures, and other physiological characteristics such as hormones or chromosomes (Sex, n.d). Gender is often described as the cultural, psychological, or behavioural

traits associated with one sex (Gender, n.d.). Evidence of the two-sex model is also seen when cisgender identities (i.e., those whose gender identity aligns with their assigned sex) are assumed to be the norm. Therefore, the two-sex model, as a culturally dominant paradigm, discounts the various combinations of identities, sexualities, and bodies that humans have.

The two-sex model pervades our culture in such a ubiquitous manner that it may only become noticeable through deeper reflection. For example, it is of significance for the unborn.

Gender reveal parties have become increasingly common (Pasche-Guignard, 2015), wherein parents cut into a cake or pop a balloon (or other similar activity) to reveal a colour which indicates whether they should expect a male or female baby (DeLoach, n.d.). Notably, gender reveal parties are somewhat paradoxically named, because what has been labeled are the shades and shapes that were interpreted through a sonogram and presumed to represent the infants’ sex, not their gender (Pasche-Guignard, 2015; Plante, 2009).

Not only is the two-sex model interwoven throughout our social fabric, but it is intertwined and fortified within social structures of power. The opening quote was taken from the first document the Catholic church has published regarding TGNC identities (though the authors do not refer to individuals, but rather to “gender theory”), which posits that there is a crisis related to identity which is threatening faith and reason. Take the medical system as an additional example. Often, babies born with genitalia that was not easily subsumed into the discrete categories of male or female, otherwise known as intersex people, were subject to surgical and hormonal treatments in infancy. Medical professionals discouraged parents from disclosing these interventions to their child once they matured (Ehrensaft, 2017; Fausto-Sterling,

2000). Presently, within Alberta, newborns with atypical genitalia are referred to as having a disorder of sex development, and their “gender assignment” occurs through consultations with

multiple specialists (Alberta Health Services, 2015, para. 2). Similarly, TGNC individuals were previously diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, gender identity disorder (American

Psychiatric Association, 1980), until it was reclassified in 2013 to gender dysphoria disorder

(American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Importantly, this is not to discount those who identify with diagnostic criteria, or who require a diagnosis to obtain gender-affirming interventions but taken together these examples demonstrate the power of discourses in assigning, defining, and labeling gender-variance. By discourse, I refer to systems of language that construct meaning and serve a specific function (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Machin & Mayr, 2012).

Following from the examples above, social structures subjugate and oppress TGNC identities through dynamic social processes across institutional, political, and cultural contexts

(Namaste, 2000; Whittle, 1998). I maintain that we construct meaning and knowledge through social processes, foremost among them being language (Gergen, 1994), which is used to fulfill a particular purpose such as justifying or rationalizing power and control over particular identities.

For the power of the two-sex model to persist as an ideology it must produce and maintain a limited amount of sex and gender categories (Lorber, 2006). Accordingly, Namaste (2000) identified erasure as the most significant social relation affecting TGNC people. Therefore, I broadly refer to the social practices which nullify, discriminate, and restrict TGNC identities as discourses of erasure.

Increasingly, TGNC individuals are resisting these discourses and are advocating for their rights. Their advocacy has led to increased visibility and social reform. Gender-neutral bathrooms are gaining recognition in Canada (Rhee, 2019), and some provinces, including

Alberta, have a new gender-neutral marker on drivers’ licenses and birth certificates (Mertz,

2018). Nonetheless, TGNC individuals remain at a disproportional risk of consequences ranging

from social ostracism to murder (Goldblum et al., 2012; “Violence Against the Transgender

Community in 2018,” n.d.). Persistent discrimination, including violence and oppression, has significant and adverse effects upon the well-being and quality of life for TGNC individuals.

The likelihood has never been higher for psychologists to work with TGNC clients

(Heck, Croot, & Robohm, 2015); however, mental health professionals feel unprepared and lack competence working with members of these communities (Shipherd, Green, & Abramovitz,

2010). As a result, researchers have found TGNC individuals feel misunderstood, frustrated, and discriminated against within counselling settings (Duffy, Henkel, & Earnshaw, 2016;

McCullough et al., 2017; Shipherd, et al., 2010).

Major bodies in counselling have responded the deficiencies. The American

Psychological Association (2015) published guidelines for psychological practice with TGNC individuals to “help psychologists maximize the effectiveness of services offered and avoid harm when working with TGNC people and their families” (para. 2). The Canadian Psychological

Association (2015) issued a statement claiming conversion therapy is unethical since the underlying assumption is that gender-variance is akin to a mental disorder. Conversion therapy, also known as reparative therapy, has been enacted by some mental health practitioners and clergy members with the intent of forcibly changing an individual’s sexual orientation

(Callaghan, 2018) or gender identity (Wright, Candy, & King, 2018) through aversive treatments, which has included nausea inducing medication and electric shocks (Haldeman,

2002). The APA’s (2015) and CPA’s (2015) publications in support of TGNC identities align with a trans-affirmative approach to therapy, wherein counsellors view gender-variance as a normal expression of human diversity. Increased responsiveness to TGNC individuals is

necessary and should not be overlooked; however, scholars have noted significant areas for improvement.

In a review of the difficulties TGNC individuals have experienced in receiving health care, Safer et al. (2016) found that a lack of knowledge regarding TGNC identities was the most significant barrier. Within a therapeutic context, TGNC individuals’ experience of therapy has been negatively impacted by counsellors’ lack of knowledge regarding their identities (Mizock &

Lundquist, 2016). Knowledge of a client’s worldview, including how they understand themselves, is essential to ensuring the quality and outcomes of counselling (Arthur & Collins,

2010a). Much of the available literature regarding TGNC individuals is subsumed within the broader LGBTQ+ category. Further, TGNC communities are unto themselves a diverse group of individuals and identities, which has also been largely overlooked (Darwin, 2017; Harrison,

Grant, & Herman, 2012; Laljer, 2017). Counsellors have thus neglected to infuse therapy with the knowledge and understanding of how TGNC individuals construct a sense of themselves and their identities, which is especially relevant given they are living in a culture that largely disavows their existence. Left unaddressed, this inadequacy will deter TGNC individuals from seeking such support (Sennott & Smith, 2011), exacerbating existing difficulties. In part, it was this concern that led me to the current research.

Current Study

I designed the present study with the intention of contributing to a greater understanding of what it is to construct an identity as a TGNC individual within the current cultural context. In other words, how TGNC individuals “selve” (Strong & Zeman, 2005, p. 249). My hope is that the findings can help sensitize cisgender counsellors to the experiences of TGNC individuals, including processes involved in constructing an identity while navigating and negotiating

discourses of erasure, to ameliorate counselling experiences and therapeutic outcomes. To that end, I employed a social constructionist framework in which identity is viewed as constituted through language. That is, a sense of self is acquired and enacted through multiple discourses

(Burr, 2003). This perspective allowed me to embrace the complexity, multiplicity, and at times contradictory linguistic processes involved in shaping a sense of one’s self (Stryker, 2017; Potter

& Wetherell, 1987; Gergen, 1994), while remaining attentive to social and contextual factors.

Given the current social climate, a crucial resource for TGNC communities to subvert oppressive discourses and engage in identity development is the Internet, due to its accessibility and safety (Lev, 2007; Meyerowitz, 2002). Digital media has been cited as a transformative medium for TGNC individuals (Evans et al., 2017; Raun, 2015; Wellborn, 2015). Therefore, I elected to engage in this research through a qualitative analysis of online communities, as TGNC individuals have a meaningful history of connection and identity development in the digital world (Lev, 2007). My chosen method of discourse analysis permitted an in-depth exploration of the processes through which TGNC individuals were using language to make sense of their experience (Burr, 2003). Through an analysis of the talk and text across three online communities, the central question guiding my research was: How do self-identified TGNC individuals construct their identity when they discuss their related experiences online?

Importantly, this question elucidates key terms in need of further explication (i.e., transgender, and identity) since they are central to this research.

Defining Key Terms

As West (2014) noted, defining the term “transgender” poses certain challenges because it involves assigning a “normative telos” (p. 9) to an identity category which is used to oppose modern dualist logic. As a term, transgender does not lend itself to a concise categorical

definition since the experience it is intended to define challenges the notion of rigid categories.

Indeed, as Stryker (2017) noted, it is a word that is still very much under construction. I will employ Stryker’s (2017) broad definition since it emphasizes the cultural and contextual features of identity and is inclusive of a variety of gender experiences: “people who move away from the gender they were assigned at birth, people who cross over (trans-) the boundaries constructed by their culture to define and contain that gender” (p. 1). Notably, Stryker (2017) makes no mention of how these individuals may be transitioning but highlights the process orientation of this identity, stating that “it is the movement across a socially imposed boundary away from an unchosen starting place, rather than any particular destination or mode of transition” (p. 1).

Throughout this writing, to refer to an array of transgender experiences I use TGNC to include binary and non-binary gender identities1. I am certain there may be potential discrepancies, (e.g., someone who may identify as two spirit may not agree with my definition of transgender); however, in the interest of coherence and brevity my use of TGNC is intended to encompass gender-variance generally. I recognize this categorization means I may lose some of the nuance and detail the different labels are intended to convey. I make an effort to honour this diversity within my data collection. I employ a broad definition of transgender to account for a

1 For the purposes of this study I use binary identities to refer to those who have an experience of gender that relates to the normative cultural understandings of male and female. Binary identity examples include transgender women and men (also referred to as binary trans), or cisgender women and men. I use non-binary identities to refer to those who have an experience of gender that is between or outside of normative cultural understandings of male and female. Non-binary identity examples include genderqueer, bigender, genderfluid, agender, and two-spirit. For more information visit: http://www.transstudent.org/definitions/

variety of gender experiences and expressions, and my description uses another word in need of explication: Identity.

Historically, academics have struggled to determine one unifying and principal definition of identity, despite its popularity of use within the social sciences. In some cases, such as in The

SAGE Handbook of Identities (Wetherell & Mohanty, 2010), identity is treated as an “open problematic” to analyze the range of topics, literature, and theories that inform it (Wetherell,

2010, p. 3). Throughout this writing I have conceived of identity as a constructed sense of self developed and informed through social, cultural, (Burr, 2003), and physiological processes, which provides “continuity in the face of continuous discontinuity” (Pfäfflin, 2011, p. 22). I also embrace the complexity and contextuality of identity. I echo psychologist and social constructionist Gergen’s (1991) statement, “only the one who claims to have a simple, definite, and clear-cut identity has an identity problem” (p. 155). Finally, I view discourse as inherently involved in obtaining a sense of self since our experiences, personalities, and identities are all effects of our use of language (Burr, 2003).

Personal Influences and Positionality

Breaking apart the forced unity of sex and gender, while increasing the scope of liveable

lives, needs to be a central goal of feminism and other forms of social justice activism.

This is important for everybody, especially, but not exclusively, for trans people.

—Susan Stryker, Transgender History: The Roots of Today’s Revolution, 2017

As a cisgender individual, my identity and positionality have particular relevance to the present study. Further, psychological researchers have had a reputation for exploiting others for the sake of their own gains. Therefore, I offer the following reflections to orient the reader to my intentions and reflexivity in undertaking this research. In thinking about the processes that

brought me to this topic, I ultimately concluded it was through a convergence of my values, interests, and experiences. I have consistently gravitated towards issues related to inequality as well as questions regarding individual’s thoughts, experiences, and behaviour. In my undergraduate studies these dual perspectives inspired me to pursue courses within psychology as well as sociology. My professors introduced me to queer and feminist scholarship, to which I felt immediately connected. Feminist and queer theories offered me new language that provided coherence to my worldview and dovetailed with my interests in the individual and the cultural. I did not know it at the time, but it was also my first introduction to notions of discursively constructed systems of power: dominant ideologies. I became aware of the insidious ways privilege operates based upon identity categories and social locations. Given my other privileged identities and social locations, that which was the most salient to me was gender. Although I cannot relate to TGNC individuals’ experiences, it is the instances in which I have been underestimated, dismissed, or harassed because of my gender that led me to turn to their experiences. Becoming uncomfortable with the arbitrariness of my privilege prompted me to consider the experiences of those who are unaccounted for by the two-sex model. I learned of the social structures and systems which maintain gender-based inequality, which, in my zeal and excitement, if not naivety, I vowed to disrupt. Later, upon entrance to the Master of Science in

Counselling Psychology program, I became acutely aware of my privilege and power beyond my cisgender status, but also as a budding psychologist—and the responsibility that accompanies it.

In my practicum I connected with members of TGNC communities, and it inspired me to consider how I might exercise the resources at my disposal to engage in research that could meaningfully impact their counselling experiences.

To date, the counselling field has failed to demonstrate consistent, competent, and trans- affirmative practice with TGNC individuals. As a member of the counselling profession, and an aspiring ally, I have taken this thesis as an opportunity to obtain insight that can ameliorate

TGNC individuals’ counselling experiences, in part through sensitizing other cisgender counsellors to the identities and experiences of TGNC individuals. I believe my knowledge of the historical and social factors undergirding systems of power that oppress TGNC people is essential to becoming an ally, but I recognize that this knowledge is not sufficient. Allyship is an ongoing commitment that must be enacted through behaviour (Bishop, 2002). I hope this research serves as an indication of some of the actions I have taken towards my commitment of allyship and offers insight that can improve therapeutic practice with members of TGNC communities.

Overview of Chapters

In this introductory chapter I oriented the reader to the relevance of the proposed study, addressed my positionality, and articulated my hopes for the ensuing analysis. In the next chapter (Chapter Two), I describe the underlying theory, social constructionism, as it relates to the current research. I then provide a critical review of the historical literature regarding the two- sex model, and summarize recent literature pertaining to TGNC individuals’ online identity exploration. In Chapter Three, I elaborate upon the epistemological foundations of discourse analysis, detail the research processes (i.e., data selection, collection, etc.), and discuss the measures taken to ensure quality and rigor. Subsequently, in Chapter Four, I present and define the results, using examples to demonstrate the analytic processes, and note the functions and related limitations of the discourses. In the final chapter (Chapter Five), I summarize and contextualize the findings and offer implications for counselling practice and future research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

I view sex and gender as socially constructed. A social constructionist viewpoint allows me to acknowledge plural positions of meaning, as fashioned through various discourses. I use this lens to employ a broad perspective and to consider what becomes visible when the two-sex model is deconstructed and viewed through different systems of meaning. Traditional essentialist definitions designate sex as the biological and gender as the psychosocial, which establishes a binary: nature versus nurture. Therefore, in contrast to the dictionary definitions previously given, I endorse more nuanced definitions of sex and gender, which are reflective of the complex and integrative qualities of each and are consistent with social constructionism. I argue that in thinking of either gender or sex, one is ultimately thinking of both, because in contemporary Western culture their meanings are intertwined within the two-sex model. As such, I define gender as a constructed proponent of identity (Chinn, 2010), informed by both physiological and social processes, and through performativity, a representation one comes to understand as essential and innate (Butler, 1990). I define sex as a “determination made through the application of socially agreed upon biological criteria for classifying persons as females or males” (West & Zimmerman, 1987, p. 127), a categorization that is ultimately the result of biological, social, and cultural processes.

These definitions are intended to convey the multifaceted qualities of sex and gender, and scaffold a theme underlying the body of this paper: the tendency of humans to think in a binary way. My study of sex and gender has thrust me into a field of this or that, nature versus nurture, male or female, biological or social. I have been consistently challenged throughout this project to maintain a sense of wholeness and coherence amidst a topic that seems to transcend and delineate boundaries simultaneously. I cannot presume to resolve these ideological contrasts in

this writing; however, I attempt to bridge them. Following from Andrews (2012), I maintain that

“one can believe that concepts are constructed rather than discovered yet maintain that they correspond to something real in the world” (para. 6).

As an aspiring trans-affirmative psychologist, it is among my responsibilities to be aware of both the history and current state of sex and gender literature within social scientific research and its connection to TGNC communities. The tenets central to my topic (identity, language, and gender) are broad subjects unto themselves, and cross multiple academic boundaries. The subsequent literature I explore below does as well. An intersection between multiple disciplines is consistent with the process of becoming a feminist psychologist (Carr, Hagai, & Zurbriggen,

2017; Herrmann & Stewart, 1994), therefore I have elected to embrace it and integrate the literature in an intentional way organized around discourses: biological-essentialist, medical, psycho-medical, social, feminist, queer, and transgender.

My aim in organizing the review in this manner is to present major paradigms and associated language and trace the evolution of gender variance across time. Historically, there have been numerous reasons given by researchers as to why gender-variant people exist.

However, these theories operated primarily from a positivist approach—a search for certainty and truth (Henwood, 1996). While the positivist philosophy produced valuable insights, it also limited the scope of study. The traditional positivist stance could not account for how identity is mediated through social processes (Burr, 1995; Gergen, 1994), a social constructionist perspective that I believe is essential to the study of human experiences. To follow, I elaborate upon social constructionism as it relates to my topic and weave a critical lens throughout. This chapter culminates with contemporary literature pertaining to online communities and the TGNC community, seeding the rationale for the current study.

The Social Construction of Sex and Gender

I draw upon Gergen’s (1985) multi-faceted definition of social constructionism, a theoretical pillar underlying this writing. According to Gergen (1985), a social constructionist practices four assumptions: a) taking a critical stance towards taken-for-granted knowledge, b) maintaining awareness of cultural and historical contexts that produce knowledge, c) believing knowledge is sustained through social processes, and d) viewing knowledge and social action as bi-directional processes. These principles are embedded within my conceptualization and discussion of sex, gender, and identity.

While TGNC individuals are presently in the midst of increasing social visibility and acknowledgement within the governments of Western societies, they are not the only gender- diverse group to exist. In Samoa, the socially integrated group, fa’afafine, are ascribed a biological male status, and present in a traditionally feminine manner, such as wearing make-up and women’s clothing (Bartlett & Vasey, 2006). The fa’afafine’s expressions of femininity vary, as do their gender-identities. Other recognized examples of gender diversity across cultures include third gender categories such as the Hijra of India (Agrawal, p. 280, 1997), and the muxe, of Mexico, who are believed to possess unique intellectual and artistic abilities (Synowiec,

2018).

Evidently, gender variance is not culturally unique; however, the rigid dichotomy of the two-sex model does not sanction existing variability across human sex or gender within Western culture. Therefore, TGNC individuals are still largely considered to be a departure from the norm rather than equal. An important question thus becomes, how did the dichotomous and essentialist model of sex and gender become upheld? Critiquing the two-sex model is a crucial step towards adopting a trans-affirmative approach, which is practiced by counsellors who view

TGNC identities as normal expressions of human diversity (APA, 2015). A further examination of the cultural and socio-political landscape that produced the two-sex model reveals processes through which it was constructed and highlights how, historically, the sex and gender dichotomy is not clearly delineated. While I do not propose to deny the existence of physiological differences, I maintain that the sex and gender binary, which is commonly regarded as a natural given of existence, is not immune to societal influence. The two-sex model is an ideology that has been created, re-created, and reinforced over time through various complex social and cultural processes, some of which are discussed below.

Historical and Contextual Considerations

Before the advent of the two-sex model, philosophers and physicians theorized that human bodies were a single anatomical form containing both sexes rather than two opposing binaries (Libbon, 2007). The ancient Greeks organized living creatures upon a vertical continuum which was arranged according to heat, those believed to have the greatest amount of heat were situated at the top, and those with the least were at the bottom (Libbon, 2007). Galen, a Greek physician and philosopher (Brain, 1986), maintained that the sex differences between males and females were within degrees of temperature rather than biological (Laqueur, 1990).

Aristotle similarly posited that because men’s testes are located on the outside of their bodies due to excessive body heat, they warranted placement upon the continuum above women (Laqueur,

1990).

Accordingly, men and women were not seen as different in kind, but as developmentally stratified (Laqueur, 1990). Galen designed a model that would persist for two millennia, illustrating the male and female genitalia in a way that demonstrated how a lack of heat (i.e., lack of perfection) resulted in the inverted, or retained, penis (Brian, 1986). Galen used the same

word, orcheis, to refer to testes and ovaries. Similarly, the anatomist Herophilus used the Greek word didymoi (used to reference testicles) to label ovaries (Brian, 1986). Evidently the language of sexual difference which has become so familiar in modern Western society did not yet exist.

Biological-Essentialist Discourse

The belief in the one-sex model of stratification persisted throughout the renaissance.

Time passed and “anatomical investigations” continued, and although the male body was considered the norm, so too was the single-sex model (Libbon, 2007, p. 81). Scientists’ conceptualization of sex valued male bodies above female bodies yet the opposing and dichotomous thinking behind the two-sex model had not taken hold. In other words, the biological essentialist discourse had not been realized. Laqueur (1990) considered this window of time when society had a clear hierarchy, yet the modern definition of sex had not been created, as evidence that the concept of gender preceded the two-sex model. He stated, “to be a man or a woman was to hold a social rank, a place in society, to assume a cultural role, not to be organically one or the other of two incommensurable sexes” (p. 8). That is, sex was a social category rather than an ontological category. As to why humanity spent as long as it did gendered but not sexed, Laqueur (1990) pointed to the culturally situated body and power dynamics. The body, being one flesh, was somewhat resistant to divisiveness. Bodies were neither male nor female because the one sex-model preceded the definition of sex as an opposing binary. In other words, since the one-sex model was illustrative rather than determinative it could account for differences among bodies without creating a distinction between bodies

(Laqueur, 1990).

As to when the inception of the two-sex model occurred, various scholars across disciplines agree that a significant change regarding human sexuality transpired around the

eighteenth century (Foucault, 1977; Laqueur, 1990; Libbon, 2007). Crucially, the social climate of this time, which was preceded by the scientific revolution, revered the search for objective truths believed to be discoverable within nature through reason and empiricism. Libbon (2007) explains how the cultural and political influences that coincided with the enlightenment and the

French revolution contributed to the inception of the two-sex model:

Despite the fact that women had struggled alongside men to gain greater social freedom,

the majority of educated men opposed giving women more civil and personal liberties,

believing, rightly so, that these liberties would lead to increased public and private power

for women. But to justify this position within the framework of enlightened thought that

postulated a rational individual sexed but unaffected by gender, proof of natural

inequalities had to be found to counter the appeal for natural rights. Experts and laymen

alike now turned to science, and in particular biology, to defend the position that women

were unable to function autonomously inside or outside of the domestic realm. (p. 81)

Laqueur (1990) described the establishment of the two-sex model as a cultural shift from a hierarchal arrangement oriented upon an axis “whose telos was male” to a model of “radical dimorphism, of biological divergence” which defined woman in relation to man (p. 6). More importantly, Libbon (2007) and Laqueur (1990) both highlighted the political agenda of those who were in positions of power to produce knowledge under the guise of revealing knowledge— namely, scientists who were male.

For all of the anatomical investigations that had taken place up until the eighteenth century, none had emphasized physiological differences between men and women until it became a matter of political significance (Laqueur, 1990; Libbon, 2007). The wave of philosophical and political change across the eighteenth and nineteenth century transformed

European society. The period of enlightenment saw individuals, rather than the church, become the authority on issues of morality and truth (Burr, 1995). Alternatively, perhaps it would be more accurate to say those individuals in positions of power used their authority for particular issues (such as implementing a two-sex model), which in turn became truth. In time, the “truth” of the sex and gender binary would become imported to the Americas, including Canada, and enforced by European colonizers. The ethnocentric regulation of gender pathologized and outlawed indigenous sex and gender expressions (Tompkins, 2015), which by today’s standard are called variant but it is interesting to consider that this may only be due to colonial influences.

A Medical Discourse of Incommensurable Difference and Deviance

Returning to the eighteenth century, the belief that scientific inquiry could reveal truth set the course for scientists as a crucial authority and dispensers of true knowledge. The establishment of discrete and biologically based criteria to define sex permitted the labeling of any departures from these concepts as abnormal. Accordingly, sexual and gender variance became a focus of researchers (Lev, 2007). Over time, the disciplines that studied the body would advance, and the nineteenth century witnessed the ascension of the physician. With such power came the ability to define and judge the phenomena under study. Stryker (2017) locates the historical influence physicians had upon TGNC individuals:

Medical science has always been a two-edged sword—its representatives’ willingness to

intervene has gone hand in hand with their power to define and judge.… access to

medical services for transgender people has depended on constructing transgender

phenomena as symptoms of a mental illness or physical malady, partly because ‘sickness’

is the condition that typically legitimizes medical intervention. (p. 52)

Before the term transgender became available, health professionals increasingly sought to identify and classify human sexual behaviour within part of a larger psycho-medical discourse of labeling madness and deviance (Foucault, 1998). The study of sexuality and gender variance was entwined with concerns regarding morality, “doctors depicted hermaphrodites and homosexuals alike as exemplars of degeneration—biological as well as social harbingers of family destruction” (Reis, 2009, p. 61). The resulting research contributed to pathologizing variant bodies, homosexual behaviours, and non-normative gender expressions. A societal fear emerged that the bodies and the minds of these individuals were polluted, and their existence was a threat to newfound social progress and reason (Reed, 2001).

Rather than disparaging the medical profession, I would instead like to highlight how aspects of medical research are inherently tied to certain assumptions and beliefs stemming from biological essentialism and the two-sex model. The categories of male and female may have been intended to categorize average differences across genitalia, hormones, chromosomes, gonads, genetics, and the brain. Conversely, the two-sex model assumes the presence of absolute biological dimorphism, that a given phenomenon, in this case, sex, would take one of two forms

(Hyde, Bigler, Joel, Tate, & van Anders, 2018). Scientists acknowledge that absolute dimorphism is idealistic, and unlikely to occur in nature, and yet they have used (and continue to use) anatomical features to mark the existence of sexual dimorphism (Blackless et al., 2000;

Sanz, 2017). Many studies implicitly place the two-sex model at the forefront, meaning that qualities are defined a priori as either male or female. Such studies dismiss the socially constructed quality of these categories, and conclusions that researchers form assume differences between men and women are innate, stable over time, representative, and internally consistent

(Hyde et al., 2018). The normative categories of male and female are thus continuously fortified, and consequently variations in sex or gender are overlooked or are reinforced as deviance.

Reis (2009) detailed the historical medical treatment of sexually variant individuals within the United States. In the eighteenth century, medical doctors posited that intersex individuals, then referred to as hermaphrodites, were typically women with enlarged clitorises

(Reis, 2009). The experiences between homosexual, intersex, and TGNC individuals cannot be equated, and yet there is some shared history. As an example, for both sex and gender variant individuals a method of exercising autonomy over one’s role in society came through violating gender norms, such as dressing as another sex, or pursuing relationships with individuals of the same sex (Stryker, 2017). Both cross-dressing and same sex attraction would subsequently become labeled as defective, deviant (Reis, 2009), and cause for arrest (Stryker, 2017).

The societal notion of defection and deviance would continue to progress. Medical advancements would later allow scientists to study humans at a chemical and molecular level.

For example, physician Dr. Julianna Imperato-McGinley studied the influence of hormones in child and adolescent development. In a classic study, Imperato-McGinley studied individuals with a genetically inherited deficiency for the androgen dihydrotestosterone (Imperato-

McGinley, Guerrero, Gautier, & Peterson, 1974). The researchers concluded that gender identity could remain flexible throughout childhood, although they argued the hormonal changes that accompany puberty would permanently cement it as either female or male (Imperato-McGinley et al., 1974). Within their research, the hormone difference is referred to as a “defect,” and sexual orientation is used to corroborate the assertion that the “correct” gender identity was obtained (p. 1213). Fausto-Sterling (1992) later challenged these conclusions on the basis that

Imperato-McGinley et al. (1974) overlooked familial and sociopolitical factors. Further, the

conclusions rested upon assumptions of biological innateness, immutability, and conflated sexual orientation with gender identity.

Current research has continued in this vein. Recently, Gray, McHale and Carré (2017) referred to testosterone as a “human male hormone” (p. 53). Their review focused specifically upon studies that have analyzed testosterone and behavioural traits such as aggression, heterosexual preference, and “male sex-typed interests” (Gray et al., 2017, p. 54). This labeling and division is typical, despite other evidence that estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone are present in all bodies (Gillies & McArthur, 2010). Further, the average levels of two types of estrogen (estradiol and progesterone) do not differ between men and women (Liening, Stanton,

Saini, & Schutheiss, 2010).

A deeper examination of the assumption that genitalia mark clear sexual dimorphism further problematizes the large amount of research that has made divisions based upon the biological essentialist discourse. Sex is ultimately considered “normal” when particular anatomical features align with the culturally agreed upon criteria that corresponds to either males or females (Sanz, 2017). The presence of XX chromosomes, a vagina, ovaries, and high estrogen levels means the given individual is female. Conversely, the presence of XY chromosomes, a penis, testes, and high androgens means the given individual is male (Sanz,

2017). However, Blackless et al. (2000) reviewed medical literature published between 1955 to

2000 to investigate sexual dimorphism and assess if this assumption held true. They suggest in at least 1.7% of births there was not a perfect harmony across these markers. Sex is most often identified at birth, when physicians assign a sex based upon the appearance of external genitalia.

Fausto-Sterling (2000) pointed to how physicians have made this assignment upon arbitrary

measurements. Specifically, a phallus less than 1.5 cm long and 0.7 cm wide would be identified as a female, and with larger measurements, as male (Fausto-Sterling, 2000).

In placing genitalia as “proof” of sex, researchers have labeled other features, although variant and often present in both sexes, as either distinctively male or distinctively female.

Therefore, in medical research, scientists have divided between two sexes and produce results which are then taken as further evidence of the incommensurable differences between them.

However, some scholars have contested findings that have claimed absolute differences between males and females and cited such research as pathologizing of sex and gender-variance (Bell,

2016; Fausto-Sterling, 2000; Hyde et al., 2018; Sanz, 2017). Before turning to more current research in depth I will explore the field of psychology. The formulation of numerous psychological theories and research projects have focused upon dividing the human experience into male and female categories (Morgenroth & Ryan, 2018). Further, the focus on medical science as a means to clearly delineate two opposing yet complementary sexes provided the foundation for the psycho-medical discourse encompassing human sexual and gender embodiment and mental health.

Psycho-Medical Discourse

The fields of psychiatry and psychology owe much to one of the most well-known physicians of the nineteenth century: Sigmund Freud. The legacy of Freud’s theories cannot be disputed—his contribution of the term psyche established the mind as a target of intervention, a crucial concept in today’s psychotherapy (Truscott, 2010). Freud is also known for his claim that penis-envy is a key source of neuroticism in women. He suggested a necessary task for women to achieve mental health and well-being was to the convert their penis-envy through the attainment of a husband and the birthing of children (Jones, 2014). Evidently, the primacy of

men is at the center of Freud’s theory of sexuality (Butler, 1990; Jones, 2014), which is predicated upon the assumption that there are two mutually exclusive and biologically based sexes. Freud’s work has received criticism for such heteronormative assumptions, and an apparent lack of rationale for why women would envy the penis, but men would not envy the vagina (Beauvoir, 1949/1989; Jones, 2014; Weisstein, 1968).

Freud’s psychoanalysis was identified as the event which would cement the two-sex model and heteronormativity within the twentieth century (Butler, 1990). Despite being controversial, Freud’s work formed the basis for theories and research within the burgeoning field of psychology and represents an important philosophical shift towards mental (as opposed to strictly physical) health. Importantly, culturally-aware mental health practitioners must also consider how the biological essentialist discourse and androcentrism was infused within his work.

Freud’s theories established a clear connection between mental phenomena, sex, and what today may be considered gender roles, and yet it was not until the mid-twentieth century that a distinction between sex (referring to biological attributes) and gender (referring to psychosocial attributes) entered academic discourse. This shift cannot be attributed solely to one individual, although feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir is among those who directly challenged the discourse of Freud’s psychoanalysis on the basis that he neglected the influence of cultural and social factors within his theories. Beauvoir disagreed with Freud’s prioritization of the male libido and believed that he neglected the social origins of masculine power and privilege. She argued that if women envy men it is a consequence of the unequal distribution of power between them, not because of anatomical superiority (Beavoir, 1949/1989). As opposed to the intrapsychic realm, Beauvoir (1949/1989) identified struggle within the social realm and

provided a detailed analysis of women’s oppression highlighted within the social roles and responsibilities most often attributed to women. Her book The Second Sex (1949/1989) has been famously and frequently quoted, as illustrated by, “one is not born but rather becomes a woman” which exemplified a distinction between the body and the social world (p. 283). Notably, both

Freud and Beauvoir appear to agree that one becomes a gender, although the distinction between them is in how they suggested this occurred. Beauvoir reasoned that it manifested primarily through social processes, and Freud through psychical ones (Zakin, 2011).

Pfäfflin (2011) traced the historical development of the terms identity and gender identity, and claimed that the distinction between cultural and biological influences of identity development was cemented within psychology due in large part to the work of John Money. As a psychological researcher, Money studied both the psychosexual development and physical sex characteristics of children, and reportedly needed language to differentiate between anatomy and psychosexual identity. Money thus introduced the terms gender role in 1955 and then gender identity in 1966 (as cited in Pfäfflin, 2011). John Hopkins University Hospital, where Money worked, was the first university clinic to conduct sex changes (as they were referred to at that time) which propelled this language and associated surgical interventions into the mainstream.

The publication The Transsexual Phenomenon (1966), by sexologist Harry Benjamin, further popularized these terms and a connection between transsexuality, medical interventions, and gender identity became highly recognizable. Thereafter, sex and gender would primarily be recognized as distinct categories, as nature versus nurture (Pfäfflin, 2011).

These newly available categories had ramifications upon how individuals could identify and were defined on the basis of their gender and sex qualities. In other words, they generated different identity labels. Transsexuals were described as those who sought surgery to bring their

gender identity into alignment with their physical bodies, transvestites as those who cross- dressed, and transgender individuals as those who lived as one gender yet had the physical characteristics of the opposite sex (Stryker, 2008). These terms have continued to evolve, and a distinction between those who desire medical intervention and those who do not has continued to the present day. Predominantly, this distinction is visible within discussions as to whether

TGNC individuals who seek gender-affirming interventions are either challenging the two-sex model or are altering their bodies to reproduce it. Similar lines of inquiry have continued to wonder whether transgender individuals reinforce rather than transcend the existing binary

(Davis, 2009; Loftis, 2017). For example, famed transgender actress Laverne Cox has been criticized for reproducing a hyperfeminized gender presentation (Emmons & Marcus, 2015).

Dvosrky and Hughes (2008) discussed this tension in their review of historical transgender identity development. They suggest there have been two waves, the first was characterized by the adoption of hegemonic binary gender roles; from the 1950s to the 1980s psychologists and surgeons looked for commitment towards physical transitions and a willingness to live as the opposite sex. In other words, to justify a desire for gender-affirming interventions, TGNC individuals had to corroborate their experience alongside gender stereotypes to meet hegemonic psycho-medical expectations for a diagnosis of gender identity disorder, first introduced in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Third

Edition (DSM-III) in 1980 (American Psychiatric Association, 1980). Dvorsky and Hughes

(2008) discuss this as the medicalization of gender variance which legitimized gender-affirming surgeries, although it also imposed rigid expectations upon TGNC individuals. The second wave, arising largely between the 1980s and 1990s along with the emergence of genderqueer politics and queer theory, saw the medicalization of the two-sex model being contested. TGNC

people were interweaving varied gender expressions with particular medical interventions (or not), such that diverse identities and bodies were increasingly visible: “Intermediate and novel sex/gender performances and bodies —such as biological males cross-dressing and living as women with breast implants, but not seeking genital surgery—were also possible” (Dvorsky &

Hughes, 2008, p. 7).

As Pfäfflin (2011) remarked, the linguistic distinction between identity and gender identity marked the latter as a subset of identity. This distinction made gender identity available as a subject for research. Within psychology, one of the most notable works pertaining to gender and identity has been Sandra Bem, a psychologist and researcher noted for her contributions to the study of gender identity development (Bell, 2016; Liben & Bigler, 2017). As a researcher who crossed disciplinary lines, Bem incorporated feminist theory into psychological studies and theory (Carr et al., 2017). Bem (1981) identified gender as a fundamental organizing feature of human culture. She also proposed gender schema theory (GST), a social-cognitive theory in which Bem sought to explain the process of gender acquisition and determine how individuals come to consolidate their identity and lives around their gender identity, with an emphasis upon

Western culture and social context. Importantly, in remaining consistent with social constructionism, schema has also been conceptualized as a personal knowledge structure pertaining to cultural memory (Holland & Cole, 1995). In linking the development of a gender schema (a cognitive structure that organizes gendered information) with one’s self-concept, Bem

(1981) posited that children develop a personal understanding of gender which is used to interpret information and organize behaviour. Bem (1993) noted the socially constructed qualities of gender and claimed that children acquire an understanding of gender based upon cultural cues before biological ones (e.g., hair style, clothing).

Bem has been praised for shaping androgyny and the development of GST (Starr &

Zurbriggen, 2016), along with publishing her influential book The Lenses of Gender (1993). In it, she identifies three cultural lenses that converge to construct the modern understanding of gender and sexuality: (a) biological essentialism, the belief that gender is naturally and irrefutably connected to one’s physiology; (b) gender polarization, conceiving of males and females as opposed and mutually exclusive entities; and (c) androcentrism, the belief that men are the normative representation of human experiences. Of interest are the apparent echoes of

Beauvoir’s (1949/1989) writing within Bem’s theories—the centrality of men as an example.

Bem (1993) explained her main purpose in delineating these lenses was an attempt to identify how various influences at the institutional and ideological level affect development at the psychological level.

In particular, Bem (1993) recognized the influence of language and distributions of power in this personal process: “gender schema theory argues that because American culture is so gender polarizing in its discourse and its social institutions, children come to be gender schematic (or gender polarizing) themselves without even realizing it” (p. 125). Bem saw this as a consequence of scientific discourses which maintained and naturalized the construction of the sex and gender binary. Bem (1981) emphasized the importance of dominant cultural discourses in acquiring a personal understanding of gender, and yet her theory does not fully account for the experiences of those who resist traditional understandings of gender and sex, nor how language use is implicated in their gender identity development. Nevertheless, Bem’s theory can be applied more broadly to cultural understandings of gender-variance as abnormal, given TGNC individuals challenge the assumptions underlying the ideologies of gender polarization and biological essentialism. Notably, in her later work, Bem (1995) advocated for the societal

abolishment of the strict sex and gender dichotomy by way of embracing existing sexual and gender diversity.

An important consideration when discussing psycho-medical discourses, which is unrelated to the works of the aforementioned theorists, was the inception of conversion therapy.

Labeling gender-variance as a psychiatric disorder and affiliating it with deviance led to the development of treatments which were believed to convert identity. Some maintained TGNC and homosexual identities could be rehabilitated or repaired, particularly within religious contexts, wherein gender and sexual variance are considered moral transgressions (Colterman-

Fox et al., 2004; Congregation for Catholic Education, 2019; Horner, 2012). Despite the

Canadian Psychological Association’s (2015) statement asserting conversion therapy is unethical, it has been practiced by Canadian therapists (Wright et al., 2018), to the detriment of

TGNC individuals’ mental health (Turban, Beckwith, Reisner, & Keuroghlian, 2018). Further,

Colterman-Fox et al. (2004) the authors of the Pastoral Guidelines to Assist Students of Same-

Sex Orientation referred to conversion therapy as a feasible option for the treatment of homosexual youth (Colterman-Fox et al., 2004). These guidelines are distributed widely to

Catholic school educators within Ontario (Callaghan, 2018). TGNC individuals who have been coerced into conversion therapy have been subject to an especially traumatic form of erasure, and it is the responsibility of counsellors to remain aware of the psychological damage this treatment imposes.

Social-Centric Discourses

In contrast to psycho-medical discourses that have focused primarily upon intrapsychic and cognitive factors, social-centric discourses are those that emphasize societal and contextual factors. Garfinkel (1967) established an approach to analyzing one’s identity construction in the

social world termed ethnomethodology, the modality he undertook in his publication Studies in

Ethnomethodology (1967). Garfinkel assumed individuals are simultaneously making sense of a given situation while also creating said situation, thus there is an inherent reflexivity between participation and production (Rouncefield & Tolmie, 2013). Garfinkel highlighted these social processes in his study of a transgender woman named Agnes and her experience of passing.

Here, passing refers to successfully being read (i.e., categorized) by others as the sex or gender one is intending to present. Under Garfinkel’s view, gender is a managed achievement and the construction of gender involves an interpretation based upon the body for social cues, though is not entirely bound by the body.

Agnes puzzled scientists who attempted to make sense of her through medical, endocrinological, and psychiatric lenses. In his research, Garfinkel (1967) was most fascinated by Agnes’ accomplished presentation as a “natural” female; her ability to present as female, despite having genitalia typical of a male. Agnes’ gender identity was therefore deemed a successful performance, an achievement. Garfinkel viewed biological sex as a given, yet evidently, he was more interested in how Agnes subverted the biological through her social behaviour. Garfinkel (1967) referred to Agnes as a practical methodologist, signifying the development and improvisation of passing strategies that secured her gender identity and enabled her successful gender performance.

Therefore, although Garfinkel’s study of Agnes is focused upon the concept of passing, he also emphasized Agnes’s autonomy. This point can be viewed in the definition Goffman

(1967) provided for his view of passing, “the work of achieving and making secure their rights to live in the elected sex status while providing for the possibility of detection and ruin carried out within the socially structured conditions in which this work occurred” (p. 118). Given the social

climate of the 1960’s, the risks associated with detection were likely quite high, and knowledge pertaining to TGNC individuals was limited. Conversely, Garfinkel presumed the essentiality of the two-sex model by assuming that a given individual could make proprietary claims over an identity group while others cannot (Pfeffer, 2014). Consider how if one can “pass” as a member of a group, one can also “fail” to be a member. Fail according to what and to whom? It must be failure according to specific conditions that are used to evaluate rightful group membership, in other words, necessary (i.e., essential) defining criteria. As for to whom, groups in power traditionally do such evaluating to maintain hegemonic social organization (Machin & Mayr,

2012). In critiquing the term passing it helps to reveal the insidious way(s) power operates through dominant discourses.

Agnes’ story marks an important landmark for TGNC individuals. She was initially diagnosed with the intersex condition testicular feminization syndrome. Years later it was revealed that Agnes had deliberately taken synthetic female hormones in childhood. She had initially withheld this information to ensure she would receive the genital surgery she desired. In her analysis of transsexual autobiographies, Hausman (2006) recognized TGNC individual’s agency in that they work to gain approval from professionals to obtain desired gender-affirming interventions, similar to Agnes. However, Hausman (2006) maintained that these practices violate the integrity of the body. Importantly, Hausman’s (2006) claim regarding such a violation does not acknowledge the power of the two-sex model in defining what is normal and thus what is considered to be a violation in relation to the so-called normal and healthy body.

That is, Hausman’s (2006) conceptualization of gender-affirming practices as a violation to the body pathologizes TGNC identities. Consider how cisgender individuals who pursue plastic surgery are not faced with the same amount of criticism and scrutiny as TGNC individuals are,

despite altering or enhancing their bodies for personal purposes. Members of the TGNC community view Agnes’ story as a clever subversion of a system of power to actualize herself

(Garfinkel, 2006).

In contrast to Garfinkel’s view that individuals are in an ongoing state of self-creating gender, Goffman (1976) suggested that individuals construct gender in select contexts in his gender display theory. Goffman (1976) posited that gender displays are the ritualized behaviours and performances often dialogically exchanged between individuals. His explication focused upon how social interaction produced the dichotomous ideologies deemed to be the result of natural sex differences. Goffman (1976) stated “we are socialized to confirm our own hypotheses about our natures” (p. 75), including assumptions of an essential sexed nature, which manifests through our behaviour as gender displays. Following from this point, both nature (i.e., biological) and nurture (i.e., learning) can converge to produce ritualized gendered behaviour, which is then naturalized as evidence of essential biological differences. Gender displays are considered optional, though not inconsequential; they are representations of what individuals would like to express about humans’ given sexual natures. Our nature then, Goffman (1976) contended, is our capacity to both enact and interpret these displays in particular contexts.

West and Zimmerman’s (1987) Doing Gender drew significant attention to how gender differences are produced through social processes. They expanded upon Goffman’s (1976) concept of gender display and Garfinkel’s (1967) study of Agnes to substantiate their argument.

West and Zimmerman (1987) argued that gender is an accomplishment produced through everyday interactions and performances with others, and consequently appears as a natural given of existence. Where West and Zimmerman (1987) diverged from Goffman’s (1976) view was in

their claim that gender displays do not adhere to a schedule but are ongoing activities produced through routine interaction. In other words, people are always doing gender.

West and Zimmerman (1987) asserted that doing gender is unavoidable, given the degree to which it is produced and policed throughout domestic, economic, and political domains. They suggested that this doing of gender is naturalized through processes that organize society as a response to sex-based differences, that is, “the social order being merely an accommodation to the natural order” (p. 146). Society then functions as a selective mirror—it reflects a social order based upon gender representations which in turn justifies hierarchical arrangements based upon said representations. The process by which this occurs is obscured, so it appears both normal and natural. Ultimately, West and Zimmerman (1987) advocated for change at both the institutional level and the interactional level as a means to disrupt systems that oppress on the basis of sex category, and their work elucidated the “interactional scaffolding” (p. 147) that, in part, serves to maintain such oppression. However, questions as to how this disruption could happen, given one is always doing gender (per their argument), were left unanswered.

In the formulation of their theory, West and Zimmerman (1987) did not explore how the process of doing gender might be different for TGNC individuals. Further, there is a difference between doing gender (an everyday human practice) and passing (an experience unique to transgender individuals) and equating the two different experiences negates how transgender individuals’ doing of gender is distinct from that of cisgender individuals. Taken together, both

West and Zimmerman (1987), and Goffman (1976), demonstrate that biological differences do not necessitate either hierarchical sex or gender-based social order. These theorists do not make explicit connections to gender-variant individuals, although in critiquing systems of power and deconstructing how biological differences became naturalized through social processes these

writings helped to forge new ideological spaces and generated research that would be expanded upon by feminists and queer theorists. A social constructionist view entails considering how individuals negotiate social systems with one another, and if this tenet is applied to contemporary society a pertinent question becomes: how have new constructions of gender-variance been realized through language? This question can be considered in part through feminist and queer texts which are discussed below.

Feminist Discourses

That I can even undertake this study, an analysis of TGNC identity construction, owes much to historical developments made by feminist theorists. Feminist thinkers have been credited as being chief among those who helped elucidate the limits of empiricist orientations and the taken-for-granted assumptions embedded within scientific research (Gergen, 1985).

Feminist academics concerned themselves with the nature of knowledge and engaged in a critical examination of the social and natural sciences, recognizing how scientific research was entrenched in gender-biases (Crawford & Marecek, 1989).

Writers such as Weisstein and Chesler produced works that contributed to a revolution of theory within psychology: Psychology Constructs the Female (1968), and Women and Madness

(1972), respectively. Wiesstein (1993) critiqued the validity of Freud’s theories, and more generally psychology’s failure to consider social context. An assessment of how psychology and psychiatry pathologized normal responses of women living within a patriarchal society was the main focus and argument Chesler (1972) made.

In a review of the history of feminism in Western psychology, Worell (2000) detailed how beginning in the early 1970s feminist psychologists asserted that sex and gender stereotypes were biased against woman. She highlighted some of the key innovations feminist psychology

scholarship has made in reconstructing research methods, developing new approaches to therapeutic practice, exploring research topics in the context of lived experiences, and advocating for social reform (Worell, 2000). In parallel to the latter point, this wave of feminism empowered not only new scholarship but political action (Chinn, 2010). In particular, issues related to race and sexuality came to the forefront of both academia and politics, though the focus was less upon understanding how identities were constructed and more upon “the fact of their being and the ramifications of their operations” (Chinn, 2010, p. 105).

The feminist movement set a precedent for identity issues to enter political and academic discourses, a contribution whose importance and ramifications cannot be understated. To form a collective identity, however, this necessarily meant womanhood had to be defined, as was done through a unitary and essential category, for which the second wave of feminism has since received criticism (Carr et al., 2017). The essentialist and categorical view neglected gender variant individuals as well as intersections between identities, such as those between white women and women of colour. Denise Riley (1988) suggested that the term women was employed to exclude particular female identities from the larger collective.

Similarly, Stryker (2017) detailed how in the 1970s androgyny came to be viewed as the gender-neutral ideal in the context of lesbian and feminist culture. Butch and femme identities were viewed as exemplars of male identification and patriarchal gender, respectively, which was perceived by some as a threat to the flourishing women centered culture, since they were believed to reproduce traditional gender roles in heterosexual pairings. This cultural shift away from gender roles towards androgyny had consequences for the TGNC community. At this time women’s social spaces that previously tolerated transgender individuals became exclusionary

(Stryker, 2017). Some contended that with greater acceptance of androgyny gender-affirming

surgeries would be rendered unnecessary, thus transsexual identities would cease to exist

(Kessler & McKenna 1978; Raymond, 1979).

With these notions of exclusivity and erasure circulating culturally, it was an ideal climate to develop literature united around a central issue: whether transsexual and transgender individuals were truly the sex or gender they believed themselves to be. Recall how Namaste

(2000) identified erasure as the most significant social relation affecting TGNC people; she located erasure through three intersecting processes which expunge TGNC identities throughout institutional, political, and cultural contexts. Namely, (a) processes or acts in which being

TGNC is rendered impossible and/or is nullified; (b) discriminatory social policies which perpetuate inequality on the basis of being transgender which restricts access to services; and (c) reducing TGNC people to the figurative as “rhetorical tropes and discursive levers,” invoked to reinforce arguments rather than illuminate lived experiences (Namaste, 2000, p. 52). Following from Namaste (2000), these meanings interact and thereby maintain one another in part through the production of trans-exclusionary discourses, explored below.

Trans-exclusionary discourses. Raymond, a professor of women’s studies and medical ethics, has been credited with amalgamating the “antitransgender discourse” (Stryker, 2017, p.

132) that was circulating throughout feminist communities across the 1970s in The Transsexual

Empire: The Making of the She-Male (1979). Raymond’s book was published 40 years ago, yet it merits discussion here because it is evidence of a split within feminist thought— some feminists currently identify as trans-inclusive (Williams, 2016) and others identify as trans- exclusionary, or as gender-critical (“r/GenderCritical,” n.d.).

Raymond (1979) suggested the decision of transgender individuals to undergo surgical interventions was tantamount to rape and an appropriation of the female soul. Raymond (1979)

contended the medical institution created transsexuality and the equivalent surgeries to design a profitable medical market and amend sexual and gender nonconformity. She emphasized the essential nature of biology and made a claim towards a feminism built upon the sex and gender binary to the exclusion of TGNC individuals (Kelly, 2018). At the core of this argument it seems as though Raymond believed surgical interventions would promote an illusion that biological qualities are mutable (Schilt & Lagos, 2017). Following from a similar line of thought, Eichler (1980) noted, “from a strictly physiological viewpoint, we must designate sex change operations as bodily mutilation—the willful destruction of physically healthy portions of the body for purely social reasons” (p. 87). Hausman (2006), also contended that TGNC individuals reproduce gender stereotypes in opposition to feminist progress, although unlike

Raymond (1979), Hausman did not equate transsexual individuals with a threat towards womanhood. The sentiment that surgical interventions were tantamount to mutilation, along with other exclusionary discourses, were popularized in the 1970s and 1980s (Stryker, 2017).

Raymond’s (1979) book singled out one member of the TGNC community in particular,

Sandy Stone, for her involvement with the Olivia Records collective, a women’s music record label. Eventually, under the threat of boycott, Stone resigned from her position and (among other things) pursued academia. Raymond’s (1979) claims have since been cited as transphobic

(Serano, 2013; Stryker, 2017) and she has been criticized for exercising hate speech towards transgender communities. Evidently, as the academic and political fields were evolving in response to feminism, multiple tensions emerged, perhaps most principally between those who believed in a culturally situated identity and those who maintained the self is immutable and trans-historical; in other words, between social constructionism and essentialism (Chinn, 2010).

Differences between groups contributed to the variations across feminism that came out of the feminist movement: liberal, radical, and post-modern being among them—which in turn contributed to queer and transgender theory. Somewhat paradoxically, Raymond’s (1979) controversial work propelled transgender counter theorizing and discourse, including the canonical rebuttal by Stone, The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttransexual Manifesto (1993).

Whereas Raymond’s (1979) work contributed to exclusionary discourses, Stone’s (1993) manifesto was a key text in inspiring queer and transgender studies. Briefly, before turning to

Stone’s (1993) work in greater detail, I will discuss queer and transgender theory, since her work arguably falls into both categories.

Queer and Transgender Discourses

Queer theory drew from third wave and postmodern feminist thought, and expanded women’s studies by avoiding binary contrasts (e.g., male/female, homosexual/heterosexual). As such, generally speaking, queer theorists are critical of scientific discourses that have made a strict dichotomy between the natural and the cultural (Elliott, 2010). Marinucci (2010) suggests that what is sometimes described as queer theory’s rejection of binary contrasts is more accurately described as undertaking a social constructionist lens with respect to those contrasts.

In particular, the queer movement applied this perspective to critique heteronormativity, the dominant belief that heterosexuality, predicated on the sex and gender binary, is the normal sexual orientation. Since queer theory avoided binary and hierarchical reasoning, particularly in connection to sexuality, this allowed TGNC individuals to assert their own grievances against the oppression they experienced under heteronormative ideologies (Stryker, 2006).

Namaste (2000) has critiqued queer theorists on the basis that they have focused primarily on the production of transgender identities and experiences, rather than how it is

managed in the everyday social world across an array of social institutions. Transgender studies can also be differentiated from queer theory on the basis that the former is more attuned to

“questions of embodiment and identity than to those of desire and sexuality” (Stryker, 2006, p.

7). In contrast to some schools of feminist thought, transgender theorists critique discrete categories such as woman, yet consistent with feminism, transgender scholars seek to disrupt systems that maintain discrimination and systemic inequality based on gender. Transgender theory thus interweaves complex notions of embodiment, desire, and identity while critiquing cisnormativity2 (Stryker, 2006). A unifying idea between feminist, queer, and transgender scholarship is the idea that gender and sex are performative and fluid rather than inherent and mutable (Butler, 1990).

Judith Butler has been credited with applying performativity to the field of gender studies

(Stryker, 2006) and examined how gender becomes an embodied experience enacted through every-day life experiences. Butler originally published Gender Trouble in 1990, which has been a monumental piece of literature that further propelled notions of performativity as well as feminist theory and was a significant document in founding queer theory (Carr, Hagai, &

Zurbriggen, 2017). Butler’s work was in response to observations that feminist theorists were in danger of idealizing particular expressions of femininity while simultaneously restricting the meaning of gender to correspond to the two-sex binary of masculine and feminine expressions.

Butler (1990) sought to show how individuals come to form gendered identities and reveal how

2 Cisnormativity refers to the normative assumption that all individuals’ experience of gender corresponds to their biological sex.

the process of coming to understand oneself as a gendered being is inextricably linked to the construction of sexed identities.

Consistent with social constructionism, Butler (1990) identified that this process occurred primarily through language, rejecting the idea of a pre-discursive self. In particular, Butler located the stability of the two-sex model through its placement in the pre-discursive domain,

“whether gender or sex is fixed or free is a function of a discourse which.… seeks to set certain limits to analysis or to safeguard certain tenets of humanism as presuppositional to any analysis of gender” (Butler, 1990, p. 9). Butler therefore problematized the thinking that sex is purely biological, and gender is culturally formed and socially produced on the basis of that sex.

Rather, she proposed that the biological dualism inherent to the two-sex model is an ideological product of the gender system. Butler’s (1990) concept of performativity provided new insight which was employed and expanded upon within Stone’s (1993) manifesto.

Stone (1993) challenged essentialist and exclusionary discourses such as Raymond’s which used the gender and sex binary to police transgender bodies. As discussed above,

Raymond (1979) expressed concern that Sandy Stone would pollute Olivia Records with her

“male” energy. Stone (1993) highlighted how this argument erased TGNC individuals and constricted their efforts for advocacy, “for a transsexual, as a transsexual, to generate a true, effective and representational counterdiscourse is to speak from outside the boundaries of gender

… which have been predefined as the only positions from which discourse is possible” (p. 12).

That is to say, since their identities could not be expressed through existing categories and language, TGNC individuals were limited by existing systems in their attempts to advocate for and represent their identities. Subsequently, these perceived limitations were taken as evidence that their identities were illegitimate in the first place.

Stone (1993) thus suggested an expansion of linguistic terminology that could allow for more gender possibilities, as opposed to the continued academic use of ontologized language that abets identity foreclosure. Stone (1993) concluded her manifesto with a statement directed not only towards TGNC individuals, but anyone who has “chosen invisibility as an imperfect solution to personal dissonance” (p. 14 ). Therefore, she criticized passing and maintained that identity disclosure avows authentic relationships, disrupts essentialist discourses, and is essential to advocacy (Stone, 1993).

A strength of Stone’s (1993) argument is her call for political action and empowerment, although a limitation is the potential reading that there is only one universal or ideal avenue for

TGNC individuals to pursue towards authentic relationships. Namely, as she claimed, through disclosure. To assume that there is only one way to be authentic is to engage in another form of essentialist discourse. Nonetheless, Stone’s (1993) manifesto helped to mark TGNC individuals as sights of embodied difference rather than deviance and was among few voices at the time who suggested there could be intelligibility outside of heteronormative and binary conceptualizations of sex and gender.

TGNC Individuals and the Internet: Digital Discourses

Preceding the Internet, information pertaining to TGNC lives occurred primarily through scant literature, films, and books (Hill, 2005). Consequently, the resources available to those who felt they were transgender, or gender non-conforming, were largely limited. The sources that were available frequently depicted transgender individuals in exploitative forms (Heinz,

2012). The representations within these forms were therefore unlikely to be representative of gender-diverse individuals, and the restricted availability of informational resources made it

difficult for TGNC individuals to learn about their experience or connect with similar people.

Unsurprisingly, this heightened social isolation and marginalization (Hill, 2005).

Given cultural ideologies labeling TGNC individuals as deviant, coupled with discourses of exclusion and erasure, the advent of the Internet afforded this community collective organization, safer connection, and reprieve. Internet access has allowed individuals to create connections around shared qualities, including identities, resulting in the establishment of meaningful online communities (Smith, et al., 2015). Numerous scholars have identified the

Internet as a catalyst which enabled the development of greater connections and communities for

TGNC individuals (Lev, 2007; Meyerowitz, 2002; Shapiro, 2004; Whittle, 1998). The nature of these connections allowed TGNC individuals to transcend geographical limitations to gather identity relevant information.

With access to the Internet, TGNC persons can not only acquire relevant information and discover like-minded and similar individuals but explore and experiment with their own identities. Online communication allows individuals to either remain anonymous or disclose as much personal information with whom they are comfortable. As such, online communication can render the body invisible, which for TGNC individuals means that they can express and experiment with their gender identity in potentially new ways. Briefly, West and Zimmerman’s

(1987) concept of doing gender is applicable here. They emphasized visible characteristics as key to the social categorization based upon sex; without visible cues the logic follows that categorization based upon these qualities would be impossible if not irrelevant. To follow, I turn towards research regarding TGNC individual’s use of online resources for their identity exploration, a line of study which is still in its infancy.

Online identity exploration. In their review of online resources that are being accessed by TGNC youth, Evans et al. (2017) interviewed transgender youth as well as their guardians.

The researchers noted how the limitations surrounding vocabulary was a key finding. TGNC youth emphasized their challenge around employing language to adequately describe their experience and sense of self. Exploring their identity was thus a primary motivating factor in turning towards online resources. Participants used the Internet to access social support listservs, discover autobiographical accounts by other TGNC individuals, and find supportive health practitioners. The access to this content offered new identity terms and labels. The participants discussed finding fitting terms as a process of discovery and experimentation with multiple labels. In other words, trying out particular language before discarding it after finding something more suitable. Gathering information through digital means not only supported guardians but was a central step towards the participants’ identity development (Evans et al., 2017).

With regards to the relationship between TGNC identity development and technology,

Raun (2015) characterized digital media as a transformative medium for transgender individuals.

In analyzing autobiographical narratives, he noted how individuals highlighted that accessing other TGNC individual’s stories online enabled their own self-reflection process and self- construction of their identity as gender-variant. The active and selective searching processes that one can engage in online means that TGNC individuals can filter the information and available resources to discover what they believe will be the most helpful. Wellborn (2015) discovered that one such example was finding real-world role models, which are often lacking in popular media due to cisgender bias. Online media can thus be a site for discovering, discussing, creating, and changing cultural narratives and understandings of gender variance.

Shapiro (2004) traced how the Internet has enabled such change through mobilizing and organizing political action. The democratic power of the Internet allowed TGNC individuals to self-govern and challenge pathologizing and silencing practices, in particular, to defy the medical system’s encouragement of a stealth existence (i.e., not disclosing one’s gender identity).

Internet-based activism has included letter writing campaigns, recruitment, online protests, boycotts, and the affordable distribution of activism materials (Shapiro, 2004).

Whittle (1998) acknowledged that medical, social, and legal systems of power have disenfranchised TGNC individuals, and thus suggested online communities, or cyberworlds, are spaces in which TGNC individuals can authenticate themselves. Whittle applied Goffman’s

(1963) concept of stigma to reason his argument. According to Goffman (1963), there is a virtual social identity (normative expectations about another’s identity) and an actual social identity (factual attributes pertaining to another’s identity). Importantly, normative expectations form the basis of desirable and hegemonic identities. Stigma is a consequence of a perceived discrepancy between the virtual and actual social identity—or who one is versus what dominant beliefs suggest they should be (Goffman, 1963). Therefore, applying this theory here, TGNC individuals may be stigmatized as a consequence of the quality of being gender-variant and thus different from those who are cisgender and privileged as being normal. Whittle (1998) took a literal approach to Goffman’s notion of virtual social reality, and suggested digital communication removes the possibility of a perceived discrepancy between how TGNC individuals wish to be viewed and how they are actually viewed, allowing for a genuine representation of the experienced self.

Following from the existence of a virtual social identity Cavalcante (2016) examined the experience of a transgender individual who regularly engaged in online communities in a study

of the relationship between technology and transgender identity. Jen, a case-study participant, discussed how she participated online and initially managed the extent to which she disclosed her transgender identity. Not only did she consume online material to inform her experience, she experimented with social networking sites as a space to experiment with expression. In her own words, “I made fake MySpace and Facebook pages to project myself the way I felt … the inner me I guess” (Cavalcante, 2016, p. 115). As Jen’s experience demonstrates, and consistent with

Whittle’s (1998) argument above, online modalities may allow TGNC individuals to express what they feel is their inner, or authentic, self. Whittle’s (1998) argument might, in part, explain the attraction towards digital communication for TGNC communities— the expression of a self free from stigma. However, his theory suggests a split between who one is online versus in person, between a real self and a virtual self, as opposed to different and varying expressions of a whole. Unfortunately, the Internet also poses certain risks to TGNC individuals, indicating online resources are not entirely free from stigma. Cavalcante (2016) reported that Jen had received “sketchy” and unwanted emails from a college classmate who had seen her in a

YouTube video, albeit under a pseudonym, and identified her (p. 120). Further, gender-variant youth experience cyberbullying at a significantly higher rate compared to cisgender youth

(Painter, Scannapieco, Blau, Andre, & Kohn, 2018).

That being said, technology has also enabled and advanced social movements and ongoing discussions. TGNC communities have transformed the meaning of gender identity within Western society and culture. Consistent with Rothblatt’s (1995) prediction, modern technology has served to disrupt traditional beliefs around gender and sex, “It is much easier to disconnect ourselves from thousands of years of rigidly fixed notions about sex and gender when we telecommunicate than when we are face to face” (p. 149). Lev (2007) echoes this idea,

suggesting the Internet has been supportive of the development of a greater variety of identities outside of the medical model. Individuals across various stages of identity development can connect with one another and discuss issues such as coming out, or whether to transition physically or not (Lev, 2007). These types of conversations mark a shift from dominant assumptions, a major one being that to be transgender necessarily meant taking hormones and undergoing surgeries. Now, TGNC individuals can more readily connect to those who do desire these changes, as well as to those who choose not to pursue them. Consistent with social constructionism, as the language evolves, so do the identities. For example, when the term genderqueer first emerged it was largely absent from academic discourse (Kuper, Nussbaum, &

Mustanski, 2012), and currently remains largely outside of medical discourse, which is suggestive of the waning power of medical systems in defining TGNC identities.

Genderqueer, as defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary is a gender identity that cannot be categorized as solely male or female (Genderqueer, n.d.), thus challenging binary medical definitions. Hansbury (2005) discussed genderqueer individuals as those who defy traditional gender categorizations and may not wish to transition in the traditional medical sense. Relatedly,

Davidson (2007) reported that participants described their genderqueer identity as a means to challenge traditional binary definitions of male and female. One of the participants explained, “I identify as a transgender woman and also as a transsexual woman and also as a genderqueer woman and also a gender-fluid woman. I have many identities” (p. 63). Taken together, these findings suggest gender identity has evolved, in part due to the social effects of the Internet, to have various personal definitions and meanings. Further, non-essentializing understandings have evidently taken hold and gained popularity. As Davidson’s (2007) participant illustrated, one can claim and perform multiple identities at once. Outside of the terms listed, there are

numerous others: non-conforming, non-binary, bi-gender, feminine-of-center, masculine-of- center, gender-fluid, or third gender—this list is not exhaustive; rather its purpose is to serve as an example of some of the current language reflective of existing gender-variance.

While all identities are subject to the confines of language, most of us can remain comfortably unaware of that fact because hegemonic identities are afforded the freedom and privilege of being recognized and understood in the social realm with greater ease. For members of the TGNC community, finding, adapting, and employing language to attain self-understanding and societal acknowledgement seems to be an existential pre-requisite. TGNC individuals are thus faced with the challenge of negotiating and expressing their identity within a culture that overlooks, dismisses, and oppresses them. As evidenced above, TGNC communities are turning towards the Internet to acquire language as a primary way to make sense of their experience, and yet how this process is occurs in everyday life remains largely obscured.

Chapter Summary

A central purpose of this review was to identify and analyze literature that has contributed to cultural discourses informing the TGNC community. I began by reviewing the historical and contextual considerations culminating in current feminist, queer, and transgender theoretical positionings. Subsequently, I highlighted how one of the safest and most accessible spaces for TGNC individuals to engage in identity exploration is the digital realm. Researchers have recently begun to explore what processes TGNC individuals are engaging in to facilitate this self-reflection. The current literature indicates these processes include discovering representations of similar others (Wellborn, 2015), accessing autobiographical narratives (Evans et al., 2017; Raun, 2015), and exposure to (and experimentation with) vast identity labels and associated descriptions (Cavalcante, 2016). The Internet is thus a key resource for TGNC

individuals to acquire language that is essential for developing an understanding of their gender identity.

The existing literature is limited since the relationship between TGNC identity construction and language use has not been analyzed in depth, despite being identified as an essential process. The sources cited within this review have contributed valuable knowledge to the online experiences of TGNC individuals, although researchers have largely identified what they are accomplishing (i.e., identity development) rather than elucidate how they are accomplishing it, which I refer to as identity work. The Internet is a readily available resource that TGNC individuals are using wherein this is precisely what they are accomplishing. Raun

(2015), who is a scholar of media and communications studies, has researched TGNC representations throughout digital media and noted, “it is crucial to develop an analysis of the ways in which trans and social media intersect” (p. 376). Similarly, Cavalcante (2016) highlighted that a task facing researchers is to recognize what it means for TGNC individuals to

“do” their identity all online. In the chapter to follow I outline my exploration of the intersection between TGNC individuals, identity, and language.

Chapter 3: Methodology

I have used social constructionism to demonstrate how knowledge of sex and gender remains subject to different meanings as expressed through different discourses. In this way, I conceptualized sex, gender, and identity as fluid entities, products of a system of meaning related to time, place and subject positions (Zitz, Burns & Tacconelli, 2014). As such, I traced these understandings and the development of gender throughout history, culminating in the present era wherein TGNC individuals are using digital spaces as a valuable resource to do identity work.

The primary aim of my thesis research is to analyze digital discourses and explore how TGNC individuals use language in a real-world setting to understand their identity and related experiences within culture in which traditional views of sex and gender maintain discrimination and marginalization. As a reminder, to this end I asked: How do self-identified TGNC individuals construct their identity when they discuss their related experiences online?

In this chapter, I explain how the study was conducted through a detailed rationale and description of my chosen method and procedure. Preceding this description, I acknowledge my positioning within this research. I continue to use social constructionism as the epistemological framework underlying discourse analysis, the qualitative methodology that I employ to answer my research question. Next, I elaborate upon the theoretical underpinnings of social constructionism specifically in relation to notions of discourse and identity. Finally, I review the data inclusion criteria, outline coding and analytic procedures, and address the quality of the current research.

Qualitative Inquiry and Researcher Reflexivity

In my efforts to establish myself as an ally, the significance of my research design has often come to my mind. Of particular concern has been how to design a study with sensitivity,

given my privileged status as a cisgender individual. This question helped to inform my decision to use a qualitative methodology. Qualitative inquiry draws from multiple intellectual camps.

Some include; post-structuralism, emphasizing the plurality of meaning and language; interpretative studies, observing natural phenomena to arrive at interpretations of subjective experiences; and critical studies (e.g., feminist and queer theories), a reflective dialogic approach in which theorists challenge assumptions with an emphasis upon social change (Denzin &

Lincoln, 1994; Henwood, 1996).

Given the postpositivist orientation of qualitative research, such researchers are less interested in processes of causality or empirically substantiated facts (Woolgar, 1996). Rather,

“qualitative research lays down its claim to acceptance by arguing for the importance of understanding the meaning of experience, actions and events as these are interpreted through the eyes of particular participants, researchers and (sub)cultures,” while maintaining sensitivity and awareness of the irreducible complexity of the human experience (Henwood, 1996, p. 27). On this basis, the philosophies underlying a qualitative line of inquiry would complement an exploration into the experiences of TGNC individuals, since it permits me to engage in a reflective and critical analysis while preserving the detail of the data.

More importantly, according to Staunton et al. (2009), members of TGNC communities have voiced their support for non-pathologizing qualitative research (as cited in Zitz, et al.,

2014). The TGNC community has been consistently pathologized and erased by academics and social services (Namaste, 2000). Thus, my research question has been designed to explore how

TGNC individuals selve. I borrow this term from Strong and Zeman (2005), who draw from discursive theory to situate the terms (or “conversational activities”) of othering and selving within therapeutic discussions of sexual identity (p. 249). Othering involves objective or

essentializing claims made about another, whereas, as discussed in Chapter 1, selving involves understanding one’s identity in a non-pathologizing and pluralistic manner. Scholars Strong and

Zeman situate these definitions relationally, as processes that can occur between individuals and are subject to the linguistic tools and inner experiences (i.e., thoughts) available to each person.

It is well-documented that members of the TGNC community have been othered by

Western culture through the claims and representations made about them (e.g., Capuzza, 2014;

Colliver, Coyle, & Silvestri, 2019; Smith, Shin, & Officer, 2012). In other words, othering through the imposition and policing of dominant discourses. In a sense, I investigated how

TGNC individuals selve. I aimed to understand how they construct their identity when available discourses have historically othered them. Namaste (2000) outlined three social scientific research considerations pertaining to the study of transgender individuals to counter processes of exclusion and erasure (i.e., othering) which I have included within this research design: (a) I engaged in a critical historical reflection of TGNC issues; (b) I focused upon the real-world everyday life of TGNC individuals through my inclusion of naturalistic data (that is, data that transpires outside of the researchers’ influence); and (c) I included multiple online communities to remain inclusive of TGNC diversity. Further, Namaste (2000) contended that examining discourse permits a more profound understanding of the lived experiences of TGNC individuals in the everyday world. My intention, therefore, was to ask a question and employ a research methodology that was thoughtfully considered to be in alignment with social justice aims.

Relatedly, a concern I had was undertaking a project which could be conceived of as speaking for TGNC individuals. To address this concern, I made specific efforts to connect and engage with TGNC communities. I participated in various social events on and off campus and consulted with a member from the community in regular discussions pertaining to my data

analysis and chapter reviews. These discussions were process oriented; I presented my findings as they were evolving and changing, with a focus upon substantiating analytic claims I was making. The community consultant shared from their personal experience which helped sensitize me towards appropriate language use and provided me with insight into some of the ongoing challenges TGNC individuals face while living in a predominantly binary world. My intentions throughout these engagements were three-fold: to broaden my allyship efforts, to reduce the unintended likelihood of speaking for TGNC individuals, and to improve the credibility and quality of my findings through reflexive practices.

My engagement with reflexive practices was also done in part to account for my privileged social location. Researchers cannot remove their social locations from their analysis

(Greckhamer & Cilesiz, 2014; Morrow, 2005; Potter & Wetherell, 1987), so I could not detach my cisgender perspective from this project. Consistent with the assumptions underlying the epistemology and method, I thus maintain that the results are constructed representations based upon my interpretations, and their value will be determined by their quality and relevant implications (Potter & Wetherell, 1987), particularly within a counselling context.

Epistemological and methodological considerations are a focus within the section to follow.

Social Constructionism and Discourse Analysis

Noted historian and professor Yuval Harari has acknowledged that language was a key factor which enabled humans to dominate the world (Harari, 2014). He explains that we are unique in our ability to link sounds and utterances together to produce complex linguistic patterns. Animals also have vocal abilities that they use to communicate, although human languages are distinctly supple: different combinations of limited sounds produce profoundly different meanings (Harari, 2014). In linking together specific patterns of sounds with thoughts

and experiences we produced languages. Using social constructionism, I maintain that we constitute meaning and knowledge through social processes, foremost among them being language use. As a social process, language is subject to the ongoing and ever-changing cultural and historical dynamics within which it is situated. In other words, language is not static—we use it, and it uses us.

Language simultaneously shapes and is shaped by society (Machin & Mayr, 2012).

Discourse analysists are those who study this relationship and are interested precisely in how language is used to produce and sustain knowledge (Burr, 1995), through an analysis of the linguistic resources employed (Potter, 1996). The focus is to recognize what occurs when language is exercised in different social, political, and cultural landscapes (Machin & Mayr,

2012). Potter and Wetherell (1987) define discourse as language-in-use, the talk and text embedded within various social practices to produce a particular action or function. It would therefore be appropriate to conceptualize discourse as a verb. Discourses perform and function within interpersonal realms to persuade audiences, explain, create communities, inform others, establish reality, justify, construct identities, and so on (Potter & Wetherell, 1988; Wetherell &

Potter, 1988). Given the functional definition of discourses, throughout this writing I treat discourse as a verb. In so doing I am not implying that discourses have consciousness.

Certainly, discourses are neither distinct nor independent from human thought and behaviour. I anthropomorphize the term discourse to emphasize its action orientation (Potter, Wetherell, Gill,

& Edwards, 1990; Potter, 1996; Potter & Wetherell, 1987).

Discourse analysists do not believe that a particular truth or reality will be revealed through the analysis of language. The analysis of discourse is in the interest of exploring the processes through which reality is constructed and perceived. (Potter & Wetherell, 1988, 1987).

This form of analysis is in contrast to psychological research that has focused upon discovering

“truths” about identity and human nature. From a social constructionist perspective, identity is created through the medium of language: we use it to label, understand, and relate to ourselves and the surrounding world (Burr, 2003). Individuals interpret meaning through language and internalize available discourses to construct a sense of themselves (Burr, 2003) and their reality

(Berger & Luckmann, 1991). Given this subjective orientation, any given claim is not taken as more real or valid than any other. Rather, the discourse analysist’s pursuit is to examine what linguistic tools an individual has employed and explore how these choices were used to fulfill a purpose (Potter et al., 1990; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). In this research I am not interested in the pursuit of explanations as to why TGNC individuals identify as such. My interest is in how

TGNC individuals use resources available to them to make sense of and represent their identity, and the functions these linguistic choices serve.

Throughout social interaction individuals undertake particular positions, informed by their subjective experiences. Positioning is a key concept within discursive psychology and was defined by Davies and Harré (1990), who offered the term as an alternative to the fixed social psychological concepts of selfhood and role. Davies and Harré (1990) define and describe the significance of positioning:

Once having taken up a particular position as one’s own, a person inevitably sees the

world from the vantage point of that position and in terms of the particular images,

metaphors, story lines, and concepts which are made relevant within the particular

discursive practice in which they are positioned. (p. 46)

Following from above, positioning is a practice in which one’s subjectivity, or one’s sense of self as constituted through language and social processes, negotiates social interaction.

In their description, Davies and Harré (1990) note the subjective and dialogical view of discourse. Similarly, Avdi and Georgaca (2018) note that when individuals use language, they necessarily call into a position which can then be confirmed, resisted, or changed. Through dialogic exchanges people also position others. As such, positionings are ongoing processes through which identities are performed, negotiated, and constructed (Avdi & Georgaca, 2018).

In the present study, positioning involves understanding how TGNC individuals produce their identity through their dialogical exchanges with one another.

Interpretative repertoires. Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell have been instrumental within the field of discourse analysis and discursive psychology. One of their key contributions is the analytic unit of discourse analysis, the interpretative repertoire (Potter &

Wetherell, 1987, 1988). This unit is so named to emphasize that through the process of analyzing the purpose of a given discourse, the researcher is simultaneously forming hypotheses and interpretations regarding its function (Potter & Wetherell, 1988, 1987). Interpretative repertoires develop historically and are flexible linguistic building blocks and figures of speech drawn from metaphors and images based in a particular context (Potter et al., 1990; Potter &

Wetherell, 1988, 1987). Put simply, interpretative repertoires are the discursive, cultural, and ideological resources available to us (Potter, 1996; Potter & Wetherell, 1988).

The piece regarding how TGNC communities are using language to construct their identity is the subject of this analysis. Therefore, for the purposes of clarification, my question could be reframed to how are TGNC people doing their identity online? Though at first it may seem questionable to embark upon research investigating identity without personally questioning participants, my pursuit is consistent with discourse analysis research. Potter and Wetherell

(1987) argue that the language of the self is publicly available and thus can be subject to

analysis. In their words, “much of the phenomenon of the mind is intersubjectively constituted as the person speaks, writes, reminisces, talks to others, and so on” (p. 178). The question of how accurately an individual is representing their inner experience is eschewed, rather the focus is upon the construction, function, and consequences thereof. Consistent with the identification of interpretative repertoires, I do not make assumptions about the attitude or cognitions regarding the authors of the online commentary that I analyzed. To make this attribution at the individual level would be to negate the broad significance of repertoires which individuals weave between one another through language. As such, I focused upon the dialogic interactions between the authors and the audience which form the basis of interpretative repertoires (Potter and Wetherell,

1987). Since we are all limited by the linguistic resources available at any given time it would be difficult, if not impossible, for someone to engage in a discussion without using interpretative repertoires. As an example, I ran an online search using the term “transgender” on Google, a popular Internet-based search engine. A single search produced various interpretative repertoires pertaining to the topic of transgender identities.

Let us take an article entitled Karen White: How ‘Manipulative’ Transgender Inmate

Attacked Again as our first example (Parveen, 2018). This is a controversial article, and I do not propose to endorse violent behaviour. Rather, I included this article to demonstrate the functional purposes and persuasive power of language. The author explains how White, a transgender individual who “is legally still a man” was placed in a female prison (para. 1).

Parveen (2018) states that White sexually assaulted two inmates while being detained within the female prison. It is mentioned that “the 52-year-old had not undergone any surgery and was still legally a male” (para. 2). Other legal jargon such as “convicted,” “remand,” and “offence” are used throughout the article (para. 2). Individuals who are identified as knowing White describe

her as “incredibly aggressive” (para. 17) and in need of anger management. Parveen (2018) saturates the article with words that are emotionally charged, such as, “reign of terror,”

“threatened,” and “risks” (para. 16). These quotes and utterances are evidence of the interpretative repertoire at work.

White’s gender identity is strongly linked to her violent behaviour; hence, it is suggested that she used her transgender identity to manipulate the legal system and gain access to vulnerable women. There is a strong focus upon the biological definition of sex, and the implication is made that surgical interventions, hegemonic gender expressions, and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria are necessary components to be “truly” transgender—all of which Karen

White is described as not having. The implication is that there are specific criteria required to identify as transgender, which negates the personal experience of one’s gender identity. Parveen concludes the article with mention of the Gender Recognition Act, a piece of legislature within the U.K which would allow prisoners to self-identify their gender identity and be treated accordingly. Parveen (2018) thereby questions the truthfulness of Karen White’s identity as a transgender individual through an appeal of what is deemed legal and natural, suggesting that transgender women pose a risk to “real” women, thereby reproducing the discourse of transgender identities as deviant. This discourse can obviously incite fear, and Westbrook and

Schilt (2014) note how justifications for segregated spaces often draw from cisgender people’s imagined interactions with TGNC individuals. It follows that TGNC individuals continue to be conceived of as deviant given the public is reading articles such as the one above, which reproduces particular ways of talking, and thus thinking, about gender-variance. Further, it is worth noting that violence and assault disproportionately affects TGNC individuals (Griner et al.,

2017), a point which remains unreferenced within Parveen’s (2018) article.

The above article and respective language use are in contrast to a conversation that was published on the popular video hosting website, You-Tube (DeGeneres, 2018). It depicts an interview between Ellen DeGeneres and Nicole Maines, a TGNC activist who was cast as the first transgender superhero on television. Maines discusses her experience in recognizing that she was transgender in childhood, and the subsequent challenges she overcame reconciling her gender identity with her father and experiencing ongoing bullying throughout her attendance at school. DeGeneres describes Maines as “eloquent,” “put together,” emphasizes how well she carries herself, and notes how “well-balanced” she is, particularly given the challenges she has faced. DeGeneres commends Maines upon her resilience, stating how much admiration she has for her. They discuss transgender representation within the media, and DeGeneres exclaims that

Nicole is a “great example” for the transgender community, and remarks how Maines is “making history”.

Evidently there is a different interpretative repertoire at work here, although in both examples a central topic is a discussion about transgender identity. There is optimism, resilience, and enthusiasm within the language employed by DeGeneres and throughout Maines’ narrative. The truthfulness and legality of Maines’ identity is not questioned, rather the focus is upon her personal experience and positive self-narrative. Further, she is labeled as an ideal advocate by a famous and respected member of the LGBTQ+ community.

Perhaps one could attribute the differences between the interpretative repertoires above to differences between Maines and White. As a reminder, as a discursive researcher I am not claiming that there is one truthful or right way to discuss or represent transgenderism. Rather, I am analyzing what linguistic resources individuals use in their positioning. As an additional example there is variation surrounding the topic of transgender identity when the same individual

is being discussed. In 2015 Vanity Fair published a cover revealing Bruce Jenner’s transformation as Caitlyn Jenner. The headline simply read, “Call me Caitlyn”. Bissinger

(2015) writes:

The gold medal for winning the decathlon, which Caitlyn had left in the safe in the home

in Hidden Hills where she and Kris had lived, had finally been retrieved. It was on the

table in front of her. “That was a good day,” she said as she touched the medal. Then her

eyes rimmed red and her voice grew soft. “But the last couple of days were better.” (para

133).

The above paragraph is in contrast to an online publication which stated: “Jenner, a 67- year-old former Olympian, and the most famous transgender person in the world, is not, evidently, a very progressive person” (Teitel, 2017, para. 2). One’s impression of transgender individuals would vary greatly depending upon which source was accessed. Following from the examples above, of note are the differences when the text and talk focused upon how the individual was selving, and speaking from their personal experience, compared to when their identity was othered, meaning being spoken about. These examples demonstrate how interpretative repertoires and discourse can be used for various purposes, such as to ask questions, impose judgment, enlighten, educate, or discriminate.

Taking Jenner again as an example, we can understand how when she first made her debut as Caitlyn, the article in Vanity Fair used language and symbols (e.g., the gold medal) that encouraged a positive emotional response. Jenner’s disclosure of her transgender identity was framed as a triumph to which not even a gold medal could compare. The author was making an argument, in other words, doing something with their discourse. Looking again at the second article, Jenner is criticized for being close-minded and intolerant—and the underlying message is

that these are not qualities that transgender individuals should have. Both articles addressed

Jenner’s transgender identity, and yet discussed it in variable ways: one positive and the other negative. Therefore, the language used served different purposes. Arguably the first article’s function was to promote Jenner’s story of resiliency, and the second was to reprimand her.

These consequences may not have been an intentional aim of the writer; however, discourses, and interpretative repertoires are social practices that serve certain functions, including maintaining particular ideologies, and are thus (either intentionally or unintentionally) consequential (Potter & Wetherell, 1988, 1987).

Importantly, through social practices repertoires and discourses become significant.

Discourse analysts conceive of language as the means to co-construct meaning throughout human interaction. As such, discourse analysts focus upon language-in-use as a social practice, and deconstruct the linguistic resources employed to enable those practices (Potter, 1996). That is, discourses are not simply abstract explanatory resources, but they are a part of the social fabric, which creates and sustains social phenomena (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). From a discursive perspective, meaning is collectively constituted and negotiated through language, and discourse analysis is the focus upon the functional purposes of language within such exchanges.

Potter et al. (1990) note the tension between viewing individuals as autonomous users of language while also recognizing the power and role of discourses in enabling social practices.

While they do not propose to resolve this tension, Potter et al. (1990) contend that discourse analysis is a study of “how people use discourse and how discourse uses people” (p. 258).

A theory of dominating discourses. Not all discourses are equal. In my review of

TGNC history I endeavoured to demonstrate that these individuals have a long history that precedes increased social visibility and acknowledgement. However, these experiences have

been, and remain, predominantly dismissed and pathologized by society. Throughout time, social systems have approved particular sex and gender ideologies, (e.g., androcentrism, cisnormativity, heteronormativity), while oppressing others. This censure is observable through the ideologies that are privileged over others, which present as dominant discourses.

Within this research I have taken a critical lens towards these systems. In so doing, I draw from critical discourse analysis (CDA), a form of discourse analysis that critiques social systems of inequality. CDA scholars have expressed varying perspectives as to whether CDA is a theory or method. Meyer (2001) expressed that it is neither, rather it is a critical perspective.

Gee (2005) suggested it is both, and van Dijk similarly recommended the term Critical Discourse

Studies [emphasis added] would be more apt to reflect the inherent combination of both theory and method such an approach involves (as cited in Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hui,

& Joseph, 2005). I have used CDA here as a theory to inform my critical perspective towards knowledge that is commonly accepted as truth. In Chapter 4, CDA informed my data analysis process and how I considered my results to be connected to broader cultural ideologies.

Ideology and power are central concepts within CDA. Those who are in positions of power have greater access to education and wealth, which in turn provides authority and control over subordinate groups (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). The caveat is that this power must be deemed legitimate to be accepted, which often occurs through appeals towards what is considered natural (Machin & Mayr, 2012). Similarly, the two-sex model is often presented as natural, normal, and healthy. The process of privileging and naturalizing particular ideologies transpires through communicative systems, including language (Fairclough, 1989). Practitioners of CDA research view this process as the persuasive power of language, drawing from the concept of hegemony, described by Gramsci (1971) as the social, cultural, and ideological

control of a dominant group over a subordinate one. The primary aim of those who use CDA is to “draw out ideologies, showing where they might be buried in texts” (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p.

25). Those who practice CDA ask important questions relating to social systems and inequality such as: “how do existing social structures affect the quality of peoples’ lives?” (Jaipal-Jamani,

2014, p. 805). Given my focus is upon identity construction, CDA as a method would be incompatible with my research aims, since it is employed to reveal ideological investment.

However, CDA bears reviewing because I use the it as a theory to highlight the process through which certain discourses pertaining to sex and gender are privileged and orient the reader towards the role of counter-discourses, the focus of this research.

Consistent with CDA I argue that the ideologies, or belief systems, within dominant discourses of sex and gender are obscured, so their construction appears common sense, and the oppression and discrimination of sex and gender variance appears justifiable. Across North

America, the topic of gender-neutral bathrooms became a highly contested issue in news media

(Giese, 2017; Sanders & Stryker, 2016), and U.S President Trump recently banned TGNC recruits from joining the military (Stracqualursi, 2019). These issues center around human rights, and the systems of power (i.e., government) that would seek to police TGNC individuals’ rights on the basis of their gender-identity. That cisgender individuals need not advocate for their rights to use a washroom or to enlist in military service is evidence of cisnormative ideologies at work.

Critical discourse analysts attempt to connect linguistic structures to social structures to distinguish what appears natural from the ideological (Machin & Mayr, 2012). Dominant discourses often benefit existing social structures or practices (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997), such as the medical system, family, or reigning religious institutions. If we apply this reasoning to the

two-sex model, it becomes evident that sanctioning two opposite sexes and genders that belong together is intertwined with cultural values of biological essentialism, heteronormativity, reproduction, and morality. Therefore, I use the term counter-discourse to refer to the linguistic resources employed by TGNC individuals, who have been othered by society when their identity is perceived to be a threat to these (and other) ideologies.

I am interested in what discourses TGNC individuals use to make sense of and represent their experience. These individuals are in the position of both understanding and representing their experience while drawing from cultural resources that are inherently limited in defining what it means to be transgender or gender non-conforming. Additionally, there are evidently tensions between TGNC individuals and the larger society. TGNC individuals must therefore use available repertoires and discourses while also resisting them. The power of discourses highlights how although they are neither right nor wrong, they are not negligible—discourses are reflective of the beliefs embedded within our society that help us to negotiate our very existence.

For proof of this, we need only ask what year it is, look to our economic philosophy, or consider the existence and impact of transphobia (Juang, 2006).

The digital as discourse. The truth of dominant discourses is resisted in counter practices (Zitz, et al., 2014). By this, I mean expressions or practices that differ from a general standard on a given topic. TGNC individuals contest the two-sex model by virtue of who they are, though more specifically through their gender performativity, their gender identity, and sharing their experiences through talk and text. Historically, the counter practices TGNC individuals engaged in were punishable by law (Stryker, 2017). Over time there has been some progress, although regrettably the consequences and violence continue (Griner et al., 2017).

TGNC communities can now exist online, courtesy of the arrival of the Internet, which coincided

with the rise of digital media. Online communities are thus considered one of the safer spaces for TGNC individuals to express themselves, obtain important information, and form connections with similar individuals (Heinz, 2012; Mallon & Decrescenzo, 2009, Shelley, 2008).

Anyone with Internet access can generate and consume online material, or form social groups based upon shared values and interests. Scholars have identified online communities as spaces in which marginalized individuals can connect with and support one another, and develop their collective identities (Fox & Ralston, 2016; Smith, et al., 2015).

Websites and digital applications that facilitate online connection have become known as social media. The design behind social media is based upon users interacting with one another, viewing shared content, and providing feedback through images, video, talk, and text. The open, uncensored, and interactive aspects of social media arguably render it more democratic compared to traditional analog media (McInroy & Craig, 2015). A reliable Internet connection provides one with the means to reach hundreds, thousands, or more persons across the globe.

With this privilege, one can transcend physical limitations to communicate almost anytime, anywhere. People also can use social media as they see fit. One can go online in an attempt to convince, educate, judge, criticize, applaud, or connect with others. Social media users often accomplish these goals through text. As such, social media platforms provide the ceaseless opportunity for individuals to produce a selection of publicly available discourses (Alvesson &

Karreman, 2000). Here, I turn towards researchers that have explored digital counter-discourses.

That is to say, researchers who have analyzed how language is used online by TGNC individuals.

Digital TGNC discourses. Recently, researchers Jackson, Bailey and Welles (2018) used a discursive approach to explore how language was used by transgender women online through

the social media platform Twitter. Three main discourses and associated functions were identified. The first, to foster connection and build community by normalizing shared experiences (e.g., “sure fire way to cheer myself up: a glass of wine and streaming the

@moschino Fall Winter 14-15 show. #girlslikeus #fashion,” p. 1876). Second, to advocate and create change, emphasizing the need for greater transgender representation in the media (e.g.,

“Learn about the life of #trans activist Marsha P. Johnson #GirlsLikeUs,” p.1877). Lastly, to celebrate accomplishments including new steps in gender confirmation, or a career milestone

(e.g., “gorgerous + glowing! Can’t wait to pick up my copy! #genderproud #girlslikeus,” p.1878). The hashtag, #girlslikeus, was used across these discourses to connect the community from within, while normalizing the transgender experience to observers. Not only did the hashtag serve to connect and normalize, but it was central to discussions of how violence and transphobia are linked to advocacy against racism and sexism. Education around the importance of intersectionality was thus another important function produced through the discourses.

Jackson et al. (2018) speak directly to key functions that were produced by these discourses, although the question as to how these individuals construct and negotiate their identity was not within their research scope.

Darwin (2017) explored identity in her research into how nonbinary individuals “do, redo, and undo gender” through a virtual ethnographic and discourse analytic approach in a self- identified online group: genderqueer (p. 317). In particular, Darwin (2017) analyzed group discussions to extend the research question of how transgender individuals do gender to how nonbinary individuals negotiate their gender identity, since they are subsumed within the transgender umbrella often without regard for possible differences (Harrison-Quintana, Grant, &

Rivera, 2015). This amalgamation has been cited as negating transgender diversity (Johnson

2015) and maintaining assumptions that all gender diverse individuals desire to pass as either men or women (Namaste 2000; Roen 2002).

In her investigation, Darwin (2017) found many individuals used a five-part model to conceptualize their gender identity, which included masculine, masculine-of-center, androgyny, feminine-of-center, and feminine. Masculine-of-center was originally used to referred to gender non-conforming people of colour (Bailey, 2014), but Darwin (2017) noted how her participants were not using it within discussions about race and thus concluded the participants were redefining its meaning. Within this framework, individuals would also refer to themselves as

“weak masculine” and “weak feminine” (p. 323). Other users would describe their gender as a three-dimensional phenomenon: “I feel masculine a lot of the time—but my biggest struggle is that I’m genderqueer and transitioning isn’t a viable option for me because I am BOTH, NONE, and ALL genders. Sometimes at the same time” (p. 324). Some participants identified as bigender, wherein they would connect with the binary categories of male and female, and yet they would not perceive these categories as mutually exclusive: “my male side is me, and my feminine side is me. They can be intertwined or completely separated” (p. 324). In contrast, some would describe their gender identity as existing upon a spectrum; “gender is a spectrum, challenging the status quo is empowering,” whereas others identified with all gender categories simultaneously, “I’m just a big mish mash of gender at this point” (p. 324). Despite these varied understandings, Darwin (2017) noted that the group was unified around the idea that the main criteria for identifying as nonbinary was a discomfort with binary gender identity categories (i.e., the two-sex model).

Data Source

Multiple digital spaces foster online TGNC communities and produce publicly available talk and text (e.g, Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube), but the social media website Reddit is unique in its dialogic. The structure and philosophy behind Reddit enables lengthier, ongoing, anonymous, and more intimate discussions in comparison to other social media websites. As such, Reddit was my chosen data source. Reddit is the self-professed “front page of the Internet” and is a collection of user-generated shared content. At the time of this writing Reddit is the sixth most visited website in Canada and is ranked 22nd worldwide (“The Top 500 Sites on the Web,” n.d.).

Users post content (i.e., questions, stories, videos, links, images) and interact through viewing, commenting, and voting upon said content. Votes consist of either upvoting or downvoting posts, and those with the most upvotes become available on the homepage (as shown in Figure

1). As of November 2017, there is an average of 330 million active users per month, and 138 thousand active communities (“The Conversation Starts Here,” n.d.). As a whole, Reddit is essentially a collection of these online communities, otherwise known as subreddits, with each subreddit community centering around a given topic. All content is generated from these subreddits through discussion threads (see Figure 2), whereby a group member will create and publish a post within the respective group. This categorical structure amounts to meaningful connections for users, who bond over mutual interests and identities, particularly within niche subreddits (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). The corresponding figures are presented on the next two pages.

Figure 1. Screen shot of Reddit homepage.

Figure 2. Screen shot of an original post and discussion thread within a subreddit community.

Reddit also enables users to post photos, although I decided to focus upon text. Posts with photos elicited encouraging and affirming statements from others rather than discussion. I was most interested in the textual representation as spoken aspects of how individuals constructed their identity, and the dialogic quality that occurs between individuals as they

respond to one another through written conversation. Regardless of its form, online communication is a social meaning making practice (Jones, 1999). My selection of online material permitted me to study naturally occurring discourses, meaning discourses that evolved organically, unchanged by my own questions and assumptions (Wiggins, & Potter, 2008). As such, naturalistic data is a preferred type in discourse analysis (Guest, Namey, & Mitchell,

2013).

Each subreddit provides community details which includes a brief group description, a list of group moderators, and any specific group rules. Group rules outline expectations outside of general Reddit policies such as no voter manipulation, encouraging violence, and cyberbullying (“Reddit Content Policy,” n.d.). Generally, downvoting helps to mediate some of the harmful behaviour, although subreddit moderators also have the authority to ban users based upon policy or rule violations. Moderators volunteer to set and enforce subreddit rules, and frequently engage in the group discussions. Moderators and group rules thus limit what is discursively possible, and yet I argue that they also provide a sense of safety thereby fostering a virtual environment in which users feel comfortable to openly express themselves and discuss personal experiences. In his study of heterosexual men who enjoy watching homosexual pornography, Robards (2018) found that the users and moderators fostered a supportive and non- judgemental discourse.

Data Collection

In light of theoretical considerations and the research question posed above, I elected to focus upon multiple subreddits to be inclusive of heterogeneity within TGNC identities and obtain a greater variety of talk and text. The aim when collecting data for discourse analysis is to include items that relate to the research questions while preserving variability and indicating data

origins (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). In support of variability, I have included a range of posts from multiple subreddit communities. The following communities were the focus of this research: r/genderqueer, r/NonBinary, and r/asktransgender. I discovered these groups after typing in search terms upon the Reddit home page and filtering the results by “communities and users” to narrow the findings to communities related to gender-variant identities. The three aforementioned groups were selected on the basis of remaining comprehensive and inclusive, while also selecting from groups that facilitate group discussion and have the most subscribers

(i.e., members). For example, having searched for “transgender,” various results were produced, which I filtered by popularity. The subreddit r/asktransgender was chosen over r/transgender not only because the former has a larger community, but its core focus is generating dialogue—as indicated in the title—compared to the latter, which is also a news sharing platform. I deemed popularity would be a logical filtering criterion because these groups and the accompanying discourses are arguably the most significant and consequential. After determining r/asktransgender would be included on this basis, I searched for “non-binary” on the home page to elicit results that would include subreddits with members of other gender identities. The subreddit r/NonBinary and r/genderqueer appeared as the topmost subreddits. I determined they should both be included based upon the group descriptions, outlined in further detail below.

r/NonBinary. Reddit defines this group as being “for people of every stripe who feel that they don’t fit into a preference-binary or gender-binary culture” (“r/NonBinary,” n.d.). This group is composed of 18.5k members, without any additional group rules. The r/NonBinary subreddit was included on the basis that it remains open towards those of “every stripe,” a criterion I interpreted as self-defined and thus available to a variety of gender identities and expressions (“r/NonBinary,” n.d.).

r/genderqueer. The r/genderqueer subreddit was slightly larger with 21.1k members, described by Reddit as being “for folks who don’t fit the gender binary or are interested in questioning it. Please feel free to join us and discuss!” (“r/genderqueer,” n.d.). There are five rules for subscribers: (a) no trolling/disrespect/rudeness/incivility; (b) no surveys/spammy content/advertisement; (c) no meta posts/arguing with moderators/mini-modding; (d) notify moderators using the given claim (NEED MOD ATTENTION!); (e) no medical advice

(“r/genderqueer,” n.d.). The moderators explain that providing advice to others that should be obtained from a licenced and medical professional is not permitted, although discussion around one’s personal experience is acceptable. Given the different descriptions and operating principles within the above two subreddits, I believed they would each contribute valuable and varying data. Further, that there are two distinct groups targeted towards individuals who may not identify with the binary merited inclusion if only to explore how r/NonBinary and r/genderqueer group members discursively construct their identity in similar or different ways.

Further, including both of these subreddits was done in an effort to preserve the heterogeneity among gender-variant communities since they have frequently been treated within literature as a homogenous group (Richards et al., 2016).

r/asktransgender. This was the largest subreddit included, and was composed of 95.0k members, and was described simply as: “transgender questions, transgender answers”. The rules were outlined as follows: (a) your post should encourage discussion, (b) be respectful about how people identify themselves, (c) no personal agendas, (d) no stirring the pot, (e) no minors under the age of 13, (f) no unapproved posting of surveys/questionnaires, (g) posts with content that is not safe for work should be marked as such (NSFW), and (h) no fetishizing (“r/asktransgender,” n.d.). The subreddit r/asktransgender merited inclusion because it is the largest, and thus

arguably the most popular and influential gender-diverse subreddit. Further, it is characterized by ongoing discussion, which lends itself well to discourse analysis.

Sample selection. Following from Potter and Wetherell’s (1987) recommendations towards sample selection, it is important that I am selective about the amount of data to include.

Discourse analysis is quite labour intensive (Guest et al., 2013), and a small sample can yield many linguistic patterns (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Potter and Wetherell (1987) caution against a large sample size to avoid becoming hindered within the analysis process. Accordingly, I explored one posting from each of the aforementioned subreddits. To determine which discussion thread, or post, to include from each respective group I used identity as a search term within each subreddit and filtered the results by the top posts (i.e., most popular) between

February 2019 and March 2019. I selected the most popular posts in which the members were engaging in a discussion regarding identity. An example of a discussion thread that was excluded was one in which individuals were considering names they wanted to choose following their transition. To answer my research question, I included narratives that were focused upon how individuals were negotiating (or had negotiated) identity labels, expressions, and related experiences.

Of the discussion threads I selected, the amount of commentary varied from one group to another. For example, the top posting within the r/asktransgender subreddit was particularly lengthy, with a total of 195 comments, compared to the discussions within r/genderqueer totaling

26, and r/NonBinary with 19. As such, within r/asktransgender, I sorted the discussion using the option “controversial” to obtain the comments in which there was the most tension between positionings. This approach to filtering was used to include issues and topics pertaining to identity that could be considered among the most important to users, as they were the most

highly defended. I sampled 62 comment posts in total, discontinuing my sampling at what I determined to be a fitting spot—after an ongoing conversation between two users ended. Across all discussion threads, the length of comments varied greatly, from eight words to 1052 words, in favour of variability (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).

Section summary. The data corpus was composed of three posts, one drawn from each of the three subreddits: r/asktransgender, r/genderqueer, and r/NonBinary, and consisted of a total of 107 comments of varying lengths. Given the dialogic nature of each subreddit the structure of the discussions was such that the author of the original post would pose a question to the respective group, wherein the respective group members could then view, upvote, downvote, or comment upon the initial post. My analysis focused upon the original post and the ensuing commentary. I offer a description of the original posts in Chapter 4, and the complete text can be viewed within the Appendix.

Data Analysis

This study will follow Potter and Wetherell’s (1987) guidelines for discourse analysis.

Broadly, I will explore the construction, variation, and functions present within the discourses

TGNC individuals use to discuss their identity and related experiences. Conveniently, Potter and

Wetherell (1987) outlined ten analytic steps: a) research questions, b) sample selection, c) collection of records and documents, d) interviews, e) transcription, f) coding, g) analysis, h) validation, i) report, and j) application. I have outlined my research question, sample selection and data collection processes within this chapter. Given the public and online nature of my data, the steps outlined relating to interviews and transcription did not apply. The subsequent steps are addressed within the next chapter, with the exception of validation. Below, I offer a brief description of the associated steps I took to affirm the quality of this research.

Quality of Research

Traditional conceptualizations of reliability and validity (e.g., test and re-test) are based in quantitative research (Morrow, 2005). Due to the different theoretical assumptions underlying qualitative methodologies, traditional understandings of reliability and validity are incompatible with discourse analysis. Morrow (2005) has identified important validity considerations pertaining to qualitative research, which include: (a) credibility, (b), reflexivity, (c) dependability, and (d) trustworthiness. These principles are interconnected, they are all proponents of systematic and rigorous research (Greckhamer & Cilesiz, 2014), and they are discussed below as interwoven processes in the context of this study.

Credibility corresponds to the researchers’ demonstration of rigor throughout the research process (Gasson, 2004) and involves thorough descriptions of the data source, researcher reflexivity, and consultations with others (Morrow, 2005). In favour of integrating the first of these principles, within this chapter I provided a detailed description and rationale for the selection of my data source. To address the other two principles, I regularly consulted with my academic supervisors, peers, as well as the community consultant. These conversations yielded feedback which helped me to substantiate both my interpretations and definitions as well as address analytical shortcomings. As an example, the community consultant’s input deepened the analysis by providing feedback as to how they understood my interpretations in relation to their own experience.

A paramount consideration throughout these consultations was researcher reflexivity; I engaged in an ongoing critical self-examination of my identity as it related to my research

(Medved & Turner, 2011). Accordingly, I have remained transparent about my own subjectivity, motivations for pursuing this project, as well as my cisgender privilege. Beyond addressing my

own positioning, throughout this research I engaged in thorough notetaking, reflection, ongoing discussions, and connected with TGNC communities to foster self-awareness and elucidate possible interests that may influence my interpretations. For example, my previous critique regarding Garfinkel’s (1967) and West and Zimmerman’s (1987) discussions of passing was informed in part by my attendance to a community event: the coming out monologues. Many of the individuals spoke about their personal struggle related to the decision to disclose their identity, or not. These discussions sensitized me some of the privileges I enjoy as a cisgender individual, in that I have never had to make such a consideration. As such, I was acutely aware of my social location as I began my analysis of the data. Discourse analysists rely upon interpretation, and interpretation is necessarily shaped by an individual’s assumptions and values

(Greckhamer & Cilesiz, 2014). Consequently, as a researcher it is my responsibility to embrace my subjectivity, as it is necessary to construct meaning based upon my interpretations of the data and recognize it as an influencing factor. To account for this influence, I have taken the aforementioned steps to assure my interests and values are in line with socially conscious research.

In parallel to credibility, dependability involves employing a given qualitative methodology in a systematic and transparent manner (Patton, 2002). As such, discourse analysts must communicate their analytic processes clearly (Greckhamer & Cilesiz, 2014; Potter &

Wetherell, 1987). Researchers should make explicit the analytic steps taken in arriving at conclusions, corroborating these processes through maintaining a chronology of the research activities, factors implicated in data collection, emerging themes, and memos (Morrow, 2005).

This audit trail acts as a measure of accountability which can also be used to inform reflective processes and data consultations. While the research steps were outlined above, they are applied

directly and explicated further in Chapter Four. Furthermore, in the subsequent chapter I demonstrate how I transformed the raw data into interpretations regarding the meanings and functions of language through the inclusion of multiple illustrative examples. This transparency will further endorse the trustworthiness of the results and allow readers to evaluate its quality.

Chapter Summary

In this study, I examined discussion threads pertaining to three online communities, or subreddits, on the social media platform Reddit. I employed a social constructionist approach to identity construction, and viewed it as constituted through linguistic resources. I used Potter and

Wetherell’s (1987) analytic unit the interpretative repertoire to conduct a discourse analysis of the writer’s text and talk and explore how they constructed their identities online. To contextualize the results and consider how systems of power have disenfranchised TGNC identities, I also drew upon CDA as a theory.

I understand the discourses I identified to be constructions constituted through a hypothesis driven interpretative approach, and subject to my judgement. In employing discourse analysis, I view identity and reality as established through various dynamic social practices, one of which (i.e., online discussions) I have selected for study. I make no claim towards producing findings reflective of an objective reality, and I endeavoured to provide rigorously produced and trustworthy interpretations. My focus is upon observing the functions and constraints of my discourses, and the evaluation thereof, to enable thinking beyond their limitations, particularly within counselling settings. Further, if the analysis could serve to lend an organizing framework to understand some of the identity work TGNC individuals are engaging in online, I would consider that a marker of this projects’ fruitfulness (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). In the next

chapter, I provide examples of how I applied the methodology to the data and describe the findings of my research.

Chapter 4: Findings

Before providing the results, I would like to briefly restate my research question and my primary intentions in undertaking this analysis. My curiosity was around how TGNC individuals construct their identities through language, specifically within an online context. TGNC communities have been criticized for the changing language landscape, although I view these reformations as indications of creativity, and reflective of the ideological limitations and constraints embedded within our culture and language. Further, I argue that these constraints are realized by the systems of power (e.g., biological, medical, and moral) from which the gender binary was conceptualized and reified.

In this chapter, I will first analyze the construction and function of the discourses and present the results using illustrative examples. I devote myself to a detailed discussion thereof in

Chapter Five. For clarity’s sake, throughout this chapter I refer to the broadest linguistic patterns as discourses and sub-discourse to refer to the linguistic patterns underlying said discourse.

Throughout the descriptive examples and subsequent analysis, I refer to the publishers of the posts as writers and use the gender-neutral pronoun they to avoid making assumptions of the writers' identities.

I analyzed my data following the systematic guidelines established by Potter and

Wetherell (1987). Once I had identified the appropriate subreddits and filtered through them to include posts in which the writers were actively engaging in discussions of identity, the next step was to familiarize myself with the text and arrange the postings into meaningful and manageable pieces through the coding process. Throughout my careful and numerous readings of the text I kept my research question in mind, taking an inclusive approach to highlighting portions that I deemed of relevance, importance, and interest. Some of the internal guiding questions included:

How are the writers using this word? What might the purpose or function be from choosing these words? Why might they have said it this way? What is the meaning embedded within this metaphor? Could this be said differently? What is foregrounded within this text? What is this language accomplishing? I took note of the questions and intuitive curiosities that were generated throughout the coding process, leaving a trail of my thoughts that I returned to repeatedly. These notes informed the basis of analytic patterns; the organizing features of the text expressed through common words, metaphors, or ideas. Once I began forming patterns from the codes, I used colours to correspond to the patterns and formulated a colour-coded map. Next,

I re-read the data multiple times while colour coding the highlighted portions and continued marking my questions and curiosities.

I used these patterns and colours to form mind maps, supporting my analytic hunches with direct quotes. For example, I had highlighted the word inherent, noting that it could be an important linguistic signal suggestive of positioning identity as an immutable characteristic.

Following this instinct, I searched for evidence in support of my assumption—colour coding related synonyms, metaphors, and convincing language. The visual representations helped me to establish connections within and between linguistic patterns (see Figure 3 for an example of an analytic mind map). At this point my analysis shifted from a primarily inductive approach guided by my questions and intuitive curiosities to a deductive one, using the materials and notes

I had formed to provide greater focus and coherence to my investigation.

Figure 3. Analytic mind map demonstrating direct quotes from data and analytic memoing.

In this process of analytic hypothesis testing, I noted the source for each quote in support of my suppositions so I could track patterns within and across the datasets. At times this meant where I thought I was observing a meaningful pattern I eventually concluded that it did not account for enough of the data. For example, I initially thought dysphoria and other dysphoric language was a pattern, before realizing it was part of a bigger discursive structure in which writers were referencing numerous emotions and felt experiences, of various valences. This can be seen in part through observing the figure above, some of the words I underlined were evidence of a positive felt experience, such as “comfortable.” As such, language related to

dysphoria was eventually subsumed into a larger discourse, (i.e., felt sense) which is discussed further in a subsequent section.

The change referenced above occurred because of my search for differences and similarities across the patterns of language use. Potter and Wetherell (1987) describe that noting connections and distinctions within the text is a key feature of the discourse analytic process.

Such an observation is central to the search of variability: “differences in either the content or form of accounts, and consistency: the identification of features shared by accounts” (p. 168).

Through an iterative process of noting analytic impressions, forming hypotheses, re-reading the data to find supportive quotes, observing variability, and questioning functions, I arrived at three main discourses: (a) felt sense, (b) authenticity, and (c) legitimacy.

Throughout my analysis I noticed that one of the most recognizable features of the texts was how frequently individuals discussed feelings within the context of their identity. The discourse of felt sense was the predominant linguistic pattern, characterized by statements writers made discussing their personal lived experience and was depicted through language that referenced emotions and sensations. The valence of the language use varied. For example, individuals communicated feelings of “euphoria,” “comfort,” and “happiness” along with

“discomfort,” “disconnection,” and “alienation”.

Writers often drew upon how they were feeling, and regardless of the quality of their feelings they positioned this discourse as a source of valuable information to negotiate their identity work. As such, the writers appeared to be using their individual felt sense to understand their identity. However, the language the writers employed to support their felt sense manifested in two other discourses: authenticity and legitimacy. Put differently, the key was in how the felt

sense discourse was exercised, the purported function and purpose it served within the online discussions.

Writers would validate, or corroborate, their felt sense through the other two aforementioned discourses. Namely, they would turn to different discursive devices either to authenticate their felt sense or to legitimize it. The discourse of authenticity was recognizable when individuals used language to broadly construct identity as a truth to oneself. The subjective, flexible, and fluid qualities of identity were emphasized. Conversely, the discourse of legitimacy was evident through utterances that claimed identity as objectively and empirically sound, as a truth resistant of societal erasure. Accordingly, in a sense these discourses presented as distinct categories.

I would like to re-state the ongoing challenge I have perceived in undertaking this analysis. Once anything is identified it is subsequently defined—once we attach language to something, we imbue it with a particular meaning—it can no longer be nothing or be all things, it is necessarily discrete and accompanied by defining criteria. To be coherent any research and analysis must identify and define something for study. Given my interests and goals as a clinician, I selected an experience that challenges traditional categorical definitions, although for the results of my analysis to be meaningful I must also draw distinctions, provide definitions, and impose categories. Therefore, I have been faced with somewhat of a paradox in selecting an experience that does not lend itself to discrete categorical definitions, and challenges traditional definitions of such.

I maintain the goal outlined at the outset of this project, that my perspective as a cisgender counsellor will sensitize other practitioners with the same privilege working with

TGNC individuals and serve as an indication to the TGNC community that allyship efforts are

being made. To that end, I share how in my own mind I conceive of these discourses as different, though not necessarily mutually exclusive. I consider them both as types of validity, using language to construct identity as logically sound, and as a position of continuity (Pfäfflin,

2011). A key distinction I see is in how the writers achieved this—either through employing language to construct their identity primarily as a truth unto themselves—or as a natural and scientifically supported truth. In so doing, the writers turned to different positionings to achieve this soundness. Consequently, that is not to say that a writer could only construct their identity as either authentic or legitimate. Potter and Wetherell (1988) note that individuals often employ contrasting repertoires. Rather, my hope is that in considering these discourses counsellors who work with members of the TGNC community can help to identify the related constraints and consider how they may be impacting their clients’ experiences.

The three discourses and the related sub-discourses are represented as a graphic (see

Figure 4). This graphic also illustrates the distinction between the subreddits; the discourse of authenticity was employed mainly by r/NonBinary and r/genderqueer, whereas the discourse of legitimacy was exercised primarily by r/asktransgender.

Upon observing this illustration, the reader can note how the discourse of authenticity demonstrates more related sub-discourses as compared to the discourse of legitimacy.

Consequently, it may initially appear as though I applied my analytical attention disproportionately. I attribute the presence of more linguistic resources within the r/Non-Binary and r/genderqueer subreddits to differences across the three original posts. Understandably, the individual who authors the initial post shapes the ensuing discussion. The original posts within both the r/Non-Binary group and the r/genderqueer group asked for other people’s experiences and perspectives, whereas within the r/asktransgender subreddit, the original poster made a

claim: the idea that gender doesn’t exist, or is a social construct is harmful. As such the original poster conceived of social constructionism in a distinct way, seemingly as an extreme relativist position. Subsequently, the writer drew from their personal experience to substantiate their position. As such, the ensuing discussion within r/asktransgender was informed by the initial juxtaposition, foregrounding tension and a discussion as to what constitutes the “real,” which resulted in more distinct and yet fewer discourses. As a reminder, the complete original posts can be viewed within the Appendix.

Preceding a discussion of the separation between the groups’ use of the discourses, I provide illustrative examples of each. In so doing I aim to provide the reader with a clear picture of the analytical process that led to my discursive findings. I begin with the principal discourse felt sense. All the following examples have been copied verbatim from the data. Figure 4 is presented on the subsequent page.

Felt Sense

r/asktransgender r/NonBinary r/genderqueer Authenticity Legitimacy r/NonBinary r/genderqueer r/asktransgender

Exception to Biological Exploration Affirmation the Gender Essence Binary

N P Social Non- Pieces Personalized Externalized Construct- Categor and Affirmation Affirmation ical Parts ionism Suggests Fabrication

Figure 4. Discourses and sub-discourses identified through analysing subreddits.

Discourse of Felt Sense: Analytic Example

Writers used their felt sense to understand and negotiate their identity work. In other words, the question underlying much of the discussion appeared to be: “How do I feel about this?” I will illustrate this discourse with examples from the data. The examples were selected from the color-coded samples and mind maps that I had organized into a pattern inclusive of statements regarding feelings and emotions.

• “I suddenly felt like I was losing myself.”

• “I try to work on unblocking those feelings and being more emotionally honest with

myself.”

• “It’s what makes you feel comfortable in your own skin…”

The question posed above seemed to guide how the writers negotiated their identity. As mentioned earlier, there was a secondary pattern I observed. It was uncommon for the subreddit writers to discuss their felt sense in a discrete and finite manner. Rather, they went beyond statements regarding their felt sense to justify why they felt a given way, and it was here that I recognized the other two discourses of authenticity and legitimacy. The writers would claim that their felt sense was valid because it was personally true and genuine (i.e., authentic), or assert that their felt sense was valid because it was scientifically sound and natural (i.e., legitimate).

This distinction would be best represented through an illustrative example. The first example is a writer authenticating their felt sense. Briefly, the acronyms the writer uses are gender non- conforming (GNC), non-binary (NB), and genderqueer (GQ). The writer expresses the discourse of authenticity in their effort to establish a label that can address feelings of erasure and capture their gender identity:

I’ve been fighting myself on my gender identity for a while now. I’m a GNC bi woman

and the first time I tried to come out as NB/GQ I wound up freaking myself out and

taking it back because I suddenly felt like I was losing myself. I read and wrote about

gender politics and feminist theory in college and feel like being female is an inextricable

part of myself and my experience. When I came out as NB I felt like I was wiping that

away, and it gave me the feeling like I was floating out of my body and I no longer knew

myself…when coming out was supposed to make me feel MORE like myself.

The writer’s statements suggested that they were actively engaging in identity construction. Their connection to being female feels like an “inextricable part” of themselves, and without it they experienced a sense of disconnection, which informed their decision to “take back” the non-binary and genderqueer label. They also reference “coming out” the shorthand of

a metaphor of coming out of the closet. It refers to the voluntary disclosure of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity, although it is only those belonging to a non-dominant group that are expected to disclose this information. Evidently, this writer is referencing certain expectations and assumptions that accompany coming out, (“…supposed to make me feel more like myself”). Their experience of not feeling more like themselves after disclosure was reason to search for a label that could capture the felt sense of their identity. Key to the discourse of felt sense is how they positioned it. The writer used their felt sense to negotiate which label to select.

In so doing they used their subjective experience to construct an identity that they could feel connected to and more like themselves, thus, to remain true to themselves.

Conversely, when individuals were substantiating their felt sense through the discourse of legitimacy, the language use supported claims towards the inherent (i.e., biological) nature of identity. Writers used the discourse of authenticity to inform the flexible and subjective construction of their identities, whereas when they exercised the discourse of legitimacy, they contended that identity is intrinsic. Below is an example of how the discourse of felt sense was used to legitimize identity through references to the biological:

• “I felt like fighting the need to transition with all my strength. It did not feel like I had a

choice. And science shows gender identity it is most likely neurobiological or at least it

can be.”

The writers’ felt sense is discussed within a context of resistance and struggle. They link this fight to the biological essence of their identity, which in their words (most likely) has a neurobiological basis. The writer’s tentativeness may be an attempt to articulate their position in a flexible manner. Alternatively, it might be reflective of the writers’ effort to keep the audience

(who may come from a different position) in mind, or it could be an appeal to their personal

experience—which cannot be dismissed in the same way empirical facts can with contrasting evidence. Nonetheless, the physiological basis of gender identity was foregrounded within the writers’ utterance, which was linked with how transitioning was not something the writer wanted to do, it was something they had to do. The writer claimed how they felt (i.e., not having a choice) was indicative of identity being comprised through material (i.e., biological) means. In other words, their transition was not a choice based on upon feelings but upon who they truly are. In this context their truth is determined by biological science.

At other times, while legitimizing their experience, writers would make statements that framed their felt sense as distinct from their identity, (e.g., “it exists …despite how I feel about it”), or as something to be overcome (e.g., “put aside feelings;” “despite feelings”). Writers seemingly separated themselves linguistically from their felt sense to position themselves with the innateness of identity, and thus legitimize it. Consider the following example:

• “And I personally feel that the whole “gender isn’t real” line of thinking devalues my

gender identity. The idea that my gender identity is based off of simple body dysphoria

and not something baser within myself is deeply upsetting to me.”

Somewhat paradoxically, the writer began by discussing how they felt before making a claim that their identity must have an inherent essence. The writer employs the colloquialism

“line of thinking,” a phrase used to reference a group characterized by a given ideology, in this case, the ideology being “gender isn’t real”. I believe the writer is referencing a broader cultural discourse of the erasure of TGNC individuals, which has proved highly consequential for this community, and is thus an important contextual consideration. Let it serve here as a reminder that discourses are neither neutral nor inconsequential.

After orienting the reader to this ideology, the writer discusses the idea of “simple body dysphoria,” in a way diminishing the distress associated with dysphoria by referring to it as

“simple”. Briefly, gender dysphoria disorder is characterized by clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning (APA, 2013). The writers’ felt sense is juxtaposed against “something baser” within themselves. Following from this logic, it is as though they wish their dysphoria had an etiological explanation, something inherent that society could not then dismiss as feeling based or non-existent, which again, is consistent with broader cultural discourse of erasure. Understandably, for an individual to be entitled to any form of legitimacy they must first be believed to exist.

Discourse of Authenticity: First Analytic Example

Having outlined the principal discourse of felt sense, I move now to discuss the other two discourses in further detail. Beginning with the discourse of authenticity, I will again provide a definition and substantiate my findings with supportive quotes drawn directly from the text. The following example was taken from the r/Non-Binary subreddit:

Two years ago, first semester of college. I just turned to face my friend and said, “I don’t

feel like a man or a woman”. Then I asked her and my closest friends to call me “being”.

Like “that being (woman/man) over there”. At first people thought I was joking about it,

but this year I made it very clear! I never quite felt like anything. I always doubted my

own existence. What’s up with me? I’d ask myself. When I used to say I was a man it

felt like it erased my being even more. I’d come home and wonder if I felt like a woman.

But that made me even more uncomfortable, that wasn’t me anymore. I wanted to exist

on my own terms, be my own kind. Being enby3 saved me from collapsing into two

(man and woman at the same time). It saved me from living a double life inside my head.

The discourse of authenticity refers to the linguistic building blocks writers employed to construct their identity primarily as a truth to oneself. Given its subjective orientation it is a process of self-creation organized around one’s own understanding and definition of what constitutes the self. Therefore, it can also flexibly account for individual differences in experiences and representations of gender identity. The above example illustrates how the writer exercised multiple sub-discourses with the main function being to claim a genuine identity that made sense of their experience. Broadly, the writer demonstrates the discourse of authenticity within this text through relinquishing the categorical definitions of gender in favour of self- selected pronouns and claiming a label that aligned with their felt sense. That is, one that they were comfortable with and that addressed feelings of erasure.

At the outset the writer orients the audience to a time (“two years ago”) and place (“first semester college”). Similarly, a common narrative strategy is to begin with an orientation to time and place (e.g., “a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away”). University settings are commonly believed to be institutions that facilitate individuation and identity formation. The introduction gives us the sense that we are being invited to read a meaningful and personal identity narrative that the writer has authored. They turn towards their individual felt sense (“I don’t feel [emphasis added] like a man or a woman”) to inform how they wanted their friends to identify them (“being”). The writer indicates that the existing binary gender categories do not

3 Enby being another written expression of non-binary, also referred to as N.B.

capture how they feel about their gender. Consistent with their personal felt sense, the writer selected a gender-neutral pronoun for their friends to use in social and public domains, highlighting the ubiquitous aspects of gender identity. They emphasize the importance of and their commitment to these pronouns through an exclamation, (“I made it very clear!”). Feelings of emptiness and erasure are referenced, (“I never quite felt like anything. I always doubted my own existence”). This discussion of emptiness and erasure parallels with Foucault’s (1977) argument regarding the compulsive nature of sexual and gender identity categories. He believed the existing discursive limits constrained individual choices pertaining to identity. For one to be considered a subject— to understand oneself and to be recognizable to others—one must also subscribe to an existing gender category (Foucault, 1977). In other words, if one were to cease having a gender identity, in a sense, one would cease to exist.

The writer goes on to discuss their experimentation with male and female categories, turning once again to their felt sense to authentically inform their identity, (“when I used to say I was a man it felt [emphasis added] like it erased my being even more. I’d come home and wonder if I felt like a woman”). They also refer to their identity as a changing entity, (“But that made me even more uncomfortable, that wasn’t me anymore”), although the writer once identified as female, they no longer do, due to the discomfort this caused. The shift in their understanding of themselves is attributed to how they felt when they considered being female, indicating their subjective felt sense was the primary source of information in the construction of their identity.

The writer indicates that apart from their felt sense they were also motivated by the desire to exist as distinct from the categories of male and female, (“I wanted to exist on my own terms”). They relinquish themselves from the gender binary in favour of their own definition

(“be my own kind”). Identifying as non-binary is positioned as what rescued them from a fractured identity, “Being enby saved me from collapsing into two”. Non-binary is thus referred to as being non-categorical, as an identity that does not delineate between two genders, and permits a sense of wholeness and coherence to their self-understanding rather than divisiveness

(“It saved me from living a double life inside my head”). Identifying as non-binary is equated with the flexibility to exist on their own terms, to be true to themselves. Extending Foucault’s

(1977) argument, one may argue the way this writer is using discourse suggests that individuals are expanding linguistic limits to account for gendered experiences outside the traditional gender binary.

Discourse of Authenticity: Second Analytic Example

The following example was taken from r/genderqueer. Note that this writer used a shorthand of AFAB, which refers to assigned female at birth. For contexts sake, the writer was responding to the r/genderqueer original poster’s question of whether others had an experience of identifying as genderqueer or non-binary and remained attached to their assigned gender.

Oh my god OP4 this could all be coming from my own head. It’s like my gender is an

irrational number: it rounds up to female but there’s always something left over, decimal

places trailing into infinity without ever repeating or resolving. I’m AFAB and I think if

I’d been more attracted to women, I’d have been a butch and never looked back. My

overwhelming attraction to men made this infinitely more complicated. But I’m fucking

40 now and I’ve felt this way my entire adult life and I’m starting to think it doesn’t

4 The author of the original post.

fucking matter what the word for me is. I’m me. I’m this way. The question maybe isn’t

what am I but what do I want people — especially intimate partners — to know about

me? And the answer is I want people to know that there are masculine parts of me that

are as important and real as the feminine parts of me and that my gender is multifaceted

and sometimes contradictory and that’s how it is. That’s enough. To express that I’m

using the word “genderqueer,” but it’s a description, more than it is a fixed identity or a

name. I know exactly the feeling of alienation you’re describing at giving up the female

part of your identity but you don’t have to. There’s a great essay Rilke wrote in Letters

to a Young Poet that says “live the questions now.” It’s not easy, but Rilke also says

“almost everything serious is difficult; and everything is serious.” So maybe live the

questions now.

Within the first example, the writer demonstrated the discourse of authenticity through their use of pronouns and their relinquishment of the gender binary. The author of the post above employs the discourse of authenticity through establishing a personal definition of their identity and embracing its complexity as multidimensional with pieces and parts existing within the gender binary. As such, the second example represents a variation of the same discourse.

The writer initially establishes connection with the experience of the original poster, explaining how they have had similar thoughts resonating in their own mind (“this could all be coming from my own head”). They use a strong metaphor of mathematics to describe their gender identity, (“my gender is an irrational number: it rounds up to female but there’s always something left over”), speaking to how they experience a primacy, or majority within their identity—a female one, and yet there is another part of their identity that is distinctly not female.

This secondary piece is framed with perpetuity and importance, “decimal places trailing into

infinity without ever repeating or resolving.” The metaphor also implies that there is something problematic about this left-over aspect of identity through the use of the word resolve. The writer further demonstrates how a challenge when discussing one’s identity is the ongoing inadequacy and incompleteness of language to capture the facets, intersections, and complexity of identity.

The author continues to discuss the challenges they have experienced in understanding their gender identity through hypothesizing about the influences of being assigned female at birth

(AFAB), and upon their sexual attraction to others. They employ the term butch; having qualities that generally refers to being masculine and/or being in a dominant role in a lesbian relationship, (“I’m AFAB and I think if I’d been more attracted to women, I’d have been a butch and never looked back”). Here, the writer is drawing upon a figurative expression (i.e., the butch) and their felt sense (i.e., attraction) to envision an alternative identity. This explanation also draws upon dominant cultural assumptions of sexuality and gender identity as inextricably linked, insofar as one would likely only be considered a lesbian if they were assigned female at birth and also identified as cisgender.

The author employs the discourse of felt sense to express why this alternative was never realized, re-emphasizing their identity narrative as complex and problematic, (“my overwhelming attraction to men made this infinitely more complicated”). The writer also discusses how their feelings were undeniable, “overwhelming”, thus implying that they could not pursue the fantasy of being a butch lesbian if they were also going to be genuine in the experience of their sexuality. The writer’s identity is constructed around their pursuit of genuineness, to be honest in their attraction to males and thus to be true to themselves; to be authentic. The author also describes how they have felt “this way” for their entire adult life, the underlying assumption being that the complexity or unresolved aspects of their identity, meaning

the non-female pieces, should have resolved by now. This assumption reflects how binary identities are believed to be the norm and less problematic. As such, the writer is indirectly referencing the privilege of cisgender identities.

The discourse of authenticity is overtly expressed when they write: “I’m me. I’m this way.” Interestingly, they make this announcement before describing or labeling what “this way” means, suggesting that their own understanding of their experience takes primacy over providing one to the reader. The writer explicitly identifies that their identity is also constructed relationally, through interacting with intimate partners, thus moving away from discussing their identity as having a female majority. Rather, they use the discourse of pieces and parts to discuss how both their female and male pieces are of equal value (“there are masculine parts of me that are as important and real as the feminine parts of me”). The writer embraced this complexity rather than problematizing it (“my gender is multifaceted and sometimes contradictory and that’s how it is. That’s enough.”). Discussing their gender as multifaceted is contrary to how it is articulated in the traditional binary discourse. Departing from that binary discourse further, they emphasized the flexibility the discourse of authenticity afforded them (“to express that I’m using the word “genderqueer,” but it’s a description, more than it is a fixed identity [emphasis added] or a name”).

The author has evidently defined for themselves their personal meaning of genderqueer while also rejecting the permanence of a binary gender label. This discursive move demonstrates the tension between representation and identity. Using a term that is known and recognizable

(i.e., genderqueer) to represent one’s experience to others, while simultaneously exercising personal agency in defining its meaning. To the author, the word genderqueer is flexible and

thus self-created, therefore, it allowed them to remain recognizable to others while also remaining true to themselves.

At the conclusion of their post the writer shifts their discussion from a concrete and logical metaphor using mathematics to the use of poetic language. They quote Letters to a

Young Poet, a collection of letters written by the poet Rainer Maria Rilke. The quote the writer references (“live the questions now”) was taken from Rilke’s fourth letter, in which he discusses living the questions as a means to discovering answers (Rilke, 2011). In other words, embracing uncertainty and making meaning throughout the processes of living and learning. As such, it is indicative of the writer’s movement towards an identity that might be less concrete but is also more authentic for them.

Discourse of Legitimacy: First Analytic Example

The following example was taken from r/asktransgender. In the interest of context, note that it is a reply to a previous post in which a writer argued that gender is not based upon any inherent biological characteristics.

But it is biological in nature. Gender exists beyond its socially defined roles and traits,

which is why we binary trans people5 even exist. My innate tendency to be female has

trumped every social stimulus and every experience in the opposite direction, even my

own will not to transition. It exists despite social norms and despite how I feel about it.

It’s also no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of people feel perfectly at home

with their assigned at birth genders, because they match their innate, biological

5 Binary trans identities are those who identify as transgender and whose experience of gender aligns with normative cultural understandings of male and female.

tendencies. There’s even some initial research pointing in the direction that we trans

people have transgender brains. Gender norms are absolutely socially influenced, but

gender itself goes beyond that, in my own personal experience.

The discourse of legitimacy was evident through the use of linguistic resources that constructed identity as factually and empirically sound, thus it may also be interpreted as a form of realist discourse since it made an appeal to the objective and scientific. The language the writers used was organized around the central discourse of biological essence, claiming that a material and natural essence that is observable through biology is the true origin of gender identity. The discourse of legitimacy constructs identity as inherent and intrinsic, thus identity construction is often presented as a process of recognition, given identity is conceived of as immutable and inborn.

Throughout their post the writer distinguishes between the innateness of identity and the social influence(s) upon identity and employs the discourse of biological essence in support of these claims. The writer begins by arguing that gender has a fundamental basis in biology, “but it is biological in nature,” a linguistic strategy that frames an ideology as common sense. They explain the existence of binary trans people is evidence that gender is not exclusively socially bound. The writer uses proof of their existence, and that of other binary trans individuals, to reason that gender is a biological phenomenon. The writer explains that their gender identity exists in spite of how they felt (“my innate [emphasis added] tendency to be female has trumped every social stimulus and every experience in the opposite direction”) and explains that their inborn female identity overpowered their will. Their use of the word opposite is also consistent with language that delineates two distinct and binary genders. The writer reinforces the power of the discourse of biological essence and claims that it trumps feelings, (“it exists despite social

norms and despite how I feel about it”). In other words, they are using the discourse of biological essence to eschew their felt sense, reasoning that they did not want to transition, but that they had to transition. As such, it follows that the writer is using the discourse of felt sense as they are simultaneously explaining that their identity is such despite their felt sense—and they turn to the biological essence discourse to explain this separation. The writer uses the experience of their felt sense being overruled in positioning themselves with the biological essence of identity. Put differently, they turn to a discourse of biological essence to legitimize their identity.

What is implicit within this statement is that they had no choice, their binary trans identity was not a decision since it is a part of their physiological makeup.

The writer contends that the existence of cisgender people is further evidence that gender identity is inherent (“it’s also no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of people feel perfectly at home with their assigned at birth genders, because they match their innate, biological tendencies”). According to discourse scholar van Leeuwen (2008) the writer is using the authority of conformity, a discursive resource wherein individuals make an appeal to what others are doing to justify their argument. Put simply, the writer is arguing that gender is biological since it is for most people. van Leeuwen (2008) locates the authority of conformity within discourses of legitimation.

Within the next utterance (“there’s even some initial research pointing in the direction that we trans people have transgender brains”), the writer uses the collective we to cite biological research and employ a scientific discourse. The writer is attesting that their identity is legitimate because there is empirical evidence that locates gender identity within physiology, thus gender identity is immutable and inherent. They summarize their argument (“gender norms are absolutely socially influenced, but gender itself goes way beyond that, in my own personal

experience”), acknowledging that gender norms are affected by society, yet differentiate this influence from “gender itself,” implying there is a social component that is distinct from that which constitutes gender. The writer explicates that gender “goes way beyond” social influences, reinforcing their positioning with the discourse of biological essence. In this example, the writer also articulates an absolute statement followed by referencing their “own personal experience,” a pairing that is somewhat paradoxical. The pairing of a factual statement with a subjective one serves as an indication of discursive flexibility, the ability to strategically switch between discourses for a functional purpose. As such, the writer references biological factors as well as their personal experience to claim their identity as legitimate.

Discourse of Legitimacy: Second Analytic Example

The following example was taken from r/asktransgender:

Gender is innate. It is not a social construct. TERFs6 promote the notion that it is

because it promotes their agenda and delegitimizes us. If gender were artificial, then it

would be impossible to be transgender. Scientific research in this area is in its infancy,

but there are already indications that being transgender is at least partially a biological

phenomenon, not wholly psychological one. All you can do with people who promote

this idea is dismiss them, or at least dismiss their opinion on the matter.

The example above demonstrates a variation of the discourse of legitimacy. Within both examples the writers differentiate the innate from the social quality of identity. In parallel to the first writer, the second writer cites scientific research which locates identity in the material world

6 TERF is an acronym for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

in contrast to the inner (i.e., “psychological”) one. Comparatively, the second writer explains that defining gender as socially constructed is threatening and delegitimizing.

The writer above positions the innateness of gender against social constructionism,

“gender is innate. It is not a social construct.” In so doing they are making an explicit distinction between gender being inherent compared to socially constructed. Following from this logic, it cannot be both innate and constituted through social processes, it must be one or the other. They go on to say that trans-exclusionary radical feminists believe gender is socially constructed because it “promotes their agenda and delegitimizes us”. The acronym TERF is controversial, and radical feminists—the group to whom this term is most often applied—do not endorse it

(“The word ‘TERF’,” 2016). I apply it here to remain consistent with the language used by the writer.

The agenda remains unspoken in the writer’s statement, but it is explicitly linked with delegitimizing the experiences of transgender individuals (“TERFs promote the notion that it is because it promotes their agenda and delegitimizes us”). An important contextual consideration is that some people who have been identified as trans-exclusionary feminists are working to oppose laws that would expand the rights of TGNC individuals and are also contesting their existing rights (Vera & Greensmith, 2019; Michaelson, 2016). Given these efforts that are being made to exclude and erase TGNC identities, it follows that this writer identifies the TERFs’ agenda as delegitimizing. Importantly, when something is considered legitimate it is upheld as lawfully begotten, a legal right or status, or conforming to known principles and accepted standards (Legitimate, n.d.). Therefore, given this definition and the context the writer used it in, they appear to be expressing the belief that to say gender identity is socially constructed is comparable to saying TGNC individuals are not entitled to certain lawful and inalienable rights.

100

If the logic of this post is followed sequentially, it reads as though gender is innate, therefore it cannot be socially constructed, and to say it is so would negate the inherent quality of gender, which delegitimizes the existence of transgender people. This reasoning equates the legitimacy of transgender individuals with pure biologism. The writer’s subsequent conditional statement, (“If gender were artificial, then it would be impossible to be transgender”), suggests that they are exercising the biological essence discourse to legitimize the existence of transgender individuals and claim that the concept of gender being socially constructed is a threat of erasure. The assumption underlying this statement is that others (presumably TERFs or those who believe in the social construction of gender) do not believe gender is real. The writer contends that the existence of transgender individuals is evidence that gender is real. However, according to the writer, the existence of transgender individuals does not appear to be sufficient enough to be considered legitimate, hence the argument that identity has an innate biological quality.

The contrast the writer draws between the biological as real, and the social as artificial is reinforced in their citing of research (“Scientific research in this area is in its infancy, but there are already indications that being transgender is at least partially a biological phenomenon, not wholly psychological one”). The writer emphasizes their positioning that gender is innate and biologically bound through the distinction between biological and psychological phenomena.

The author seems to be making a division between the body and the mind, highlighting scientific evidence that substantiates the material existence of gender. Notably, they also articulate a tentative position through their use of “not wholly.” This tentativeness may be consistent with using discursive flexibility, or as previously discussed, as an attempt to keep the audience in mind or appeal to their personal experience. A possible interpretation is that the writer is

101

cautiously employing contrasting ideologies as an attempt to challenge absolute dichotomous reasoning. Overall, the writers’ bid for legitimacy is being made through an appeal towards what is real and following from the writer’s statements that which can be observed and studied on a biological level is real.

Discourse of Authenticity and Related Sub-Discourses

Now that I have provided two analytic examples of each principal discourse, I will discuss each in further detail beginning with the discourse of authenticity. To follow, I explore the sub-discourses used by those who constructed their identity primarily as a truth to oneself. In so doing I continue to draw quotes from the data to support my analysis.

Exception to the gender binary. Within the sub-discourse of an exception to the gender binary, the language that was used to label identities varied (e.g., agender, non-binary, genderqueer, gender neutral). A theme throughout this variation was in how the writers formed exceptions to traditional categories of male and female. Identities were conceived of as departures from being either cisgender or binary transgender. In other words, as different from binary identities. As one writer stated, “genderqueer can be any identity that isn’t a 100% cis7 or trans binary gender.”

In constructing their identities as exceptional, the writers also positioned themselves against stereotypical gender roles and expressions, “I didn’t have the typical ‘behaves as the

~other~ gender’ childhood, and I don’t think it’s a necessary part of being trans or nb.”

Similarly, another writer claimed they “don’t identify with the common American concept of

7 Cis is a shorthand for cisgender to refer to those whose experience of gender corresponds to the sex they were assigned at birth and aligns with normative cultural understandings of male and female.

102

womanhood”. Such a positioning assumes the existence of essentializing gender identity criteria, which is precisely what the writers positioned themselves against. The sub-discourse of exception allowed those who felt their identity did not fully correspond to the two-sex model to employ language that could lend itself to their experience, yet it also remained rooted within the larger cultural discourse of incommensurable differences between sex and gender. A functional consequence of this rootedness is that the sub-discourse of exception is defined based upon how it is distinct—what it is in exception to—thus, in a linguistic sense it draws a division between those who identify with the binary and those who do not. I would hypothesize that this distinction is partly responsible for the term binary transgender. As such, the sub-discourse of exception affords some flexibility; however, as with all discourses it is not without limitations.

A potential consequence of the sub-discourse of exception is that it may limit the identity categories individuals could otherwise feel connected to. One writer illustrates this point: “I thought I couldn’t be trans because I didn’t like the idea of dresses and makeup and I was attracted to women.” In other words, individuals may unintentionally foreclose possible identities that would otherwise be suitable because they think they do not fit or align with the defining criteria.

Pieces and parts of identity. Connected to the principal discourse of authenticity were the writers’ expressions of their identity existing as pieces and parts—as an aggregate. To illustrate this point, I borrow from an example used above: “genderqueer can be any identity that isn’t a 100% cis or trans binary gender.” As established previously, the sub-discourse of exception is limited in that it assumes the mutual exclusiveness of the two-sex model. Writers who felt they identified with qualities of both genders exercised language that could account for this distinction, while simultaneously constructing their identity as a whole. This positioning

103

resulted in a sub-discourse of pieces and parts. The sub-discourse of pieces and parts points to the writers’ self-creation through the individual claiming, naming, and appraisal of identity segments. This sub-discourse was expressed through words such as “fully,” “completely,” and through strong metaphorical language, “it’s like a jigsaw piece that looks like it should fit but belongs to a totally different part of the image.”

The sub-discourse of pieces and parts was often paired with that of felt sense (e.g., “I am comfortable [emphasis added] having a female body, but the identity of ‘female’ doesn’t fully

[emphasis added] describe me”). In addition: “I still feel quite a strong association to both womanhood and manhood .… different aspects of each.” There are also examples where the pairing between the sub-discourse of pieces and parts with the discourse of felt sense did not occur, indicating the sub-discourse of pieces and parts is linguistically distinct from the discourse of felt sense. Consider the following:

• “…being a woman is still a part of who I am, even if I don’t fit perfectly in the

woman box society says I should fit in.”

Non-categorical: An additional sub-discourse that was connected to the discourse of authenticity, but was distinct from that of pieces and parts, were writers who expressed that their identity existed outside of the two-sex model. In contrast to the sub-discourse of pieces and parts, the non-categorical sub-discourse drew from the concept of neutrality, or an opting out of the gender binary altogether. As such, writers claimed their identity as non-categorical:

• “…at this point when I think of my gender there’s just nothing… and I like it that

way.”

• “I just wish I could click a button and make everyone treat me as a neutral

human being.”

104

• “I wish folks would just treat me as a fucking person, not as a woman.”

• “I identify as nonbinary, and for me, this plays out in not wanting people to

consider me a woman or man.”

As indicated in these examples, the writers demonstrated a challenge to constructing their identity around the two-sex model. One writer explicitly expressed a wish for an identity outside of gender roles and to be treated as a human rather than as a gender. Consistent with the discourse of authenticity, within the non-categorical sub-discourse the writers would select and personally define their identity labels for themselves. At times the writers’ discussion was also informed by the overarching discourse of felt sense, (e.g., “I don’t feel like a man or a woman;”

“I’d consider myself gender neutral or non-binary but I was assigned female at birth and I do feel comfortable with my own body”). The non-categorical sub-discourse was also distinct from that of felt sense given this pairing was not consistent.

Affirmation. A number of postings included expressions of value, assertions of validity, and proclamations of agency, either self-directed (personalized) or in support others’ experiences and challenges (externalized). The writers endorsed the discourse of authenticity through their acknowledgement of their own subjectivity and their recognition of the diversity across various community members’ experiences. Further, the writers encouraged individuals to construct their identity autonomously, in their own fashion.

Personalized affirmation. This discourse organizes writers’ assertions of the value and merit of their own identity and includes references to their autonomy in identifying and determining it.

• “I am the one who is most capable of determining for myself who I am.”

• “I imagine most people would read me as a trans woman, but … ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ not me!”

105

• “I decide how I feel about myself.”

• “…if I want to tack a boy or girl or woman or man to the end of that [i.e., onto

genderqueer] then I think that is a personally valid thing to do.”

Externalized affirmation. Following from a similar vein, externalized affirmation includes writers’ expressions of validity directed towards other TGNC identities and recognizing the personal and individual processes related to identity work. In the examples below the writers emphasize the individuality, capability, and validity of others’ identities.

• “Here’s the thing to keep in mind: in the end, your identity is about you. It is what makes

you feel comfortable in your own skin, or what gives you a roadmap to finding that

comfort.”

• “… ultimately gender identity is a deeply personal thing and I wouldn’t presume to

assume how it works for anyone, since I barely understand it myself.”

• “I think it’s totally valid to describe yourself as genderqueer. It’s a really wide label and

people within it will have wildly differing experiences.… your being genderqueer doesn’t

dilute or disrupt or delegitimize anyone else ☺”

• “Your narrative doesn’t have to be like anyone else’s, because you are yourself and

nobody else.”

Exploration. A sub-discourse within the discourse of authenticity also included references to identity work through the gathering of information and connection to members of

TGNC communities. These writers demonstrated a curiosity and intention to use the resources available to them to understand and make sense of their identity and experience. The writers referenced coming to a realization, which is suggestive that this exploration enabled the writers to reach new self-understanding.

106

• “… I did more and more research until I realized I was NB.”

• “I listen almost exclusively to podcasts that are interviews with trans folks, talking about

their experiences and feelings through the process of realizing their gender, coming out,

and transitioning.”

• “…my looking more into nb stuff online and realizing I connected w other people’s

experiences and that’s kind of how I figured it out.”

• “…a few months ago my friend changes their name and comes out as nonbinary. I

realize I am non binary, and probably have been for a while.”

• “I’m friends with someone who is asexual, and she shows me Tumblr for the first time. I

learn that there are other ways to ID8 instead of just male or female, and that presentation

is different from gender.”

Discourse of Legitimacy and Related Sub-Discourses

To follow is an exploration and discussion of the discursive recourses employed by those who constructed their identity primarily as an objective and empirically supported truth. More specifically, these writers often identified biology as a primary determinate of identity, spoke of identity as verifiable by means of scientific study, claimed social constructionism artificializes these claims, and resisted the erasure of TGNC identities. Compared to the discourse of authenticity, the truth of identity within the discourse of legitimacy is determined by an inherent and immutable essence. I would venture that this discourse is so constructed as a consequence of

8 Short hand for identify.

107

a cultural entanglement between human rights and the natural, and the ongoing transphobia and related violence directed towards TGNC individuals (Griner et al., 2017).

Biological essence discourse. The sub-discourse of biological essence is inclusive of writers’ statements that claimed identity has an innate and intrinsic essence and is therefore real.

Further, is also includes utterances in which writers made statements claiming their identities exist as part of the “natural” and “physical” world, or used words belonging to particular sciences (e.g., “neurobiological), and references to research. The writers employed this sub- discourse through definitive statements and as expressions with authority. Instead of reducing identity to essential biological characteristics it appeared that the writers were asserting the existence of an inherent and material basis of gender identity. Through a biological lens, identity construction was thus considered a process of self-recognition. The primary function of this discourse was to defend transgender identities and claim legitimacy. Given the high societal value placed upon biology (Arthur & Collins, 2010a), and the power typically afforded to scientific discourses, it follows logically that it should appear here in writers’ claims towards a legitimate existence. Examples of the biological essence discourse include:

• “There is something inherently a part of trans people that causes us to identify the way

we do”

• “Scientific research in this area is in its infancy, but there are already indications that

being transgender is at least partially a biological phenomenon, not a wholly

psychological one”

108

• “We are biological beings and slaves of our biology to the extent where we have not

found a way to modify it yet (like with HRT9). That does include the brain”

• “Society can’t be genderless because people inherently have a gender, whether that’s as a

man, a woman, or neither”

• “Binary AND non-binary genders exist as an inherent part of the natural world”

• “The brain has a sex. We can deliberately influence it in mammals (pre-natal hormone

exposure)”

• “… that there’s no biological basis for gender is a pretty big assumption and does

invalidate the experience of most binary trans people”

Taking the last example, the writer links the validity of binary transgender individuals to the biological essence of gender identity. This excerpt can be used to illustrate one of the discursive limits of this discourse. In linking the validity of identity with biology, the writer has

(likely unintentionally) made the validity of binary transgender individuals conditional upon biological findings. I would hypothesize that this contingency is a reflection of how revered biological sciences continue to be within society and is in part an adoption of that power to legitimize the identities of those who are oppressed by it. However, I take pause here because it seems that biological discourses are equated with the objective and real, and in opposition to the socially constructed and artificial. Biological discourses are still socially constructed, drawn from social processes that are contextually and historically situated. Importantly, it is how the

9 Short hand for hormone replacement therapy.

109

writers are using this positioning that is of interest, and I have explicated that the writers are using biological discourses to construct their identity as legitimate.

Social constructionism suggests fabrication. Following from above, this sub-discourse presented in statements which claimed that conceiving of gender as socially constructed is equivalent to saying TGNC identities are artificial and without any material basis, (e.g., “If gender is also socially constructed then we could collectively socially construct only CIS people and trans people would no longer exist”). The social constructionism suggests fabrication sub- discourse appeared to be in response to a fear that if gender is socially constructed then TGNC identities would be conceived of as a falsehood, and their claims to a lawful and legitimately recognized existence would be dismissed. The writers linked this fear of erasure to the biological essence discourse, without which writers contended that the identities of TGNC individuals could be intentionally quashed and abolished by society. Accordingly, the primary function of this discourse was to claim and protect TGNC individuals’ rights to existence and to affirm their legitimate identities. Consider the following examples:

• “I get really frustrated with people who say "gender is just a social construct", "gender

isn't real", "gender was made up by x/y/z" because I personally know many people, trans

and cis, with a variety of different gender expressions, whose gender is immensely

important to them.”

• “… trans people will exist regardless of whether society thinks they do or not. It’s a part

of the physical world. Stop erasing us.”

• “Cis people can easily take your same rhetoric and say, ‘if it’s socially constructed then

we can just construct everyone’s identity as Cis and you can all be ‘fixed’! Yay! Let’s

figure out how to convert you all!’”

110

• “… if gender is also socially constructed then we could collectively socially construct

only CIS people and trans people will no longer exist because we socially constructed it

that way”

• “It [i.e., conceiving of gender as socially constructed] means we can change it arbitrarily

or with enough societal effort. It justifies conversion therapy if you say this.”

Although it did not constitute a pattern, one writer in particular took a moral position in defense of the biological essence of identity, while simultaneously claiming that social constructionism is a threat to the existence of TGNC individuals. Moral discourses include statements and social practices that appraise the language and conduct of others (Nielsen, 1957), and was applied here to reinforce the claim that gender is not socially constructed, but biologically bound, and therefore not subject to erasure.

• …just like saying ‘We can ungender everyone cause it’s a social construct! Yay! You

don’t have to be a gender anymore!’ This kind of thinking supports conversion therapy.

It is wrong and immoral.”

The writers’ position against conversion therapy draws upon the claim that saying something is socially constructed is akin to saying it is artificial. Therefore, by extension, they are also arguing for the inherent and material essence of identity—something that is unconvertable—an identity that is immutable and intrinsic.

Once more, I would suggest that contextual considerations are crucial here, particularly since conversion therapy is a highly contentious topic and intersects with religious principles.

One principle being that individuals are not born homosexual, or gender-variant, and can thus be converted. Evidently, an essentialist discourse is also at work within the logic of conversion therapy, namely, that people are necessarily born corresponding to heteronormative standards

111

then become otherwise, so these changes can be reverted. I believe this treatment is a form of societal erasure, despite possible good intentions. A study investigating the outcomes of transgender individuals who were exposed to gender identity conversion therapy indicated severe mental distress (Turban et al., 2018). Hence, it stands to reason that this writer employs powerful discourses (i.e., scientific and moral) to claim the right of TGNC individuals to an unconvertable and inerasable existence.

A note on social constructionism. As outlined at the outset of this chapter, a central tension within the r/asktransgender subreddit was an ongoing discussion as to whether gender

(and thus gender identity) was real or not. This led to a passionate debate among writers around the meaning of social constructionism and its relationship to gender. The linguistic patterns indicated that the two major discourses used to legitimize identity and claim it as real were: (a) biological essence, claiming identity has inherent, natural, and physical qualities; and (b) social constructionism suggests fabrication, claiming that conceiving of gender as socially constructed is equivalent to suggesting gender is fabrication. Further, the writers contended that since TGNC identities exist their gender identity cannot be socially constructed. Consequently, the writers seemed to be saying that if something is socially constructed it precludes any possibility of the given entity being real. Notably, within this context, the definition of real was that it must have material qualities. I elaborate upon this tension in the next chapter.

Chapter Summary

Following from my analysis, TGNC individuals used three discourses in their online text and talk to construct their identities: a) felt sense, b) authenticity, and c) legitimacy. Overall, the writers framed their felt sense as a valuable source of information which informed how they

112

constructed their identity and positioned themselves. Writers employed either a discourse of authenticity or legitimacy to claim their identities and felt sense as valid.

Those who engaged in the discourse of authenticity constructed their identity primarily as a genuine and personal truth. These writers often described their identity as existing outside of the gender binary, frequently discussed efforts they made to explore and acquire identity-relevant information and noted their subjective orientation. The discourse of authenticity echoed

Goffman’s (1976) assertion that individuals are in an ongoing state of self-creation, as it framed identity as an autonomous and self-guided process. In comparison, the discourse of legitimacy was centered around a biological essence of identity, constructing identity as factually and empirically sound. Within the discourse of legitimacy, identity construction was presented as a process of self-recognition, a realization of an inherent and material truth. I conceived of this discursive structure as a response to protect and defend TGNC individual’s rights to a legitimized and socially recognized existence. In the chapter to follow, I will discuss these results as they relate to my research question, literature, and the implications for counsellors.

113

Chapter 5: Discussion

Throughout this study, I sought to gain insight into how TGNC individuals construct their identities online, while living in a predominantly binary world governed by the two-sex model.

In so doing, I undertook an analysis consistent with the aims of social justice research, became acquainted with the experiences of TGNC individuals in an online setting, and explicated findings that will be useful within therapy for trans-affirming counsellors. Within this last chapter I will: (a) revisit how I answered my research question, (b) summarize and contextualize the key findings, (c) offer related implications and recommendations for counsellors, (d) address strengths and limitations, and (e) make suggestions for future research.

I employed a social constructionist view, meaning that I conceptualized identity as constituted through social processes, chief among them being language. I also drew from CDA theory to review and critique dominant discourses of erasure, which continue to marginalize and oppress TGNC identities primarily through othering them. As such, I wanted to examine how

TGNC individuals “selve” through an exploration into how they come to understand and construct their identity (Strong & Zeman, 2005). Accordingly, I asked: How do self-identified

TGNC individuals construct their identity when they discuss their related experiences online?

TGNC communities, like any social group, are not characterized by a homogenous experience. In light of this diversity, I collected data from three TGNC online subreddit communities, r/asktransgender, r/Non_Binary, and r/genderqueer. I used Potter and Wetherell’s

(1987) approach to discourse analysis and applied their established analytic unit the interpretative repertoire to explore discussions related to identity within the aforementioned subreddits. Potter and Wetherell’s (1987) method enabled me to examine the discursive, cultural, and ideological resources TGNC individuals used in a real-world setting to construct

114

their identity and explore the corresponding functions of their language use. Through the analysis I identified three discourses: (a) felt sense, (b) authenticity, and (c) legitimacy. Felt sense was the superordinate discourse, inclusive of statements writers made regarding emotions and sensations, which they positioned as a key source of information to negotiate their identity work. Put simply, it was an orienting discourse. A difference across the three subreddits was in how the writers used the discourse of felt sense, which resulted in the other two discourses: authenticity and legitimacy. Individuals employed different discourses to authenticate their felt sense or to legitimize it. In other words, the writers would assert that their felt sense was valid because it was personally true and genuine (i.e., authentic), or claim that their felt sense was valid because it was scientifically sound and natural (i.e., legitimate).

Discursive Constraints

Part of the discourse analyst’s pursuit, along with exploring the functions of language, is to consider what discourses afford and what they constrain. Since language is used to imbue particular meanings it is necessarily also limiting. Therefore language, and thus discourse, avows certain meanings and functions while restricting others. Discursive limitations were integrated throughout the data analysis. Patricia Elliott identifies and summarizes additional constraints in Debates in Transgender, Queer and Feminist Theory: Contested Sites (2010) that merit mentioning in this chapter, since they parallel with the discourses the writers used as well as broader cultural ideologies. Following from the logic underlying the discourse of legitimacy,

Elliott (2010) surmised that when natural or cultural causes are taken as the root of gender identity it can eschew personal agency. For example, one might claim that nature made them a particular way, therefore they are powerless to change it, since it is who they are. This positioning is similar to that of the discourse of legitimacy. Conversely, if identity is believed to

115

be established entirely through choice and cultural influences there exists the potential argument that gender identity can thus be imposed upon an individual. That is, claiming that since a culture is subject to change, so are the entities constituted within it (e.g., identity). Notions of choice must be negotiated if these positions are employed in a mutually exclusive manner. The concept of choice is multifaceted, and the concept of free will is imbued within it, which is continuously debated (e.g., Harris, 2012; Sherman, 2018).

An additional complexity and associated constraint amidst the discourses of legitimacy and authenticity is how they might inform particular prescriptions, or ways of being. The discourse of legitimacy draws from the language and ideologies within biological sciences to claim identity is valid, sound, and natural. However, the discourse of legitimacy is also constrained by the assumptions and knowledge claims within this field. One such tension that arose out of these prescriptions, as evidenced within the discourse of social constructionism suggests fabrication, was a discussion around the nature of gender identity: Is it real or constructed? What is the meaning of real? These philosophical issues were interwoven within the discussion around the meaning of social constructionism and its relationship to gender, as well as questions of choice (e.g., “It did not feel like I had a choice;” “It’s still valid and isn’t any more of a choice”).

As I am operating from a social constructionist stance, and the writers were discussing the meaning of social constructionism, there was an explicit double hermeneutic within my analysis of the data. A double hermeneutic refers to the bi-directional process whereby the researcher forms interpretations based upon the participants’ interpretations of their experience

(Smith, 2011). While my entire study could be conceptualized as such, the double hermeneutic relates to a specific portion of my analysis. Specifically, I was attempting to make sense of the

116

writers’ experiences while they were concurrently making sense of their experiences (Smith,

2011), stemming centrally through negotiated understandings of social constructionism.

Through my analysis of the writers’ language use, I have demonstrated how their definition of social constructionism was central to the discourse of legitimacy, which claims an existence that is valid because it is real. In the discourse of legitimacy, that which was real was positioned in opposition to that which was socially constructed. Consequently, throughout this analysis I encountered a quandary: I approached this research from a social constructionist lens, a theory that some of the writers took issue with and identified as a threat to erasure. Therefore, I have had to defend my theoretical position while also attempting to reach out and engage in research that was designed to be of support to these communities. Given my method involved forming interpretations regarding the construction and function of discourses, my understanding of social constructionism bears repeating so the reader can recognize the interpretative lens I employed that had particular relevance to this portion of the analysis.

Revisiting the Epistemological Framework

Consistent with social constructionism, I maintain that concepts are constructed rather than uncovered, and yet posit that they can correspond to something in the objective realm

(Hammersley, 1992). Because things do not name themselves, language is the means of structuring our experience of the world (Andrews, 2012; Gergen, 1985; Hacking, 1999). We cannot know ourselves or the nature of being outside of shared language and meaning, so our identity is continuously mediated through social processes. As such, I consider debates centering around concerns as to who or what is right or wrong, particularly within the context of this study, necessarily redundant though not inconsequential. Rather than adjudicating truth claims I sought to understand how writers used language to construct their truths. In other words, instead of

117

imposing the view that social constructionism is in fact right, and thus the writers’ claims that it suggests fabrication is wrong, I remained focused upon how the writers’ claims regarding social constructionism were being used and remained curious about the extent to which their claims were useful—when they positioned themselves this way, what was it they were trying to accomplish? As I indicated in Chapter 4, I believe that it was to claim an inerasable, unconvertable, and rightful existence through the discourse of legitimacy. In the context of therapy, a task of the counsellor who undertakes a social constructionist view is to understand how clients are using language to make sense of themselves and their reality. Further, it is such a counsellor’s role to consider how language has consequential outcomes, and to help elucidate these processes for the client (Truscott, 2010). I will elaborate upon the implications of the discursive findings for counsellors in in a later section.

Before I discuss the discourses within the context of academic literature, consistent with

CDA theory it is incumbent upon me to consider how the discourses I observed are connected to broader societal systems of power (Machin & Mayr, 2012). I would hypothesize that the discourse of authenticity and legitimacy are both united around assertions of validity due to persistent messages of invalidity. By this I mean they are an effect of powerful cultural discourses of erasure that have been highly consequential and marginalizing for TGNC communities, which is why fear appeared as an undercurrent within their language use online. In other words, since gender-variance remains largely oppressed, TGNC individuals pre-empt the discourses of erasure through using language which constructs and justifies their identities as valid. This assertion is consistent with Namaste’s (2000) claim that erasure is the primary social relation affecting TGNC individuals.

118

I provided one example of erasure at the outset of the current study: the Catholic church’s first statement regarding transgender individuals entitled Male and Female He Created Them

(Congregation for Catholic Education, 2019), which posited that gender fluidity and contemporary theories pertaining to gender are a process of “denaturalization, that is a move away from nature” (p. 11) which threatens the “anthropological basis of the family” (p. 3).

According to the Congregation for Catholic Education (2019), gender theory denies natural and biological differences that are complementary and essential human qualities:

This ideology [i.e., “gender theory”] leads to educational programmes and legislative

enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated

from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity

becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time. (p. 3)

The Congregation for Catholic Education’s (2019) publication is a powerful message which suggests TGNC identities are deviations from the natural and divine. Interestingly, the example quoted above illustrates how the church has made use of the discourse of biological essentialism to assert that TGNC identities are illegitimate since identities are not a choice, they are inborn. Traditionally, empirical sciences, such as biology, and religious philosophy have been contrasted with one another—consider Darwin’s theory of evolution. Of further note is that this document is directed towards educational institutions. Currently, in Alberta, there is express concern that existing legislature protecting spaces for LGBTQ+ youth within schools will be repealed (Fournier & Rossiter, 2019). Taken together, these examples serve to demonstrate that legislation surrounding TGNC individuals is a contentious issue and interwoven with messages of erasure. Further, it is consistent with Gramsci’s (1971) concept of hegemony, wherein

119

systems of power make appeals to the natural, which obscures the construction of ideologies and normalizes inequalities.

I contend the discourses that I identified are counter-discourses in response to rigid and marginalizing practices operating within society against TGNC individuals. I believe this study outlines how one linguistic response of TGNC communities is the deployment of authenticating and legitimizing discourses which claim their existence and identities as valid. Since the discourse of authenticity is defined as constructing one’s identity as a personal truth, the writers could also use the respective linguistic resources within said discourse to legitimize their identity. That is, to justify it to others. The key difference is between the functions of each discourse. The discourse of authenticity functions to authenticate a personal and genuine identity, whereas the discourse of legitimacy functions to assert an inherent identity that cannot be subject to societal erasure. Put differently, authenticity functions more personally, whereas legitimacy functions more politically, though both are discourses of validation. This distinction is not to deny that the personal is political but to clearly define the function of each discourse.

Further, I maintain that there are essentialist features within the discourse of legitimacy because it is bound by the logic of the dominant discourses it is reacting to (i.e., scientific, moral, religious, and realist) which preserve essentialist ideologies, as demonstrated above.

Authenticity and Legitimacy: Connections to the Literature

Given the discourse of authenticity was chiefly employed by non-binary and genderqueer individuals, whereas the discourse of legitimacy was used by binary transgender individuals, it serves to consider the literature regarding these diverse communities. Fiani and Han (2018) recently explored the experiences of binary and non-binary TGNC individuals in an effort to highlight the heterogeneity within the community and ameliorate the mental health treatment

120

disparities they experience relative to cisgender individuals. Similar to the superordinate discourse of felt sense, binary and non-binary participants described having an implicit sense of their gender identity, although Fiani and Han (2018) found differences between how comfortable individuals were in finding the language to fit their experience. Non-binary identifying participants emphasized their discomfort with traditional gendered language and labels, whereas binary identifying participants described greater ease and comfort with traditional language.

Joint challenges included encountering oppressive systemic norms, safety concerns, self- stigmatization, and a lack of positive role models. The results of Fiani and Han’s (2018) study, taken together with the discourses of authenticity and legitimacy, suggests that there are differences across the experiences of TGNC individuals and in how they construct their identity.

Notably, the participants were united around overcoming the consequences stemming from discourses of erasure.

Consistent with Jackson et al.’s (2018) discursive finding that transgender women employed language to connect and build community, the discourse of authenticity included linguistic patterns in which writers expressed affirmation towards one another and discussed the importance of collaborative identity exploration. Similarly, in their grounded theory analysis of the experiences of transgender identity development, Levitt and Ippolito (2014) noted how

TGNC communities that expressed affirmation promoted self-acceptance through challenging transphobia and supporting identity exploration. Affirmation was thus linked to self-acceptance, an association that was paralleled with the discourse of authenticity wherein expressions of affirmation were key to constructing identity as a genuine and personal truth. As Goffman

(1976) suggested, individuals are in an ongoing state of self-creation. TGNC individuals similarly used their felt sense as a point of reference across changing contexts and life events.

121

Further, Levitt and Ippolito (2014) described one theme as “identifying in my preferred gender feels right because it feels authentic” (p. 1743), thus corroborating the overarching discourse of felt sense and the connection to the writers’ claims of authenticity. Levitt and Ippolito (2014) emphasized that the ways in which the participants understood and enacted their identity was largely in relation to their sense of authenticity. However, the participants added that they had to make additional considerations, including balancing their desire for an authentic identity along with political, social, and economic considerations. These considerations coincide with the functions of authenticity and legitimacy, the personal as well as the political, respectively. In her interview with TGNC individuals, Austin (2016) found comparable results and concluded how

TGNC individuals’ struggles for authenticity persists after they come to terms with their identity, in that they also had to balance ongoing interpersonal and contextual barriers to living in a way they determined to be authentic.

Within an editorial review of multiple trans pedagogies, scholar Mia Nakamura offers a definition of gender identity inclusive of personal, political, and linguistic considerations:

“Gender identity is, then, a dialogical process of defining one’s positionality: a constant interpretation of the self as well as a continually revised political statement of how one situates oneself in the social world” (as cited in Muñoz & Garrison, 2008, p. 290). The mutual interpretation and situatedness within Nakamura’s definition necessarily involves challenging systems that designate what is normal, or how one ought to be. Cromwell (2006) contextualizes this challenge, “although those in positions of power continually try to erase subject-positions outside of what is viewed as culturally legitimate (and consequently normal and viable), people who live those subject-positions continue to attempt to articulate them” (p. 512). Evidently,

Cromwell (2006) considered how erasure is related to systems that deem particular identities to

122

be legitimate or not. One such method TGNC individuals use to articulate their position, evidenced through the discourse of legitimacy, is by claiming their identity is natural through adopting discourses (i.e., biological and scientific) that have traditionally othered them to assert their legitimacy. Significantly, biological discourses are often employed where other explanations have been discredited (Elliott, 2010).

One study that similarly exemplified how TGNC individuals have employed dominant discourses is Dewey (2008), who analyzed participants’ accounts with respect to their interactions with medical professionals. As discussed within my literature review, psycho- medical discourses have been among those used to label sexual and gender difference as deviance, while simultaneously gate-keeping gender-affirming interventions (e.g., hormones), chiefly through maintaining gender-variance within the DSM (APA, 2013). One participant

Dewey (2008) interviewed noted the power of the medical system in labeling TGNC individuals,

“until you are diagnosed as a transsexual you are a sexual deviant” (p. 1351). Dewey (2008) discussed how the participants would both employ and subvert systems of power to attain their treatment goals through both corroborating and disputing medical discourses. Participants employed the psycho-medical discourse to appear credible, while also selectively sharing personal information or in other cases providing false information. Dewey’s (2008) study serves as an example of how TGNC individuals modify their language use with systems of authority to reach their goals. In other words, using the language of the current research, how TGNC individuals work within systems that seek to control who and what can be legitimized to authenticate their own experience.

Following from the psycho-medical discourse, the diagnosis of gender dysphoria disorder within the DSM has been at the center of an ongoing debate. Chiefly, a debate as to whether a

123

diagnosis supports medical transition as a viable option for those who feel it is necessary or pathologizes gender-variance. Recently, Johnson (2019) employed an ethnographic methodology to analyze the experience of TGNC individuals engaging with the “medicalization of transgender experience” (p. 517). The findings indicated that participants embraced a dialectical understanding the diagnosis, they both rejected a medical frame for gender dysphoria and embraced the importance of gender-affirming medical technologies and medical authority to facilitate social validation. Consistent with my findings, Johnson (2019) demonstrated how

TGNC communities embrace a multitude of discourses to account for variability across identities and experiences but are connected through assertions of personal and socially recognized validity. As Latham (2017) noted, a multiplicity of meanings better allows individuals to consider the complex ways of being trans. This embrace of discursive multiplicity is a focal point in the section to follow.

Contextualizing differences between the discourses. Preceding a discussion concerning the differences between the discourses of authenticity and legitimacy, a brief return to the history of TGNC identity development is necessary. Recall that the discourse of authenticity drew from a sub-discourse in which identity was positioned as an exception to the binary, whereas the discourse of legitimacy asserted that identity had a biological essence, which was also used to avow the existence of binary trans identities. As discussed previously, Dvorsky and Hughes (2008) noted how there were two waves of transgender identity development: the first wave exemplified binary gender representations, and the second wave saw a popularizing of diverse gender representations and embodiments. Lev (2007) echoes this statement, referring to these differences between TGNC identities as a “discursive tension” between the psycho-medical model of transsexualism that could be addressed through medical intervention, and a postmodern

124

model of gender variance and fluidity, or (as she discussed it), between transsexuals and transgender individuals (p. 165). Therefore, the differences between the discourse of authenticity and legitimacy, and the use thereof, is connected to different models of transgender identity.

Relatedly, Roen (2002) framed this discursive tension within the TGNC community as a political issue and investigated how TGNC individuals negotiated competing discourses related to passing. She located a tension between two positions: the both/neither discourse, wherein there is an incongruence with the gender binary, and the either/or discourse, inclusive of those who wish to pass as either male or female. These positionings echo the differences between the discourse of legitimacy and authenticity, which framed identity as more fixed or as more fluid, respectively. Through her research, Roen (2002) found the participants would engage in discursive flexibility, meaning they would employ seemingly competing discourses to position themselves. The participants would contrast either/or and both/and positionings when they were developing a political argument. Alternatively, participants applied both positionings when they referred to the lived experience of being transgender. For example, remaining closeted in some contexts and disclosing in others. Roen’s (2002) findings indicate that TGNC individuals draw upon different discourses related to identity to fulfill different purposes in various contexts.

Following from discursive flexibility, Talia Bettcher (2012) contends that TGNC communities embrace a multiple-meaning position wherein they hold “multiple and sometimes conflicting accounts of gender” (p. 246). In her view, TGNC communities do not, for example, view trans women as a subcategory of women but as their own category of womanhood, which can be conceptualized as part of the binary. In other words, it is a matter of being both a woman and a trans woman rather than either a woman or a trans woman. As such, Bettcher (2012)

125

elucidates how TGNC individuals engage in discursive flexibility in conjunction with identity construction. Further, she suggests particular gender categories are either adopted or not on the basis of personal and political reasons. The associated functions of each discourse, (i.e., personal and political) echo within this portion of her argument, as well with Roen’s (2002) findings.

Discursive tensions as well as flexibility between different subject positionings are thus a part of the historical fabric within TGNC communities and are both personally and politically significant. TGNC individuals flexibly use seemingly contrasting discourses and embrace a multiplicity of meanings to situate themselves, discuss their everyday lived experience, and construct their identities. It follows then that differences were reflected within the language use the writers’ employed to construct their identities online. I have argued that they accomplish identity construction in part through using discourses that help to legitimize and authenticate their experiences. Importantly, and consistent with my social constructionist epistemology, I do not prioritize one discourse over another. Bettcher (2012) concluded that a recognition of a multiplicity of meanings, which TGNC communities are already engaging in, is essential to the socially conscious study of trans phenomena. I would extend Bettcher’s (2012) statement and suggest that it is also essential for the therapists and counsellors who would seek to work with

TGNC individuals.

Implications for Counsellors

A primary goal of exploring the dialogic among TGNC individuals online was to establish related applications for psychotherapy and counselling. Per the American

Psychological Association’s (2015) guidelines for work with TGNC people, it is essential for mental health practitioners to adopt a trans-affirmative approach, wherein TGNC identities are validated and accepted. Such an approach also helps to develop therapeutic alignment between

126

the counsellor and client (McCullough et al., 2017). Accordingly, counsellors should avoid making assumptions as to what constitutes a “correct” TGNC identity (Cromwell, 2006). An affirming and non-pathologizing stance can, and should, be integrated into the myriad of therapeutic approaches utilized by counsellors working with gender-variant individuals (Puckett

& Levitt, 2015). However, given my social constructionist epistemology, therapeutic modalities that draw from social constructionism correspond the most readily to my results (e.g., narrative therapy, solution-focused brief therapy, and strength-centered therapy). As such, I discuss my findings in the context of social constructionist approaches to therapy. Similar to discourse analysis, the underlying assumption is that language is performative, constructive of experiences, identities, and reality (Lester, Wong, O’Reilly, & Kiyimba, 2018). Those who practice therapy from a constructionist lens place an emphasis upon the language they, as well as the clients, bring to therapy in co-constructing conversations and elucidate the performative orientation of language (Strong & Smoliak, 2018). Importantly, TGNC individuals have identified that it is essential for their counsellors to mirror their language use (e.g., use correct pronouns) to convey respect (McCullough et al., 2017).

Narrative therapy is particularly fitting for work with TGNC individuals given its practitioners take a critical perspective to knowledge that has been constituted as truth, such as heteronormative gender norms, while also remaining aware of sociopolitical forces and their potential impacts upon clients (Chavez-Korell & Johnson, 2010). A key process involves examining these truths and exploring how they might be expanded and reauthored to develop new narratives and meanings for problematic thoughts, feelings, and behaviours (Freedman &

Combs, 1996). The founder of narrative therapy, Michael White (2007), has noted that the main therapeutic goal is for clients to separate themselves from internalized dominant narratives (i.e.,

127

discourses) so they can reauthor a different story. White (2007) refers to the narrative through which individuals are constructing their identity and achieving self-understanding as a story or narrative. Therefore, narratives are constructed through language and discourses. These narratives reflect cultural values, ideologies, and assumptions about gender (McAdams & Janis,

2004), and we use narratives when we situate ourselves within the world and discuss our experiences with others. Narrative practice can thus have relevance for work with gender-variant people since it necessarily involves considering how dominant discourses are imposed upon marginalized individuals (Freedman & Combs, 1996).

For example, TGNC individuals may have unintentionally integrated dominant discourses within their self-narrative, thus saturating their story with societal discourses of exclusion, erasure, or invalidity—leading to challenges. Integrating such a discourse into one’s self-narrative can also be referred to as internalized transphobia/genderism, the internalized negative view of one’s own identity (Puckett & Levitt, 2015). The findings of the current study indicate that knowledge of how TGNC individuals use language to construct their identity can sensitize counsellors to areas of potential discursive expansion, bolstering, or emphasis. In other words, counsellors can recognize positionings, their related limitations and areas for enlarging said constraints—as they may relate to challenges clients are experiencing.

Discovering and using language to make sense of one’s identity has been identified as a key challenge TGNC individuals face, thus knowledge of the linguistic resources they use can help counsellors to support them in navigating identity construction and exploration processes.

Claiming a TGNC identity can provide the means for conceptualizing one’s experiences (Riggle,

Rotosky, McCants, & Pascale-Hague, 2011), provide an increased sense of congruence, and enhance personal relationships (Levitt & Ippolito, 2014). Further, McCullough et al. (2017)

128

found that empowering TGNC clients to tell their stories was a core component of what clients experienced within counselling as trans-affirmative.

Within narrative therapy, consideration is also given to the multiple cultural identities people hold (e.g., gender, ability, social class, etc.) and the intersections thereof (Chavez-Korell

& Johnson, 2010), which is an additional guideline for competent therapeutic practice with

TGNC clients (APA, 2015). Butler (1993) said it rather astutely, “identifications are multiple and contestatory” (Butler, 1993, p. 99). Within a study of transgender identity development,

Erber (2015) noted how participants discussed that while their lives were influenced by their gender identity, they were also more than transgender. TGNC individuals have also indicated that they wish counsellors were more knowledgeable of their identities (McCullough et al., 2017;

Waller, 2015). Therefore, undertaking an integrated view of identity and the related challenges

TGNC individuals are facing would help enhance the relationship between the counsellor and client.

For example, in understanding that the discourse of felt sense was a conjoint linguistic resource for TGNC individuals across different communities, counsellors may engage clients in a discussion regarding their feelings and intuition and highlight the felt experience as a source of information to facilitate identity exploration. Alternatively, counsellors may recognize discourses of authenticity or legitimacy and thus can remain aware of their related constraints.

Accordingly, counsellors may seek to expand the narratives of clients who draw upon such discourses through working towards embracing discursive multiplicity and flexibility with seemingly contrasting ideas.

As an illustrative example, a counsellor may recognize that a client is experiencing distress because they have constructed their identity predominantly around the position that

129

social constructionism suggests fabrication, consequently they feel that the validity of their identity is in question. An appropriate intervention could be to help expand the client’s definition of social constructionism as it relates to their gender identity, perhaps by emphasizing that social constructionism does not necessarily preclude biological qualities (Andrews, 2012).

Alternatively, a counsellor could supplement a particular discourse a client is using. If a client discusses having a felt sense that their identity is an exception to the binary yet is struggling to articulate their place outside of it, the sub-discourse of pieces and parts or the non-categorical sub-discourse could be introduced and explored.

Importantly, counsellors who urge a gender-variant individual to embrace a singular discourse may fail to account for the diversity of TGNC identities (Roen, 2002), and overlook how individuals can engage in discursive flexibility to authenticate and legitimize their identities.

It is also the counsellors’ responsibility to develop and maintain a reflexive awareness so the muted, or non-dominant, discourses within an individuals’ experience can be explored (Hare-

Mustin, 1994). Such a skill would necessarily entail counsellors’ knowledge of dominant discourses and the development of an ear for the oppressed stories within individuals’ narratives so they can be bolstered.

The results of this study also have applicability for counsellors who would apply the narrative intervention re-membering conversations. Myerhoff (1982) defines re-membering as a reaggregation of one’s own prior selves and significant others who are relevant to one’s identity narrative. According to White (2007) re-membering facilitates the development of a multi- voiced sense of identity and existence and can help re-shape past experiences. White (2007) discusses re-membering within the context of constructing identities around dominant cultural narratives in a unitary manner:

130

(…) re-membering practices are generally relevant to therapeutic conversations because

they open opportunities for people to challenge what has been so isolating for them—that

is, opportunities for people to challenge the dominant notions of identity in Western

culture that are associated with the construction of an encapsulated self, one that

emphasizes norms about self-possession, self-containment, self-reliance, self-

actualization, and self-motivation. These contemporary Western social and cultural

forces that promote isolated, single-voiced identities actually provide the context that

generates many of the problems for which people seek therapy. Re-membering

conversations provide an antidote to these forces. They also provide alternative ways for

people to understand their identities and alternative avenues for identity formation. (p.

137).

Narrative counsellors working with TGNC individuals can identify whether the discourses of authenticity and legitimacy are at work for their clients and engage them in a discussion as to how such discourses be implicated in generating a single-voiced identity or a problem saturated narrative. Therapeutic conversations such as these can contribute to the development of discursive flexibility and discursive resourcefulness (i.e., a multi-voiced identity), as well as open up possibilities for identity revision—meaning attending to how one’s identity or parts thereof may have been disqualified in the past and develop new meaning for these chapters (White, 2007). In other words, re-membering conversations can help TGNC individuals to renegotiate their identity in a way that acknowledges the underrecognized personal narratives. Importantly, I am not suggesting that their gender identity is rehabilitated, but the dominant narrative and the meaning clients are attributing to it is re-authored to include

“neglected but potentially significant events and experiences that are ‘out of phase’ with their

131

dominant storylines” (White, 2007, p. 61). Along this line of critiquing and deconstructing dominant cultural narratives, counsellors can also integrate contemporary theories pertaining to gender and sexuality (e.g., queer and transgender theory) thereby promoting alternative ways of understanding one’s self. Additionally, since TGNC communities engage in discursive flexibility, helping or encouraging clients to connect with similar others could help expand or challenge internalized self-critical narratives.

Strengths

Overall, one of this study’s strengths is its applicability within therapeutic settings.

Similarly, there are limitations, most of which became evident throughout the research process.

In this section I highlight the strengths, in the subsequent section I will discuss the limitations of the research design, culminating in a brief discussion as to how these components can inform future studies.

Considering the current cultural climate, and the discrimination that continues to be levelled at TGNC individuals, a general note of the significance of this study is the focus upon the everyday experiences of TGNC communities. Taking up a point from the literature review, a meaningful contribution is the focus between identity work and language—language being a key challenge for TGNC individuals (Cavalcante, 2016; Evans et al., 2017; Raun, 2015) since they must negotiate their identity across and within social systems that largely disavow their existence through dominant discourses of erasure (Austin, 2016; Juang 2006; Namaste, 2000). The use of discourse analysis allowed me to explore the intersection between identity and language in detail to elucidate how TGNC individuals are engaging in this negotiation. In focusing upon online communities, I not only tapped into a crucial resource for TGNC persons (Cavalcante, 2016;

132

Heinz, 2012; Lev, 2007) but examined naturally occurring data: text and talk that is a part of our social fabric (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).

Apart from the methodological strengths, I identified the linguistic resources TGNC individuals drew upon to construct their identity. My interpretation of the results formed a link between the function of language at the individual level (e.g., legitimacy and authenticity) and how it corresponds to broader cultural discourses (e.g., erasure), thus contextualizing the results within social systems of power. Forming such a connection represents a shift in perspective from locating problems purely at the individual level, towards the societal level, wherein there can be a sense of shared responsibility to refute pathologizing and oppressive discourses. A systemic view is consistent with social justice within counselling psychology (Arthur & Collins,

2010a; Smith, Baluch, Bernabei, Robohm, & Sheehy, 2003).

Beyond forming a linkage between the individual and the societal, the findings provide insight into the subjective positionings related to the identity work of TGNC persons, which can help inform and sensitize mental health practitioners. If counsellors develop an awareness of how TGNC individuals construct their identity they can become better attuned to their experiences (Levitt & Ippolito, 2014). A related finding of note were the differences in discourse use across the various subreddit groups. The presence of multiple and somewhat contrasting discourses highlights the complexity of identity work as well as the differences across diverse TGNC communities. Counsellor’s knowledge of TGNC individuals’ identity work could help ameliorate competency issues within counselling, which has been emphasized as a key issue that has negatively impacted TGNC individuals who have sought such support

(Duffy et al., 2016; Earnshaw, 2016; Heck et al., 2015; Shipherd, et al., 2010). Conveniently, the visual representation of the results provided in chapter four illustrates the relationships amongst

133

the linguistic patterns, rendering a large body of data coherent for the reader—and an additional marker of its validity (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).

In sum, the present study is significant in that it is one of the few to explore TGNC individuals’ everyday engagement with online resources. To my knowledge, it is also the first study to apply discourse analysis to multiple communities and analyze how TGNC individuals make sense of their identity while existing in a culture entrenched in gender dichotomy. That being said, as with any research this study it is not without limitations, some of which are explored below.

Limitations

I have emphasized the importance of the Internet for TGNC communities throughout this writing; however, access to it remains privileged. Although the Internet is ubiquitous in Western culture it requires a source of electricity, a functioning technological device, and a reliable wireless or cable connection—all of which come at considerable expense. A disproportionate amount of TGNC individuals live in poverty and report low incomes (Puckett, Cleary, Rossman,

Mustanski, & Newcomb, 2018) despite studies that indicate they tend to be more educated yet earn substantially less revenue than cisgender persons (Grant et al., 2011). These discrepancies are likely a result of the “economic and social marginalization” (Davis, 2009, p. 16) TGNC individuals experience, which has significant consequences in pursuing and sustaining employment (Grant et al., 2011).

Internet access is also reduced for homeless TGNC individuals (McInroy & Craig, 2015), and a disproportionate amount of TGNC youth are homeless (Sellers, 2018). Consequently, the writers included within this research are likely adults who possess certain privileges, such as greater wealth. However, given the naturalistic nature of the data, no demographic information

134

could be collected so this supposition cannot be confirmed. While it is a safe assumption that there was heterogeneity within the sample, the writers’ identities and social locations remain unknown.

Following in this vein, a related limitation is that I was unable to analyze the data with respect to intersectionality, meaning how aspects of identity and social locations (e.g., class, race, ability, age, etc.), and the intersections thereof shape TGNC people’s lived experiences

(Juang, 2006; Schilt & Lagos, 2017). The convergence of multiple minority statuses renders individuals invisible through a process Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (2008) termed intersectional invisibility. The less an individual resembles the ideal Western citizen (i.e., cisgender, male, white, heterosexual) the more compounded the stigma they face becomes (Fuks, Smith, Peláz,

De Stefano, & Brown, 2018), since they deviate from multiple dominant ideologies such as androcentrism, ethnocentrism, and heterocentrism (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). For example, a U.S national survey investigated transgender discrimination and found that TGNC people of colour were more likely to experience higher rates of abuse and reported higher rates of police officer harassment as compared to their white peers (Grant et al., 2011). Although the current study cannot account for these factors, counsellors should remain aware that it a vital point of consideration when working with TGNC individuals.

Lastly, my decision to focus upon talk and text necessarily meant I omitted a multi-modal data analysis. The inclusion of visual and audio materials would have added another layer of meaning to the results and can similarly be analyzed using discourse analysis. Such an exploration could offer valuable insights into identity as well as gender expression; the visual cues and representations related to one’s gender (APA, 2015). A multi-modal undertaking would be of interest given gender expression is regularly conflated with gender identity, despite

135

being two distinct entities (APA, 2015). I make additional suggestions for future research in the subsequent section.

Implications for Future Research

The current study serves as a successful example of research that made use of the rich and expansive data that is readily available within the digital realm. As a general note, I would encourage researchers to make use of online resources, which are well suited to discourse analysis. Those who would seek to expand upon the results of this study could consider examining multiple discussion threads from a single subreddit to gain more insight into the discursive structures within a particular online community. The current findings indicate that binary and non-binary identities draw upon different discursive resources to construct their identities, which suggests that there is more heterogeneity within the TGNC community than is currently accounted for in existing literature. Accordingly, it is thus essential that future studies continue to explore the diversity within TGNC communities. The current results add to the limited body of literature which suggests that there are differences in experiences that will continue to be overlooked if gender-variant people are subsumed into a single category (Richards et al., 2016). As such, it would be useful to analyze an online community such as r/NonBinary or r/genderqueer in greater depth.

Alternatively, it would be of value to examine the discourses of authenticity and legitimacy in person and explore how these discourses might be employed as TGNC individuals negotiate their identities across different contexts. An interview structure would permit the researcher to ask follow-up questions, and co-construct stories of identity work alongside participants. In particular, a focus group format could help to bolster the current findings as well as extend existing research which points to how TGNC communities are engaging in discursive

136

flexibility and multiplicity. Such a format would help illuminate in further detail the processes involved in negotiating positions of difference and similarity between those who draw from discourses of legitimacy and those who draw from discourses of authenticity.

Following from intersectional invisibility, erasure has been identified as a primary form of discrimination towards TGNC individuals (Namaste, 2000; Serano, 2013; Juang, 2006), and was noted here as an important contextual factor, thus researchers should consider making intersectional research among TGNC communities a priority. Further, the current findings indicate that there is a fear of erasure which has influenced how TGNC individuals make sense of their experience and legitimize their existence. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to know more about the discourses of erasure and their role in the maintenance of discrimination and power differentials affecting TGNC communities. Discourses of erasure are intertwined with systems of power and are thus continuously reified. Dismantling such social processes is essential to advocacy. One starting point could be examining how biological essentialist discourses are used in processes related to erasure. For example, using CDA to examine the aforementioned document “Male and Female He Created Them” (Congregation for Catholic

Education, 2019). A critical analysis of this document would elucidate details regarding its construction and function(s). Corresponding results would reveal the ideologies and power interests that are imbedded within the text (Fairclough, 1989; Machin & Mayr, 2012), which could then be more easily refuted or transformed by TGNC communities and their allies. As systems of power continue to oppress TGNC individuals it is incumbent upon those of us who value equality to continue challenging them.

Lastly, I was struck by what I interpreted to be unifying themes across the discourses of authenticity and legitimacy: writers’ assertions of their validity, and their felt sense. I imagine

137

that this stood out to me because the desire to experience one’s existence as valid, or as authentic and legitimate, is relatable. I would venture further and say that this wish is potentially universal, and yet the majority of people do not have to continuously justify their existence in the way that TGNC individuals do. As such, I have been wondering what linguistic resources cisgender individuals would draw upon in their own identity work. Speaking broadly, due to cisnormativity, these individuals may take the social acceptance of their identity for granted. In turning the interpretive lens towards cisgender identities, researchers could begin to deconstruct cisgender privilege.

Becker and Aiello (2013) highlighted the necessity for social scientists to engage in analyses of positions of power and privilege and emphasized that this type of research is crucial for social-justice oriented scholars. There has also been a call for White counsellors to confront their privilege and challenge systems that maintain hegemonic forces (Spanierman & Smith,

2017). Therefore, it is of significance that researchers within counselling psychology critique practices that maintain gender-based inequality. Wetherell and Potter (1988) have employed discourse analysis to examine the construction of race, and the maintenance of racial prejudice with members of a dominant cultural group. As such, I propose that using discourse analysis to explore cisgender identities, and their related privilege, could help elucidate some of the processes that maintain cisnormativity. Such an inquiry would render explicit the ways in which cisgender privilege is constructed, which could then be more easily refuted and transformed.

These findings and the implications thereof would be a valuable resource to cisgender counsellors, TGNC advocates, and their allies.

138

Closing Comments and Conclusion

In this final chapter, I reviewed the respective constraints as well as the functions of the discourses of authenticity and legitimacy. I connected these discourses, and the differences in how they were exercised online, to existing literature that has explored TGNC identity development. Importantly, I found that researchers have previously noted the flexibility and multiplicity of discourse use by TGNC individuals, a tenet I elaborated upon within the context of trans-affirming counselling. My explication of the findings illustrated how counsellors must also remain sensitive to contextual factors, such as broader discourses of erasure, as these may become internalized into an individual’s identity narrative. Using examples, I pointed to strategies counsellors may use when co-constructing conversations with TGNC clients. Overall,

I emphasized the significance of language and positioning as it relates to TGNC individuals’ identity work.

There are various experiences, labels, and trajectories of transition within transgender communities, rendering TGNC individuals’ identity construction united around matters related to gender variance yet simultaneously subjectively experienced. Evidently identity construction is a complex and multi-layered process. The discourses employed by the members of TGNC communities were reflective of personal identity narratives, responses to broader cultural discourses, as well as differences within the community between those who identify with binary conceptualizations of gender identity, those who do not, and others in between. I would venture that these differences and tensions are normal if not inevitable. Communities form around shared meaning, yet, as Gergen (1994) noted, shared meaning is a temporary achievement, subject to continuous change.

139

Personally, my understanding of identity has changed throughout this research. At the outset I had unconscious hopes for elegant and uncomplicated findings, whereas I was confronted with differences, contrasts, and tensions. As such, throughout the completion of this study I received a humbling reminder: as a researcher and counsellor it will be an ongoing challenge to reflect upon and embrace the complexity and multiplicity within human experiences

(Wiseman & Davidson, 2011). My privilege will render some experiences more visible and relatable than others (Collins & Arthur, 2010), which is of particular relevance when working with people from a different social location than myself, such as TGNC individuals. Moving forward, my appeals to other cisgender counsellors who endeavour to support gender-diverse individuals are threefold: (a) that we strive to remember our positions of privilege, (b) that we make it an ongoing responsibility to recognize the social locations and related experiences that will remain more invisible to us, and (c) that we remain open to the possibility of being humbled by our own assumptions.

140

References

Agrawal, A. (1997). Gendered bodies: The case of the ‘third gender’ in India. Contributions to

Indian Sociology, 31(2), 273-297. doi:10.1177/006996697031002005

Alberta Health Services. (2015). Approach to the infant with ambiguous genitalia. Retrieved

from https://www.cpeg-

gcep.net/system/files/cpen/ACH%20Ambiguous%20Genitalia%20Pathway.pdf

Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations

through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125-1149. doi:

10.1177/0018726700539002

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders. (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with

transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832-864.

doi:10.1037/a0039906

Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? The Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 39-

46. Retrieved from http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social-

constructionism/

Arthur, N., & Collins, S. (2010a). Social justice and culture-infused counselling. In N. Arthur &

S. Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed.), (pp. 139-164). Calgary, AB:

Counselling Concepts.

141

Arthur, N., & Collins, S. (2010b). Introduction to culture-infused counselling. In N. Arthur & S.

Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed.), (pp. 139-164). Calgary, AB:

Counselling Concepts.

Austin, A. (2016). “There I am”: A grounded theory study of young adults navigating a

transgender or gender nonconforming identity within a context of oppression and

invisibility. Sex Roles, 75(5), 215-230. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0600-7

Avdi, E., & Georgaca, E. (2018). Researching the discursive construction of subjectivity in

psychotherapy [ProQuest Ebook version]. In O. Smoliak & T. Strong (Eds.), Therapy as

discourse: Practice and research (pp. 45-69). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-

proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5493446

Bailey, V. (2014). Brown Bois. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1-2), 45-47. doi:

10.1215/23289252-2399560

Bartlett, N., & Vasey, H. (2006). A retrospective study of childhood gender-atypical behavior in

Samoan fa’afafine. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(6), 659-666. doi:10.1007/s10508-

006-9055-1

Beauvoir, Simone de, 1989 [1949], The Second Sex. (H. M. Parshley, Trans.). New York, NY:

Vintage Books.

Becker S., & Aiello, B. (2013). The continuum of complicity: ‘Studying up’/studying power as a

feminist, anti-racist, or social justice venture. Women's Studies International Forum, 38,

63-74. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2013.02.004

142

Bell, M. (2016). Gender essentialism and American law: Why and how to sever the

connection. Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, 23(2), 163-221. Retrieved from

https://www.ebsco.com/

Bem, S. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological

Review, 88(4), 354–364. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.88.4.354

Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Bem, S. (1995). Dismantling gender polarization and compulsory heterosexuality: Should we

turn the volume down or up? Journal of Sex Research, 32(4), 329-334,

doi:10.1080/00224499509551806

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology

of knowledge. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Bettcher, T. M. (2012). Trans women and the meaning of ‘woman’. In N. Power, R. Halwani, &

A. Soble (Eds.), The philosophy of sex: Contemporary readings (6th ed.), (pp. 233-250).

Lanham, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bishop, A. (2002). Becoming an ally: Breaking the cycle of oppression. New York, NY: Zed

Books.

Bissinger, B. (2015, June). Caitlyn Jenner: The full story. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-cover-annie-

leibovitz

Blackless, M., Charuvastra, A., Derryck, A., Fausto‐Sterling, A., Lauzanne, K., & Lee, E.

(2000). How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. American Journal of

143

Human Biology, 12(2), 151-166. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-

6300(200003/04)12:2<151::AID-AJHB1>3.0.CO;2-F

Brain, P. (1986). Galen on bloodletting: A study of the origins, development, and validity of his

opinions, with a translation of the three works. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University

Press.

Burr, V. (1995). Introduction to social constructionism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of "sex". New York, NY:

Routledge.

Callaghan, T. (2018). Homophobia in the hallways: Heterosexism and transphobia in Canadian

Catholic schools. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Canadian Psychological Association. (2015). CPA policy Statement on Conversion/Reparative

Therapy for Sexual Orientation. Retrieved from

https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Position/SOGII%20Policy%20Statement%20-

%20LGB%20Conversion%20Therapy%20FINALAPPROVED2015.pdf

Capuzza, J. (2014). Who defines gender diversity? Sourcing routines and representation in

mainstream U.S. news stories about transgenderism. International Journal of

Transgenderism, 15(3-4), 115-128. doi:10.1080/15532739.2014.946195

Carr, B., Hagai, E., & Zurbriggen, E. (2017). Queering Bem: Theoretical intersections between

Sandra Bem’s scholarship and queer theory. Sex Roles, 76(11-12), 655-668. doi:

10.1007/s11199-015-0546-1

144

Cavalcante, A. (2016). “I Did It All Online:” Transgender identity and the management of

everyday life. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 33(1), 109-122.

doi:10.1080/15295036.2015.1129065

Chavez-Korell, S., & Johnson, L. T. (2010). Informing counselor training and competent

counseling services through transgender narratives and the transgender community.

Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4, 202-213. doi:10.1080/15538605.2010.524845

Chesler, P. (1972). Women and madness. New York, NY: Doubleday & Co.

Chinn, S. (2010). Performative identities: From identity politics to queer theory. In M. Wetherell

& C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of identities (pp. 104-124). Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Collins, S., & Arthur, N. (2010). Self-awareness of client’s cultural identities. In N. Arthur & S.

Collins (Eds.), Culture-infused counselling (2nd ed.), (pp. 67-102). Calgary, AB:

Counselling Concepts.

Colliver, B., Coyle, A., & Silvestri, M. (2019). The ‘online othering’ of transgender people in

relation to ‘gender neutral toilets.’ In K. Lumsden & E. Harmer (Eds.), Online othering:

Exploring digital violence and discrimination on the web (pp. 215-237). Cham,

Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Colterman-Fox, D., Cronin, J., Glavine, M., Kelly, J. P., McQueen, M., McKeever, S., Paulter,

M., & Walsh, L. (2004). Pastoral guidelines to assist students of same-sex orientation.

Retrieved from

https://www.hcdsb.org/Board/Equity/Documents/Pastoral%20Guidelines%20to%20Assis

t%20Students%20of%20Same-Sex%20Orientation.pdf

145

Congregation for Catholic Education. (2019). “Male and female he created them:” Towards a

path of dialogue on the question of gender theory. Retrieved from

http://www.educatio.va/content/dam/cec/Documenti/19_0997_INGLESE.pdf

Crawford. M., & Marecek, J. (1989). Feminist theory, feminist psychology: A bibliography of

epistemology, critical analysis, and applications. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13(4),

477-91. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1989.tb01015.x

Cromwell, J. (2006). Queering the binaries. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The transgender

studies reader (pp. 509-520). New York, NY: Routledge.

Darwin, E. (2017). Doing gender beyond the binary: A virtual ethnography. Symbolic

Interaction, 40(3), 317-334. doi:10.1002/SYMB.316

Davidson, M. (2007). Seeking refuge under the umbrella: Inclusion, exclusion, and organizing

within the category transgender. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 4(4), 60-80.

Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1525%2Fsrsp.2007.4.4.60.pdf

Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the

Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43-63. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x

Davis, C. (2009) Introduction to practice with transgender and gender variant youth. In G. P.

Mallon (Ed.), Social work practice with transgender and gender variant youth (2nd ed.),

(pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Routledge.

DeGeneres, E. [TheEllenShow]. (2018, October 11). ‘Supergirl’s’ new star Nicole Maines talks

growing up transgender. [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVrAO60hGdM

146

DeLoach, C. (2015, June). How to host a gender reveal party. Parents. Retrieved from

https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-baby/gender-prediction/how-to-host-a-gender-

reveal-party/

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Dewey, J. M. (2008). Knowledge legitimacy: How trans-patient behavior supports and

challenges current medical knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 18(10), 1345-1355.

doi:10.1177/1049732308324247

Duffy, M., Henkel, K., & Earnshaw, V. (2016). Transgender clients’ experiences of eating

disorder treatment. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 10(3), 136-149. doi:

10.1080/15538605.2016.1177806

Dvorsky, G., & Hughes, J. (2008). Postgenderism: Beyond the gender binary. Institute for Ethics

and Emerging Technologies. Retrieved from

https://ieet.org/archive/IEET-03-PostGender.pdf

Ehrensaft, D. (2017). Gender nonconforming youth: Current perspectives. Adolescent Health,

Medicine and Therapeutics, 8, 57-67. doi:10.2147/AHMT.S110859

Eichler, M. (1980). The double standard: A feminist critique of feminist social science. New

York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

Elliott, P. (2010). Debates in transgender, queer, and feminist theory: Contested sites [ProQuest

Ebook version]. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-

com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=605139

147

Evans, Y. N., Gridley, S. J., Crouch, J., Wang, A., Moreno, M. A., Ahrens, K., & Breland, D. J.

(2017). Understanding online resource use by transgender youth and caregivers: A

qualitative study. Transgender health, 2(1), 129-139. doi:10.1089/trgh.2017.0011

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London, UK: Longman.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse

as social interaction (pp. 258-285). London, UK: Sage.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (1992). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New

York, NY: Basic Books.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality.

New York, NY: Basic Books.

Fiani, C. N., & Han, H. J. (2018). Navigating identity: Experiences of binary and non-binary

transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) adults. International Journal of

Transgenderism, 1-14. doi:10.1080/15532739.2018.1426074

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New

York, NY: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1998). The history of sexuality: The will to knowledge. (R. Hurley, Trans.).

London, UK: Penguin.

Fournier, A., & Rossiter, S. (2019, May 3). ‘We’re standing together’: Alberta students set to

protest UCP plan for GSAs. CBC news. Retrieved from

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-students-prepare-for-gsa-policy-

protest-1.5121114

148

Fox, J., & Ralston, R. (2016) Queer identity online: Informal learning and teaching experiences

of LGBTQ individuals on social media. Computers in Human Behaviour 65, 635-642.

doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.009

Freedman, J., & Combs (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities.

New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Fuks, N., Smith, D. G., Peláez, S., De Stefano, J., & Brown, T. L. (2018). Acculturation

experiences among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender immigrants in Canada. The

Counseling Psychologist, 46(3), 296-332. doi:10.1177/0011000018768538

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Garfinkel, H. (2006). Passing and the managed achievement of sex status in an ‘intersexed’

person. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The transgender studies reader (pp. 58-93).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Gasson, S. (2004). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating

theory from qualitative field studies. In M. E. Whitman, & A. B. Woszczynski (Eds.),

The handbook of information systems research (pp. 79-102). Hershey, NC: Idea Group.

Gee, P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Gender [Def. 2b] (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved September

15th, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

Genderqueer [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved May

23rd, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genderqueer

Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American

Psychologist, 40(3), 266-27. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.40.3.266

149

Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self. New York: Basic Books.

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Giese, R. (2017, February 23). Here’s why we need gender-neutral washrooms. Chatelaine.

Retrieved from https://www.chatelaine.com/living/we-need-gender-neutral-washrooms/

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall Incorporated.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York, NY:

Pantheon.

Goffman, E. (1976). Gender display. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication, 3,

69-77. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-16079-2_1

Goldblum, P., Testa, R., Pflum, S., Hendricks, M., Bradford, J., Bongar, B., & Roberts, M. C.

(2012). The relationship between gender-based victimization and suicide attempts in

transgender people. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 468-475.

doi:10.1037/a0029605

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. (Q. Hoare & G.

Nowell-Smith, Trans.). London, UK: Lawrence & Wishart.

Grant, J. M., Mottet, L., Tanis, J. E., Harrison, J., Herman, J., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at

every turn: A report of the national transgender discrimination survey. Retrieved from

http://www.thetaskforce. org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf

Gray, P., McHale, T., & Carré, J. (2017). A review of male field studies of hormones and

behavioural reproductive effort. Hormones and Behavior, 91, 52-67. doi:

10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.07.004

150

Greckhamer, T., & Cilesiz, S. (2014). Rigor, transparency, evidence and representation in

discourse analysis: Challenges and recommendations. International Journal of

Qualitative Methods, 13, 422-433. doi:10.1177/160940691401300123

Griner, S., Vamos, C., Thompson, E., Logan, R., Vázquez-Otero, C., & Daley, E. (2017). The

intersection of gender identity and violence: Victimization experienced by transgender

college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 1-22

doi:10.1177/0886260517723743

Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. (2013). Collecting qualitative data: A field manual

for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hacking, I. (1999). The social constructionism of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Haldeman, D. C. (2002). Gay rights, patient rights: The implications of sexual orientation

conversion therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(3), 260-264.

doi: 10.1037//0735-7028.33.3.260

Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography? Methodological explorations.

London, UK: Routledge.

Hansbury, G. (2005). The middle men: An introduction to the transmasculine identities. Studies

in Gender and Sexuality, 6(3), 241-264. doi:10.1080/15240650609349276

Harari, N. Y. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Toronto, ON: McClelland & Stuart.

Hare‐Mustin, R. (1994). Discourses in the mirrored room: A postmodern analysis of

therapy. Family Process, 33(1), 19-35. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1994.00019.x

Harris, S. (2012). Free will. New York, NY: Free Press.

151

Harrison, J., Grant, J., & Herman, J. (2012). A gender not listed here: Genderqueers, gender

rebels, and otherwise in the national transgender survey. LGBTQ Policy Journal at the

Harvard Kennedy School, 2, 13-24. Retrieved

from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2zj46213

Harrison-Quintana, J., Grant, J., & Rivera, I. (2015). Boxes of our own creation: A trans data

collection wo/manifesto. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 2(1), 166-174. doi:

10.1215/23289252-2848949

Hausman, B. (2006). Body, technology, and gender in transsexual autobiographies. In S. Stryker

& S. Whittle (Eds.), The transgender studies reader (pp. 335-361). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Heck, N., Croot, L., & Robohm, J. (2015). Piloting a psychotherapy group for transgender

clients: Description and clinical considerations for practitioners. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(1), 30-36. doi:10.1037/a0033134

Heinz, M. (2012). Transmen on the web: Inscribing multiple discourses. In K. Ross (Ed.), The

handbook of gender, sex, and media (pp. 326-343). Chinchester, UK: John Wiley &

Sons.

Henwood, K., L. (1996). Qualitative inquiry: Perspectives, methods, and psychology. In J. T. E.

Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the

social sciences (pp. 25-40). Leicester, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Herrmann, A. C., & Stewart, A. J. (1994). Reading feminist theories: Collaborating across

disciplines. In A. C. Herrmann & A. J. Stewart (Eds.), Theorizing feminism: Parallel

trends in the humanities and social sciences (pp. xiii-xvi). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

152

Hill, D. B. (2005). Coming to terms: Using technology to know identity. Sexuality and Culture,

9(3), 24-52. doi:10.1007/s12119-005-1013-x

Holland, D. & Cole, M. (1995). Between discourse and schema: Reformulating a cultural-

historical approach to culture and mind. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(4).

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org

Horner, J. (2012). Undoing the damage: Working with LGBT clients in post-conversion

therapy. Columbia Social Work Review, 1, 8-16. doi:10.7916/d8-8xxa-aq93

Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & van Anders, S. M. (2018). The future of sex

and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist,

74(2), 171-193. doi:10.1037/amp0000307

Imperato-McGinley, J., Guerrero, L., Gautier, T., & Peterson, R. (1974). Steroid 5α -reductase

deficiency in man: An inherited form of male pseudohermaphroditism. Science, 186

(4170), 1213-1215. doi:10.1126/science.186.4170.1213

Jackson, S., Bailey, M., & Welles, B. (2018). #GirlsLikeUs: Trans advocacy and community

building online. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1868-1888. doi:

10.1177/1461444817709276

Jaipal-Jamani, K. (2014). Assessing the validity of discourse analysis: Transdisciplinary

convergence. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(4), 801-807. doi:10.1007/s11422-

013-9567-7

Johnson, A. H. (2015). Normative accountability: How the medical model influences transgender

identities and experiences. Sociology Compass, 9(9), 803-813. doi:10.1111/soc4.12297

153

Johnson, A. H. (2019). Rejecting, reframing, and reintroducing: Trans people's strategic

engagement with the medicalisation of gender dysphoria. Sociology of Health &

Illness, 41(3), 517-532. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12829

Jones, A. (2014). The gender vendors: Sex and lies from Abraham to Freud. [ProQuest Ebook

version]. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca

Jones, S. (1999). Doing Internet research: Critical issues and methods for examining the Net.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Juang, R. M. (2006). Transgendering the politics of recognition. In S. Stryker & S. Whittle

(Eds.), The transgender studies reader (pp. 706-719). New York, NY: Routledge

Kelly, S. M. (2018). Multiplicity and contradiction: A literature review of trans* studies in

religion. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 34(1), 7-23. doi:

10.2979/jfemistudreli.34.1.03

Kessler, S. J., & McKenna, W. (1978). Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Kuper, L. E., Nussbaum, R., & Mustanski, B. (2012) Exploring the diversity of gender and

sexual orientation identities in an online sample of transgender individuals. Journal of

Sex Research, 49(2-3), 244-254. doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.596954

Laljer, D. (2017). Comparing media usage of binary and non-binary transgender individuals

when discovering and describing gender identity (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 10753866)

Laqueur, T. (1990). Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

154

Latham, J. R. (2017). (Re)making sex: A praxiography of the gender clinic. Feminist

Theory, 18(2), 177-204. doi:10.1177/1464700117700051

Legitimate [Def. 3, 4] (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved May 8th,

2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimate

Lester, J., Wong, Y., O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2018). Discursive psychology: Implications

for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 46(5), 576-607. doi:

10.1177/0011000018780462

Lev, A. I. (2007). Transgender communities: Developing identity through connection. In K. J.

Bieschke, R. M. Perez, & K. A. DeBord (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and

psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender clients (2nd ed.), (pp. 147-175).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Levitt, H., & Ippolito, M. (2014). Being transgender: The experience of transgender identity

development. Journal of Homosexuality, 28(3), 3-11. doi:10.1080/00918369.2014.951262

Libbon, S., E. (2007). Pathologizing the female body: Phallocentrism in Western

science. Journal of International Women's Studies, 8(4), 79-92. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c00/2121eeaddc4a066d232704c517ab3507340c.pdf

Liben, L., & Bigler, R. (2017). Understanding and undermining the development of gender

dichotomies: The legacy of Sandra Lipsitz Bem. Sex Roles: A Journal of

Research, 76(9-10), 544-555. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0519-4

Liening, S. H., Stanton, S. J., Saini, E. K., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2010). Salivary testosterone,

cortisol, and progesterone: Two-week stability, interhormone correlations, and effects of

time of day, menstrual cycle, and oral contraceptive use on steroid hormone levels.

Physiology & Behaviour, 99(1), 8-16. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.10.001

155

Lorber, J. (2006). The social construction of gender. In D. Grusky & S. Szelenyi (Eds.), The

inequality reader: Contemporary and foundational readings in race, class, and gender

(pp. 276-283). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Machin, M., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis. London, UK: Sage

Publications.

Mallon, G. P., & Decrescenzo, T. (2009). Knowledge for practice with transgender and gender

variant youth. In G.P. Mallon (Ed.), Social work practice with transgender and gender

variant youth (2nd ed.), (pp. 22-37). New York, NY: Routledge.

Marinucci, M. (2010). Feminism is queer: The intimate connection between queer and feminist

theory. [ProQuest Ebook version]. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-

com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca

McAdams, D. & Janis, L. (2004). Narrative identity and narrative therapy. In L. E. Angus, & J.

McLeod (Eds.), The handbook of narrative and psychotherapy (pp. 158-173). [SAGE

Digital version]. doi:10.4135/9781412973496

McCullough, R., Dispenza, F., Parker, L., Viehl, C., Chang, C., & Murphy, T. (2017). The

counseling experiences of transgender and gender nonconforming clients. Journal of

Counseling & Development, 95(4), 423-434. doi:10.1002/jcad.12157

McInroy, L., & Craig, S. (2015). Transgender representation in offline and online media:

LGBTQ youth perspectives. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social

Environment, 25(6), 1-12. doi:10.1080/10911359.2014.995392

Medved, C., & Turner, L. (2011). Qualitative research: practices and practicing reflexvity.

Women and Language, 34(2), 109-113. Retrieved from EBSCO Host.

156

Mertz, E. (2018, June 8). Albertans can now choose ‘X’ gender marker on ID cards, documents.

Global News. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/4262797/alberta-identity-

documents-gender-inclusive-lgbtq/

Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: positioning of the approaches to CDA.

In R. Wodak & M. Meyers (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 14-32).

London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Meyerowitz, J. (2002). How sex changed: A history of transsexuality in the United States.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Michaelson, J. (2016, September 4). Radical feminists and conservative Christians team up

against transgender people. Daily Beast. Retrieved from

https://www.thedailybeast.com/radical-feminists-and-conservative-christians-team-up-

against-transgender-people

Mizock, L., & Lundquist, C. (2016). Missteps in psychotherapy with transgender clients:

Promoting gender sensitivity in counseling and psychological practice. Psychology of

Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(2), 148-155. doi:10.1037/sgd0000177

Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychology: How can Butler's

work inform experimental social psychologists' conceptualization of gender? Frontiers in

Psychology, 9, 1-9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling

psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250-260. doi:10.1037/0022-

0167.52.2.250

Muñoz, V. & Garrison, E. K. (2008). Transpedagogies: A roundtable dialogue. WSQ: Women's

Studies Quarterly 36(3), 288-308. doi:10.1353/wsq.0.0093

157

Myerhoff, B. (1982). Life history among the elderly: Performance, visibility, and remembering.

In J. Ruby (Ed.), A crack in the mirror: Reflexive perspective in anthropology. (pp. 99-

117). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Namaste, V. (2000). Invisible lives: The erasure of transsexual and transgendered people.

Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Nielsen, K. (1957). The functions of moral discourse. The Philosophical Quarterly, 7(28), 236-

248. doi:10.2307/2216660

Painter, K. R., Scannapieco, M., Blau, G., Andre, A., & Kohn, K. (2018) Improving the mental

health outcomes of LGBTQ youth and young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of

Social Service Research, 44(2), 223-235. doi:10.1080/01488376.2018.1441097

Parveen, N. (2018, October 11). Karen White: how ‘manipulative’ transgender inmate attacked

again. The Guardian. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-

controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison

Pasche-Guignard, F. (2015). A gendered bun in the oven. The gender-reveal party as a new

ritualization during pregnancy. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 44(4), 479-500.

doi:10.1177/0008429815599802

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage

Pedersen, P. (2001). Multiculturalism and the paradigm shift in counselling: Controversies and

alternative futures. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 35(1), 15-25. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ622695.pdf

158

Pfäfflin, F. (2011). Remarks on the history of the terms identity and gender identity.

International Journal of Transgenderism, 13(1), 13-25.

doi:10.1080/15532739.2011.608014

Pfeffer, C. (2014). “I don’t like passing as a straight woman”: Queer negotiations of identity and

social group membership. American Journal of Sociology, 120(1), 1-44. doi:

10.1086/677197

Plante, R. (2009). Sexualities in context: A social perspective. New York, NY: Westview Press.

Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. In

J. T. E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and

the social sciences (pp. 125-140). Leicester, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and

behaviour. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1988). Accomplishing attitudes: Fact and evaluation in racist

discourse. Text & Talk, 8(1-2), 51-68. doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.1-2.51

Potter, J., Wetherell, M., Gill, R. & Edwards, D. (1990) Discourse: Noun, verb or social

practice? Philosophical Psychology, 3(2-3), 205-217. doi:10.1080/09515089008572999

Puckett, J., Cleary, A., Rossman, P., Mustanski, K., & Newcomb, B. (2018). Barriers to gender-

affirming care for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals. Sexuality Research

and Social Policy, 15(1), 48-59. doi:10.1007/s13178-017-0295-8

Puckett, J., & Levitt, H. (2015) Internalized stigma within sexual and gender minorities: Change

strategies and clinical implications. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9(4), 329-349.

doi:10.1080/15538605.2015.1112336

159

Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive

advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5-

6), 377-391. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4 r/asktransgender. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/

Raun, T. (2015). Video blogging as a vehicle of transformation: Exploring the intersection

between trans identity and information technology. International Journal of Cultural

Studies, 18(3), 365-378. doi:10.1177/1367877913513696

Raymond. J. (1979). The transsexual empire: the making of the she-male. Boston, MA: Beacon

Press.

Reddit Content Policy (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

Reed, M. (2001). Historicizing inversion: Or, how to make a homosexual. History of the Human

Sciences, 14(4), 1-29. doi:10.1177/095269510101400401

Reis, E. (2009). Bodies in doubt: An American history of intersex. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press. r/GenderCritical. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/ r/genderqueer. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/genderqueer/

Rhee, M. (2019, June 13). Gender-neutral bathrooms gaining popularity across Canada. Global

News. Retrieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/5388958/gender-neutral-bathrooms-

canada/

Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Leighton, S., Barker, M. J., Timo, N. O., & T’Sjoen, G. (2016).

Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry, 28(1), 95-102,

doi:10.3109/09540261.2015.1106446

160

Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., McCants, L. E., & Pascale-Hague, D. (2011). Positive aspects

of a transgender self-identification. Psychology & Sexuality, 2(2), 147-158.

doi:10.1080/19419899.2010.534490

Riley, D. (1988). "Am I that name?": Feminism and the category of "women" in history.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Rilke, R. (2011). Letters to a young poet. (M. Harman, Trans.). Massachusetts, MN: Harvard

University Press. r/NonBinary. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/NonBinary/

Robards, B. (2018). ‘Totally straight’: Contested sexual identities on social media site reddit.

Sexualities, 21(1-2), 49-67. doi:10.1177/1363460716678563

Roen, K. (2002). ‘Either/or’ and ‘both/neither’: Discursive tensions in transgender politics.

Signs, 27(2), 501-522. doi:10.1086/495695

Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (2005). Critical

discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational

Research, 75(3), 365–416. doi:10.3102/00346543075003365

Rothblatt, M. (1995). The apartheid of sex: A manifesto of the freedom of gender. New York,

NY: Crown.

Rouncefield, M. & Tolmie, P. (2013). Introduction overview: Garfinkel’s bastards at play. In P.

Tolmie & M. Rouncefield (Eds.), Ethnomethodology at play. (pp. 1-18). Retrieved from

ProQuest Ebook Central.

Safer, J., Coleman, E., Feldman, J., Garofalo, R., Hembree, W., Radix, A., & Sevelius, J. (2016).

Barriers to healthcare for transgender individuals. Current Opinion in Endocrinology,

Diabetes, and Obesity, 23(2), 168-171. doi:10.1097/MED.0000000000000227

161

Sanders, J., & Stryker, S. (2016). Stalled: Gender-neutral public bathrooms. South Atlantic

Quarterly, 115(4), 779-788. doi:10.1215/00382876-3656191

Sanz, V. (2017). No way out of the binary: A critical history of the scientific production of sex.

Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 43(1), 1-27. doi:10.1086/692517

Schilt, K., & Lagos, D. (2017). The development of transgender studies in sociology. Annual

Review of Sociology, 43, 425-443. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053348

Sellers, D. M. (2018). Absent inclusion policies: Problems facing homeless transgender youth.

Public Integrity, 20(6), 625-639. doi:10.1080/10999922.2018.1446629

Sennott, S., & Smith, T. (2011). Translating the sex and gender continuums in mental health: A

transfeminist approach to client and clinician fears. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental

Health,15(2), 218-234. doi:10.1080/19359705.2011.553779

Serano, J. (2013). Excluded: making feminist movements more inclusive. Berkeley, CA: Seal

Press.

Sex [Def. 1] (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved September 20th,

2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex

Shapiro, E. (2004). ‘Trans’cending barriers: Transgender organizing on the Internet. Journal of

Gay and Lesbian Social Services: Special Issue on Strategies for Gay and Lesbian Rights

Organizing, 16(3/4), 165-179. doi:10.1300/J041v16n03_11

Shelley, C. (2008). Transpeople: Repudiation, trauma, healing. Toronto, ON: University of

Toronto Press.

Sherman, J. E. (2018). A refreshing new approach to the free will debate. Psychology Today.

Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/ambigamy/201802/refreshing-

new-approach-the-free-will-debate

162

Shipherd, J., Green, K., & Abramovitz, S. (2010). Transgender clients: Identifying and

minimizing barriers to mental health treatment. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental

Health, 14(2), 94-108. doi:10.1080/19359701003622875

Smith, J. A. (2011) Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9-27, doi:10.1080/17437199.2010.510659

Smith, L., Baluch, S., Bernabei, S., Robohm, J., & Sheehy, J. (2003). Applying a social justice

framework to college counseling center practice. Journal of College Counselling, 6(1), 3-

13. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2003.tb00222.x

Smith, L. C., Shin, R. Q., & Officer, L. M. (2012). Moving counseling forward on LGB and

transgender issues: Speaking queerly on discourses and microaggressions. The

Counseling Psychologist, 40(3), 385-408. doi:10.1177/0011000011403165

Spanierman, L. B. & Smith., L. (2017). Confronting white hegemony: A moral imperative for

the helping professions. The Counseling Psychologist, 45(5), 727-36.

doi:10.1177/0011000017719550

Stone, S. (1993). The empire strikes back: A posttransexual manifesto. Camera Obscura:

Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies, 10(2), 150-176. doi:10.1215/02705346-10-2_29-

150

Stracqualursi, V. (2019, June 19). House votes to block funding for Trump’s transgender military

ban. Cable News Network. Retrieved from

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/politics/house-blocks-funding-trump-transgender-

military-ban/index.html

Strong, T., & Smoliak, O. (2018). Introduction to discursive research and discursive therapies.

[ProQuest Ebook version]. In O. Smoliak & T. Strong (Eds.), Therapy as discourse:

163

Practice and research (pp. 1-18). Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-

com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-ebooks/detail.action?docID=5493446

Strong, T., & Zeman, D. (2005) ‘Othering’ and ‘selving’ in therapeutic dialogue. European

Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 7(4), 245-261. doi:

10.1080/03052150500367812

Stryker, S. (2006). (De)subjugated knowledges: An introduction to transgender studies. In S.

Stryker & S. Whittle (Eds.), The transgender studies reader (pp. 1-17). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Stryker, S. (2017). Transgender history: The roots of today’s revolution. New York, NY: Seal

Press

Synowiec, O. (2018, November 26). The third gender of southern Mexico. British Broadcasting

Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20181125-the-third-

gender-of-southern-mexico

Teitel, E. (2017, June 21). Caitlyn Jenner’s latest comments show how transgender people can be

jerks too. The Star Calgary. Retrieved from

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/06/21/caitlyn-jenner-proves-that-even-bad-

apples-can-achieve-good-things-teitel.html

The Conversation Starts Here (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.redditinc.com

The Top 500 Sites on the Web (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.alexa.com/topsites

The Word ‘TERF’ (n.d.). Retrieved from https://rebeccarc.com/2016/11/01/the-word-terf/

Tompkins, K. W. (2015). Intersections of race, gender, and sexuality: Queer of color critique. In

S. Herring (Ed.), Cambridge companion to gay and lesbian literature (pp. 173–189).

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

164

Truscott, D. (2010). Becoming an effective psychotherapist: Adopting a theory of psychotherapy

that’s right for you and your client. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Turban, J., Beckwith, N., Reisner, S., & Keuroghlian, A. (2018). Exposure to conversion therapy

for gender identity is associated with poor adult mental health outcomes among

transgender people in the US. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent

Psychiatry, 57(10), S208-S208. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2018.09.236

Vera, E., & Greensmith, E. (2019, April 2). How conservatives are using ‘feminism’ to fight

against LGBTQ equality. The Advocate. Retrieved from

https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2019/4/02/how-conservatives-are-using-

feminism-fight-against-lgbtq-equality van der Nagel, E., & Frith, J. (2015) Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online

identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday 20(3), 1-12. doi:

10.5210/fm.v20i3.5615 van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice new tools for critical discourse analysis.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Violence Against the Transgender Community in 2018. (n.d.). Human Rights Campaign.

Retrieved from https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-

community-in-2018

Waller, D. (2015). Therapy and the nontraditional transgender narrative (Master’s thesis).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order No. 1594442)

Weisstein, N. (1968/1993). Psychology constructs the female; or the fantasy life of the male

psychologist (with some attention to the fantasies of his friends, the male biologist and

165

the male anthropologist). Feminism & Psychology, 3(2), 194-210.

doi:10.1177/0959353593032005

Wellborn, C. (2015). Reactions of the transgender community regarding media representation

(Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Order

No. 10020345)

Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of

the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender & Society, 28(1), 32-57. doi:

10.1177/0891243213503203

West, I. (2014). Transforming citizenships: Transgender articulations of the law [ProQuest

Ebook version]. Retrieved from

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-

ebooks/detail.action?docID=1477463

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151. doi:

10.1177/0891243287001002002

Wetherell, M. (2010). The field of identity studies. In M. Wetherell & T. Mohanty (Eds.), The

SAGE handbook of identities (pp. 3-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Wetherell, M. & Mohanty, C. T. (2010). The SAGE handbook of identities. Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications.

Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative

repertoires. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods

(pp. 168-183). London, UK: SAGE Publications.

White, M. K. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

166

Whittle, S. (1998). The trans-cyberian mail way. Social & Legal Studies, 7(3), 389-408.

doi:10.1177/096466399800700304

Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2008). Discursive psychology. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 73-90). London,

UK: Sage.

Williams, C. (2016). Radical inclusion: Recounting the trans inclusive history of radical

feminism. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 3(1-2), 254-258. doi:10.1215/23289252-

3334463

Wiseman, M., & Davidson, S. (2011). Problems with binary gender discourse: Using context to

promote flexibility and connection in gender identity. Clinical Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 17(4), 528-537. doi:10.1177/1359104511424991

Woolgar, S. (1996). Psychology, qualitative methods and the ideas of science. In J. T. E.

Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the

social sciences. (pp. 11-24). Leicester, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Wright, T., Candy B., & King, M. (2018). Conversion therapies and access to transition-related

healthcare in transgender people: A narrative systematic review. BMJ Open, 8, 1-12,

Retrieved from https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/12/e022425.full.pdf

Zakin, E. (2011). Psychoanalytic feminism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved

from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-psychoanalysis/

Zitz, C., Burns, J., Tacconelli, E. (2014). Trans men and friendships: A Foucauldian discourse

analysis. Feminism & Psychology, 24(2), 216-237. doi:10.1177/0959353514526224

167

Appendix

Original Posts from Sub-Reddits r/NonBinary

How/when did you realize you were non-binary? What did it feel like? I think I am but I’m confused. I’d like to hear more people’s stories! My narrative doesn’t fit the ones I’ve typically heard about being trans, so I’d like to hear more so I have more perspective. I’ve really been struggling with this lately, trying to figure myself out. If you care to share I’d really appreciate hearing what you have to say! 

r/genderqueer

So, when Rebecca Sugar (of Steven Universe fame) came out a nonbinary, she described herself as “a nonbinary woman” because—just like the gems in her show who are coded female and use she/her pronouns but have no actual gender—being seen as female is “part of her experience”. Does anyone else consider themselves in this way? Are you “a nonbinary woman” or “man”, or are you just “nonbinary”? I’ve been fighting myself on my gender identity for a while now. I’m a GNC bi woman and the first time I tried to come out as NB/GQ I wound up freaking myself out and taking it back because I suddenly felt like I was losing myself. I read and wrote about gender politics and feminist theory in college and feel like being female is an inextricable part of myself and my experience. When I came out as NB I felt like I was wiping that away, and it gave me the feeling like I was floating out of my body and I no longer knew myself...when coming out was supposed to make me feel MORE like myself. I’ve tried to make peace with being cis female, but that doesn’t sit quite right. It’s like a jigsaw piece that looks like it should fit but belongs to a totally different part of the image. So you mash it into place and it

168

KINDA works, but the shade of blue for that patch of sky is just slightly off and you had to force the edges and now it’s gotten a crease in it. “Just” female isn’t quite right but “genderqueer” is a step too far in the other direction. I don’t want/need my gender to be a huge deal. If I can present masculinely that’s all I need to be comfortable. I’d like smaller boobs or to bind so that I look more andro in public, but I don’t want neutral pronouns. She/her simply feels like home, even if

I’d take a neutral passport marker in a heartbeat and cringe at the thought of ever being in a position of employment that would require people calling me “Miss”/“Mrs”. I have few to no things that “need” to change and it makes me wonder if I’m not off-center enough for it to be worth labelling myself. But more than that I want to understand my gender. Does anyone feel they are NB/GQ and still connected to their assigned gender? Or like their genderqueerness or fluidity is a small (but important) part of their gender identity? I feel lost and would enjoy hearing some different perspectives.

r/asktransgender

Possibly controversial statement but: I believe that the idea that gender doesn't exist is harmful to binary and some non-binary transgender people. Am I alone in this? Okay, so basically this is it:

I get really frustrated with people who say "gender is just a social construct", "gender isn't real",

"gender was made up by x/y/z" because I personally know many people, trans and cis, with a variety of different gender expressions, whose gender is immensely important to them. I am one of those people. And I personally feel that the whole "gender isn't real" line of thinking devalues my gender identity. The idea that my gender identity is based off of simple body dysphoria and not something baser within myself is deeply upsetting to me. And while I respect everyone's gender identity whatever that may be, people who come at me with the "gender is fake" ideology

169

I try to avoid because it upsets me. I don't believe that genders have the stereotypical characteristics, emotionally or mentally, that society dictates or must conform to a certain look but saying that genders don't exist just because society has for so long stereotyped them feels wrong. Edit: I thought this post would get three downvotes and a single comment. Now I have my first gold and silver. I shouldn't gamble.