Non-binary and genderqueer: An overview of the field (2024)

The existence of gender variance is widely documented both historically andcross-culturally (Herdt, 1994; Matsuno &Budge, 2017). The term “genderqueer” emerged inthe 1990s (see Whittle, 1996). It can be definedas “any type of trans identity that is not always male or female. It is [also] where peoplefeel they are a mixture of male and female” (Monro, 2005, p. 13). Genderqueer identities are diverse but share dis-identification withrigid gender binaries and in some cases, a direct challenge to the social institutions thatperpetuate binaries (see Bradford etal., 2018;Davy, 2018; Yeadon-Lee, 2016). “Non-binary” is an umbrella term that includes those whoseidentity falls outside of or between male and female identities; as a person who canexperience both male and female, at different times, or someone who does not experience orwant to have a gender identity at all (Matsuno & Budge, 2017). Like genderqueer, non-binary can be traced to the work oftransgender and transsexual authors who resisted or transcended gender binaries, for exampleBornstein, who stated that ‘Gender fluidity recognizes no borders or rules of gender.’(1994, p. 52). The earliest use of terms referring directly to non-binary seems to be around2000, for example Haynes and McKenna’s (2001)collection Unseen Genders: Beyond the Binaries.

Estimates of the numbers of non-binary people vary. In a survey in the United Kingdom (UK)with 14,320 responses from trans people, almost 52% identified as non-binary (GovernmentEqualities Office, 2018). However, Nieder,T’Sjoen, Bouman, and Motmans (2018) conducted acomprehensive literature analysis that indicated that approximately 80% of trans peopleidentify as exclusively male or female, which leaves 20% to individuals with a genderfalling outside of or between male and female identities. There are generationaldifferences; typically a higher proportion of young people identify as non-binary. Forinstance, in a Canadian study, authors note the growing population of non-binary youth, with41% of a sample of 839 of trans young people identifying as such (Clark, Veale, Townsend,Frohard-Dourlent, & Saewyc, 2018; Yeadon-Lee,2016).

The last few years have witnessed a shift in the possibilities afforded for genderexpression in some countries, however fragile and contingent this development might be. Forinstance, Bragg, Renold, Ringrose, and Jackson (2018) in a UK study found “expanded vocabularies of gender identity/expression…”(2018, p. 1). “Non-binary” is now an increasingly recognized social identity in the UK,which has led to some changes in institutional norms and structures, for example the civilservice adopting a non-binary identity option (see Monro, Crocetti, Yeadon-Lee, Garland,& Travis, 2017). Likewise, Nieder etal.(2018) discuss the increased visibility ofnon-binary and genderqueer (NBGQ) people in clinical settings.

Despite some increases in the social acceptance of non-binary, the literature highlightsdifficulties regarding visibility (Taylor, Zalewska, Gates, & Millon, 2018). This is evident at the level of individualsubjectivity, for example 76% of non-binary people in the 2018 UK survey avoided expressingtheir gender identity due to fear of negative reactions (Government Equalities Office, 2018). The issue of invisibility is also pertinent topolicy making and practice settings. For instance, where health monitoring systems usegender binary categories, NBGQ people are rendered invisible (see Jaspal, Nambiar, Delpech,& Tariq, 2018).

A small but growing literature exists about health care and NBGQ people (see for exampleVincent & Lorimer, 2018). The UK GovernmentEqualities Office (2018) found that non-binarypeople had substantially lower quality of life scores, as compared to cisgender andheterosexual people. High levels of minority stress and of social discrimination werereported in studies such as Taylor etal. (2018).The research shows that NBGQ people’s mental health is worse than that of cisgenderpopulations, and it also seems that non-binary people may be at higher risk of mental healthproblems than binary trans people (Matsuno & Budge, 2017). Motmans and Burgwal (2018)conducted a survey in five countries which demonstrated that non-binary people assessedtheir health in more negative terms, as compared to the binary trans respondents. Theyshowed significantly higher rates of have a chronic problem, disability, or illness and alsoof experiences of depression. Their study supported earlier research that demonstratedpoorer health amongst NBGQ people as compared with binary identified trans people (Harrison,Grant, & Herman, 2012). However, Rimes,Goodship, Ussher, Baker, and West (2017) who (ina survey of 677 young people from the UK) found that non binary young people were lesslikely than other groups to report suicidality and previous help-seeking for anxiety anddepression, and also reported higher levels of life satisfaction than young binary transpeople. Overall, therefore, the findings about NBGQ people and health are inconclusive; bothpractice and the social environment are evolving.

The editorial

This Special Edition about non-binary and genderqueer is very much to be welcomed. Theincreased prominence of non-binary as an identity is somewhat reflected in scholarship, forexample Richards, Bouman, and Barker (2017), butin comparison to the binaried trans literature there is a paucity of research (Matsuno &Budge, 2017). Overall, academic production hasnot kept pace with the growth of non-binary identities, and there are difficulties witherasure of non-binary within the broader transgender category (Fiani & Han, 2018). The Special Edition, with its contributions inareas as varied as healthcare, romance, identity measurement and identity work, will providean important and timely contribution to the field. It will form a good foundation for thefurther expansion of NBGQ studies. This expansion is needed, as little research exists inareas such as education (though see Bragg etal., 2018) and a dearth of knowledge in such policing and community safety, asylum andrefugee rights, and social care.

This editorial will summarize key areas of relevant theory and will attempt to indicatesome possible directions for future research. Its focus is on the global anglophone north.The editorial aims to be thought-provoking rather than directly informing of practice. Someexcellent discussions of clinical issues are provided elsewhere, including Taylor etal.(2018).

Theorizing genderqueer and non-binary

I conducted research with a range of UK-based trans-identified and intersex individuals inthe 1990s, focusing on those with non-normative gender identities, including genderqueer.Based on this, I developed an approach to theorizing what is now known as NBGQ (Monro, 2000; 2005), building on the earlier work of authors such as Bornstein (1994) and Halberstam (2002). I explored three approaches: [i] the expansion of male andfemale categories, which enables the inclusion of non-normative genders. I noted that “thisinterpretation of gender problematically erases non-binaried trans identities [because allgender identities are subsumed within an expanded model of male and female]” (Monro, 2005, p. 36); [ii] Moving beyond gender, ordegendering; this has a difficulty in that “…once fluidity is named, it becomes a spacewhich people can inhabit…and is therefore arguably no longer a non-category.” (2005, p. 37).Non-binary illustrates the way in which what was (in the 1990s) a non-category has become acategory that people do inhabit, and in doing so may fuel social change. [iii] The thirdapproach, which has had the most purchase subsequently (see for instance Hines, 2010) is Gender Pluralism. This entails“…conceptualising gender as plural, as a spectrum, a field, or intersecting spectra orcontinua” (2005, p. 37), as a means of moving beyond flawed ontologies that entrench genderbinaries. The notion of a gender spectrum is evident in later work on genderqueer (Bradfordetal., 2018) and on non-binary, for exampleRichards etal. (2016) discuss diversifyinggender in terms of a spectrum model. Matsuno and Budge state that “The term non-binarytypically defines a comprehensive scope of gender experiences (sometimes discussed as the“gender spectrum”)” (2017, p. 117, see also Fiani & Han, 2018). The spectrum approach is very useful for understanding NBGQidentities, especially when expanded using intersectional approaches, which I discussbriefly below. However, the notion of gender pluralism did marginalize physiological sex,which is problematic as it elides intersex and variations of sex characteristics. Itherefore propose here a complementary notion of Sex Pluralism, which encompasses sexcharacteristic variance as a separate spectrum which overlaps, intertwines with andinfluences gender pluralism in diverse ways.

As I argued in 2001 “The social structuring of trans quite clearly affects the levels offluidity and the gender permutations that are possible” (p. 163). Hines (2010) subsequently developed a materialist analysisof transgender that addresses social structures and inequalities, “mapping the formations ofpower within and through gender and sexual categories” (p. 13). This type of approach, whereattention moves from the individual toward social structures and processes, is crucial. Inseeking to understand NBGQ, we need to ask questions about the conditions in which NBGQidentities can emerge and become socially viable, and the ways in which non-binarism isconstrained, shaped, or crushed. Arguably, the emergence of NBGQ in some northern anglophonecountries is possible because of what is broadly termed “hom*onationalism”; the deployment ofLGBT-friendly policies as part of the dominant national identities of countries (Puar, 2007)1. Incontrast, contemporary political mobilization supports the reinforcement of gender binariesin a number of states and regions (see for example Kuhar & Paternotte, 2017), making the external expression of NBGQidentities dangerous for individuals in these places. A materialist structural analysisenables understanding of the ways in which gender – including the social erasure oremergence of NBGQ people – is shaped, in the global north and internationally.

Taking NBGQ theory forwards

Arguably, it would be useful for NBGQ theorists to renovate feminist approaches to genderdiversity. Whittle stated in 1996 that “Feminist theory is now faced with the need toaddress the dichotomy of biological imperativism and social structure, the differences ofsex and gender, which are no longer recognized as synonymous” (p. 203). Sadly, few cisgenderfeminists rose to the challenge of sex and gender variances2, which destabilize simplistic notions of unitary male/femalecategories, and instead a reactionary “feminism” developed that is deeply gender binariedand prejudiced against gender diverse people (see Hines, 2017). The difficulties that anti-trans bigotry raises for NBGQ people requirecriminological, medical, and sociological attention, but that is beyond the scope of thisshort piece. Let me turn instead to providing a snapshot of how social forces can shape NBGQlives. In doing so, I build again on the work of early transgender authors (Bornstein, 1994; Feinberg, 1996).

The patriarchal and heterosexist underpinnings of gender binarism were discussed byFeinberg in 1996. Bornstein (1994) also analyzedheteropatriarchal systems of “gender defence.” In a nutshell, the gender binaried system isintertwined with institutionalized heterosexism (the assumption that male–female sexualrelationships are the norm and the ideal), making it difficult to live in alternative ways.As recently as 2010, there were assertions that “…in mainstream society, living openlybeyond the two-sexes/two-genders system would still not appear to constitute a sociallyviable option” (Davidman, 2010, p. 187).Practices of binarism continue, for example the social erasure of third and other sexpronouns such as “ze” (Nicolazzo, 2016) and theexistence of gender binaried toilets and uniforms within schools (Bragg et al., 2018). Monro and Van der Ros (2017) demonstrate the way in which state apparatus and the medicalestablishment can operate to perpetuate a socially marginal position for non-binary people.Gender binarism may be compounded by trans*3-normativity –“the belief that there is only one way for trans* people to practice their gender…[it]suggests that all trans* people should transition from one socially knowable sex to another”(Nicolazzo, 2016, p. 1175). These forces, whichoperate at cultural, institutional, policy, and legal levels, combine to perpetuate narrowmodels of sex, gender, and sexual identity.

Gender binarism also affects intersex people negatively (see Monro, 2005). Whilst this short piece does not address the issues specificto intersex people (intersex is known as DSD in medical settings), it is salient that someintersex people may feel themselves to be non-binary. In the UK survey of LGBTI people, 24%of a population of 1980 intersex respondents identified as non-binary (Government EqualitiesOffice, 2018). This is a different phenomenon tothat of trans non-binary people because intersex people have congenital sex variances thatare pathologized and they are usually subject to medical interventions as infants/childrento force their conformity to gender binaries, whereas endosex4 trans people seek to transition later in life. There are a fewindications in the literature (for example Taylor etal., 2018) that non-binary individuals born without congenital sexvariance may seek to identify as “intersex,” because they wish to have non-normatively sexedbodies. This is problematic, as it arguably “colonizes” an identity that others have nochoice about experiencing. Intersex people face profound difficulties that people born withnon-intersex bodies avoid, in particular, fetal termination (Jeon, Chen, & Goodson,2011), and medical interventions carried out onbabies and children which are typically reported as having poor and/or damaging outcomes(see for example Creighton, Minto, & Steele, 2001; Diamond & Garland, 2014).Intersex organizations are clear that the term “intersex” only pertains to those born withatypical sex characteristics (see Monro etal., 2017). Research is needed about the specific identities and needs of intersexnon-binary people.

NBGQ cannot be theorized without considering the other social forces that shape identityand what becomes socially possible in any given context. I therefore conclude this shortpiece by recommending more intersectional research concerning NBGQ, which could build onNicolazzo’s (2016) study of black non-binaryAmericans. Intersectionality concerns the ways in which multiple social forces interact orinterlock, so that these forces combine to forge particular social positions (see Crenshaw,1989). According to McCall (2005), there are different methodological approachesto intersectionality studies. The first of her three approaches: anticategoricalcomplexity, deconstructs identity categories. Anticategorical approaches can beused to dismantle gender (and sex) binarism, as well as enabling examination of the classed,racialized ways in which binarism is constructed. McCall discusses another approach tointersectionality, termed intracategorical because authors working in thisvein tend to focus on particular social groups at neglected points of intersection (McCall,2005, p. 1771). This approach is useful forunderstanding the experiences of NBGQ people who are also poor, or of color, or disabled, orvery young or very old (for example). McCall termed a further approach to intersectionality“intercategorical.” For McCall, “intercategoricalcomplexity…requires that scholars provisionally adopt existing analyticalcategories to document relationships of inequality among social groups and changingconfigurations of inequality along multiple and conflicting dimensions” (2005, p. 1771). Shealso notes that identity categories can be used strategically by individuals, in an agenticway. The possibility of exercising agency is important for understanding NBGQ. There isincreasing evidence that NBGQ people can feel a sense of pride, empowerment, and positiveindividuality (Taylor etal., 2018), and anyfuture theory-building needs to embrace and support this.

Surya Monro
Centre for Citizenship, Conflict, Identity and Diversity,School of Human and Health Sciences,
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield,UK
s.monro@hud.ac.uk

Notes

¹These states may not support the human rights of other social groups.

²Monro (2005) and Hines (2010, 2017) are amongst the trans-affirmative feminists.

³This author used an asterisk – trans*- to emphasise the inclusion of non-binary, andother non-normative gender, identities and practices. In this editorial, I use the term‘trans’ in the same way; it includes non-normative gender variations and binariedtransgender.

⁴Endosex is a term used by Intersex activists and allies to indicate a person born withsex characteristics that are seen as typically male or female at birth, therefore notmedicalized as intersex. See https://anunnakiray.com/2017/01/21/intersex-vs-intergender-do-intersex-transexuals-exist/

References