Abstract
As societies evolve so do ideas about the individuals that comprise those societies. One concept undergoing change is that of gender identity. The American Psychological Association (APA) defined gender identity as “A person's deeply-felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or a male; a girl, a woman, or a female; or an alternative gender (e.g., gender nonconforming, gender neutral) that may or may not correspond to a person's sex assigned at birth” (APA, 2015, p. 834). According to Polderman et al. (2018), gender identity can be divided into two broad classifications: cisgender and transgender. The term cisgender applies to individuals who identify with a gender that matches their biological sex at birth (Smith, 2018). The term transgender applies to individuals who identify with a gender that is different from their biological sex at birth. Gender identity is further delineated by the roles assumed and acted upon based on socially accepted environmental factors (APA, 2015).
Gender identity is distinct from gender expression. The expression of gender varies based on the cultural and political context within which it is established and maintained (Butler, 1999). Thus, gender can be expressed in a variety of ways including dress, 1 voice, and mannerisms (Koene, 2017). For example, an individual might identify as a transgender person but the dress, appearance, name, and mannerisms of this individual within a specific context may be interpreted by others as indicating a cisgender woman (Lowry et al., 2018).
In traditional western cultures, gender expression was traditionally tied to the binary concepts of masculinity and femininity, each of which was closely linked to cisgender identities (man, woman) and associated with archetypal dress that included specific colors, styles, and features (Workman & Johnson, 1993). Thus, dress was one means by which individuals communicated gender identity (Barnes & Eicher, 1993; Tortora & Marcketti, 2015). In contrast to a simple gender dichotomy, androgyny has been used to designate gender expressions that are neither or both feminine and masculine and suggests the possibility of more than two genders. Indeed, some researchers have recommended that gender be viewed as on a spectrum (e.g., Iantaffi, 2015; Monro, 2005). Evidence for societies that recognize more than two genders comes from non-western cultures (e.g., Asian, Polynesian, Native American). For example, some Polynesian cultures have a third gender referred to as Fa’afafine or children identified at birth as male but raised female (Bartlett & Vasey, 2006). Some Native Americans tribes also recognize a gender wherein individuals are referred to as “two spirited” (Paige, 2016).
As indicated by the New York City (NYC) Commission on Human Rights (2018) formal recognition of the existence of 31 different gender identities (Fruehan, 2016), gender identity is a complex and fluid concept. Different genders can identify in many ways. Queer and transgender theorists have argued that gender is on a continuum and that gender identities are also impacted by other identities including class, race, ethnicity, religion, occupation, age, subculture, and personality (Halberstam, 1998). As dress and appearance have traditionally been important cues to communicate gender identity and as Michelman and Kaiser (2000) observed “viewing gender as a fluid concept allows scholars studying dress and appearance to understand gender relations as more than men and women ‘dressing their parts’” (cited in “Gender, Dress and Fashion,” 2021, para 2), it is important to understand dress and other appearance-based cues as deliberate symbols to announce a plurality of gender identities.
The formal recognition of gender identities by the NYC Commission on Human Rights was the impetus behind our research as it identified 31 different gender identities; our purpose was to investigate how dress and other appearance cues are used to establish, maintain, and communicate gender identities among individuals identifying as other than cisgender. Specific research questions addressed were as follows: (1) what types of dress are used to express their gender identity, (2) what are individuals’ experiences with using dress as an expression of their gender, and (3) what barriers have been encountered when expressing their applied gender using dress?
Theoretical Framework
The framework for this research utilized self-verification theory. Self-verification theory is based in symbolic interaction which posits that humans relate to objects based on the meanings attached to those objects and that the meanings of objects are determined through interaction with others (Blumer, 1969). Thus, key to symbolic interactionism is the concept of meaning. Along with meaning, the self is a basic concept within symbolic interactionism. Beliefs about the self (i.e., one's self-concept, self-knowledge, self-view) are developed over time and, like meaning, established through interaction with others. The self is a dynamic and complex construct that consists of thoughts, intentions, and feelings that describe individuals. The self is the answer to the question “who am I?” Thus, the self is comprised of numerous identities (e.g., gender, professional, familial).
Stone (1962) argued that symbolic interaction suffered from a discursive bias and posited that appearance, including dress, was at least as important as verbal communication in the establishment and maintenance of the self. He subsequently outlined a process whereby individuals used dress to state their identities to others. Stone noted an individual is recognized as having an identity when the identity is claimed by the individual using dress and when others attributed the identity to the individual. Although the association of an item of dress with any one gender versus another is dynamic and changes over time (Tortora & Marcketti, 2015), customarily there have been specific dress items and practices (e.g., wearing neckties, shaving legs) that have been adopted almost exclusively by either males or females (Tortora & Marcketti). Thus, individuals could easily use dress to announce an identity for themselves or to infer a corresponding gender identity about others. During the 2010s, the idea that additional genders might also be symbolized in appearance emerged with the promotion of non-binary 2 dress (Mackinney-Valentine, 2017). Non-binary dress refers to dress that can be worn by anyone at any time (e.g., t-shirts, jeans) and are designed to avoid creating a distinction between masculine and feminine.
Correspondingly, as individuals use dress to visibly express their gender, self-verification theory states that they will actively seek confirmation of their views (Swann, 2012). The theory posits that individuals prefer to be perceived by others as they see themselves. Thus, when individuals identify with a gender, it is important that others also attribute that gender to them. According to Swann, when seeking self-verification, individuals may employ several strategies including the display of identity cues (i.e., visible symbols of who they are) such as clothing. Validation of self-views including one's personal and social identities is important because it gives people a sense of unity (Swann) as well as enhances self-perceived legitimacy and self-worth (Carter & Marony, 2018). Thus, we posited that members of the LBGTQIA + community may use specific dress to signal their gender identity to others and seek verification of that gender identity from these others and that this process may be successful when the meaning of the dress is shared between individuals.
Related Literature
Dress and LBGTQIA + 3 Identities
Previous research on identity and dress with members of the LBGTQIA + community is limited and has frequently focused on sexual identity. In research with participants who self-identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, Clarke and Turner (2007) reported that appearance norms signaling sexual identity were rather rigid and “policed” using both verbal and nonverbal means. Although there existed variation, appearance norms for lesbian women consisted of a masculine appearance, that is, individuals “wore men's clothes, (baggy) trousers, and had short, spiky hair” (p. 269). Appearance norms for gay men included “having (bleached) blond or highlighted hair, wearing tighter t-shirts, lower trousers, and generally more feminine styles and colors, more jewelry and more revealing clothes than the average heterosexual man” (p. 270). However, no appearance norms emerged for bisexual men or women. Subsequently, Huxley et al. (2014) studied lesbian and bi-sexual women residing in Great Britain and found that participants did use appearance and dress to communicate their sexual identity. Clarke and Smith (2015) studied a sample of self-identified gay or bi-sexual men recruited in the United Kingdom. Similar to Clarke and Turner (2007), they reported there were two common images of gay men and that appearance norms existed for gay men. One image, labeled camp, indicated gay men wore tightly fitted clothing and bright colors. The other image, labeled trendy, indicated gay men were fashionable, well-groomed, and invested in their appearance. Some participants felt pressure to conform to these images.
Similar results were reported by Reddy-Best and Pedersen (2015a, 2015b) in their studies of queer women living in the United States. Even though signifiers of sexual identity were fluid, participants in this research frequently adopted masculine signifiers. These researchers (2015a) reported that locating clothing that fit was an issue for queer women (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender and non-binary persons) and that shopping for clothing in general was a source of distress.
Interested in how members of LGBTQIA + community negotiated their gender identities, Levitt et al. (2003) interviewed self-identified femmes living in Florida in the United States. Participants characterized femmes as identifying with a feminine aesthetic, “often associated with makeup, feminine clothing, and dressing provocatively” (p. 105).
Focusing on transgender and nonbinary persons within the United States, Pollock and Eyre (2012) investigated young persons to further understand their gender identity. Participants revealed that gender identity was a “vague feeling” (p. 211) and that they adopted “masculine” clothing and behaviors. Subsequently, McGuire et al. (2016) investigated young transgender and nonbinary persons from the United States, Canada, and Ireland to understand body satisfaction/ dissatisfaction and how it related to gender and body size. Participants noted initial body dissatisfaction occurred during puberty when “mature body characteristics” (p. 97) began to appear. Transgender and nonbinary persons, who wanted to achieve a desired body image, would exercise intensely and not practice specific body modifications (i.e., shaving legs or armpits, plucking eyebrows). Some participants shared their dress was a way to alter their appearance and “disguise their bodies” (p. 105).
Finding clothing that enables expression of gender is a challenge for transgender individuals. Reilly et al. (2019) in their research with transgender individuals from Ireland, Canada, and the United States found that participants used clothing to express their gender. Similar to Reddy-Best and Pedersen (2015a), these researchers also identified clothing fit as an issue as fit was key to revealing or concealing body parts that were consistent or inconsistent with their gender. In analogous research with transgender persons and gay men in India, Chauhan et al. (2019) echoed the importance of clothing fit as participants tried to “fit their assigned-male-at-birth bodies within garments that were designed for an assigned-female-at-birth body” (p. 21). However, these participants indicated communicating one's gender identity was not central to their decision-making concerning their appearance. Moving forward, they were, however, interested in utilizing gender-neutral garments to express their selves.
Summary
Symbolic interactionism (Stone, 1962) and self-verification theory (Swann, 2012) suggest that dress is useful in establishing and maintaining gender identities. The extant research with members of the LGBTQIA + community suggests there are appearance norms (Levitt et al., 2003) as well as expectations concerning body modifications (McGuire et al., 2016) that are tied to gender expression and that one clothing attribute important to the successful use of clothing to express gender is fit (e.g., Chauhan et al., 2019; Reilly et al., 2019).
Method
The research questions addressed with individuals identifying as other than cisgender were (1) what types of dress are used to express gender identity, (2) what are their experiences with using dress as an expression of their gender, and (3) what barriers were encountered to expressing gender using dress? To address these research questions, we utilized a phenomenological approach to data analysis (Creswell et al., 2007). Utilizing this approach, researchers are able to identify and describe what participants have in common as they experience a phenomenon, in this instance, the use of dress in negotiating and communicating gender identity.
Data Collection
After receiving IRB approval for research with human subjects, a convenience sample was recruited to understand participants’ perceptions of gender representations. Participants were recruited by contacting LGBTQIA + community organizations located in an urban Northeastern region of the United States and from organizations located in a rural Midwestern region. Recruiting from a rural location was included as Hulko and Hovanes (2018) called for research on identity development with members of the LGBTQIA + community residing in rural areas, whose experiences and resources (e.g., stores, support services) may be markedly different from individuals residing in urban areas.
Representatives of the LGBTQIA + community organizations sent an email to members inviting them to participate in a one-on-one interview comprised of open-ended questions. Seven individuals agreed to be interviewed. Interviews took place in a location where it was safe, convenient, and provided sufficient privacy for responses to be candid (e.g., libraries, coffee shops). Interviews ranged in length from 30 min to two hours. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed by the primary researchers. Field notes were also written immediately after each interview noting, among other things, participants’ nonverbal expressions (e.g., body language, tone of voice) (Groenwald, 2004). Finally, member checking wherein participants were provided the opportunity to review the transcribed interviews and to make any corrections and additions to the content was completed. In doing this, participants’ validated the accuracy of their respective transcribed interviews adding validity to the data statements.
Data Analyses
Each transcribed interview was assigned a letter and a number. The letter represented the region and numbers were randomized to maintain anonymity. Each interview response was read several times to ensure in-depth understanding of the participants’ responses. Data were then initially analyzed using processes outlined by Creswell (2015) and van Manen (1990). As interview questions stemmed from each of the three research questions, participants’ responses (text) were initially grouped together by interview question so that all responses to the same question could be reviewed. Every statement was given equal value. After reading responses to each question, data analyses began by identifying major concepts (i.e., information segments) by highlighting responses in detail. van Manen (1990) refers to this as the line-by-line approach. Authors continually debriefed throughout this process and consistently checked agreements. Once major concepts were identified from the participants’ responses, responses were grouped into categories using axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Coding continued until each information segment could be placed into a category. During this part of analyses, coding, noteworthy statements were highlighted and sentences or quotes were identified. As participants were able to make any response to any of the questions, content that did not appear to be relevant to one interview question but relevant to another was moved to the appropriate question. Statements that were irrelevant to the topic were removed. Next, similar categories were grouped together and each group of responses were analyzed to determine underlying themes. Authors analyzed all the data to extract all possible themes. The process was repeated to achieve saturation which was determined as “no additional data being found whereby” the researcher “can develop properties of the category. As he [sic] sees similar instances over and over again, the researcher becomes empirically confident that the category is saturated” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 61). After data analysis, it was apparent that additional data collection was not needed. Finally, researchers created an interpretative description of each theme.
For reliability purposes, two coders read and coded the same interviews to check for consistency within the coding responses and for similar interpretation of the data. Inter-rater reliability was calculated by dividing the total themes in agreement by the total themes (Marques & McCall, 2005). Any disagreements were discussed and negotiated by authors until agreement was reached. The inter-rater reliability was .92.
Findings
Participant Characteristics
The sample (n = 3) from the Midwest were all White. Most participants identified as middle class. The first rural participant from the rural Midwest identified as female, middle class, White was 24 years old, did not indicate annual earnings, and held a retail sales position. She came to the interview wearing a black and white dress, and heels. She wore make-up, had arm tattoos, and long black hair. The second participant identified as non-transfer or non-transgender binary, was from the rural Midwest, was 49 years old, White, had an annual earnings of $40,000, and held a librarian position. They came to the interview wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and tennis shoes. She had visible arm tattoos and short brown hair. The third participant identified as non-transfer binary, was from the rural Midwest, was 32 years old, White, had annual earnings of $10,000, and was a student. She came to the interview wearing a dress and low heeled shoes. She wore make-up and had shoulder-length, brown hair.
The sample (n = 4) from the urban Northeast included two African Americans, one Hispanic, and one White. The first urban participant identified as male, was 27 years old, African American, had annual earnings of $50,000, and worked as a Fashion Publicist and Adjunct Professor. He wore black sweater and slacks to the interview and shared that his black loafers were Gucci brand. He had short hair. The second participant identified as female, was 24 years old, of Hispanic descent, and indicated annual earnings of $26,000 working as a restaurant server. She wore blue jeans and a white T-shirt with sneakers to the interview. No make-up was visible or detected. The third participant identified as male, was 31 years old, White, and indicated earnings of $110,000 as a Style Advisor at Saks Fifth Avenue. He had short hair and wore a black T-shirt, blazer, and slackers with black Ferragamo oxfords. The last participant, identified as male, was 29 years old, African-American, and indicated annual earnings of $36,000 as a Program Director. He wore jeans and a black sweater to the interview. Table 1 summarizes participants’ demographics.
Participant Demographics.
*C = North East participants; B = Midwestern participants.
Types of Dress Used to Express Gender
Our research was designed to address the following questions with members of the non-binary gender community: (1) what types of dress are used to express gender identity (2) what are their experiences with using dress as an expression of their gender, and (3) what barriers exist to expressing gender identified using dress? The findings are organized by each of these three research questions and the themes identified. Exemplary quotes illustrate our findings.
Participants also described specific body supplements that contained their specific meanings. For example, a participant discussed a necklace that she wanted to purchase prior to transitioning. Later she bought the necklace and always wears it as it is an essential part of her gender identity. She, an individual in the middle of her physical transition, shared the following about this necklace “I pretty much always wear a necklace. It's such a part of me that I sometimes forget I’m actually wearing it” [B12].
We are seeing men who identify as male wear skirts, many women are preferring comfort therefore the silhouettes of their clothing can be misleading. However, grooming of the hair, nails, fragrance worn, may be more accurate to ones display of their gender. [C1]
it's [gender expression] just kind of everything. For the most part, it's just people, it's pretty accurate. But, I mean, it's just kind of an instant judgement people do just based on…everything, hair, clothes, face shape, voice, mannerism. [B26]
Another participant shared “I think my clothing is slim fitting and usually very professional and on trend. I am usually very clean and put together (my hair is done)” [C32].
In addition, pronouns were discussed as the most accurate signifier of gender identity, which could only be discovered upon interacting with an individual. Asking people for pronouns when you meet them …introducing yourself with your pronouns, ‘Hi. I'm…. they've and they’re’ and that will give them the cue that I should have introduce myself with my pronouns and it just makes it a lot easier for people to just put that right up there and right up front. [B14]
How Dress Was Used to Express Gender
Knowledge of social norms concerning dress in combination with how dress can be used to reveal and conceal body parts was important to participants’ use of dress to express their gender identity. Some participants also noted that their use of dress was dynamic and that gender was not the only information that they intended to convey using their dress and appearance.
I think I am pretty successful. When I first started transitioning, especially socially transitioning versus medical transition, I really laid along the markers, the dress, earrings, rings and necklaces….I just started transitioning and they didn’t really recognize it. [B14]. I have gotten more and more comfortable with my body and how I choose to express myself and learned what works with my body as a whole, and that just because I’m a female does not mean I am forced to wear things that the social construct says I should at all times or in general. [C214]
I think my clothing is slim fitting and usually very professional and on trend. I am usually very clean and put together (like my hair and nails are done). I don’t have any super visible tattoos or piercings…I appear to have money and take care of myself. [C32]
…I’m a vaguely alternative girl with bangs, and a septum ring. Because I am into things like astrology, and my interests pretty much lined up with my physical appearance…are like ‘oh, she seems kinda scary.’ Like no, no… Truly I am as gentle as a lamb. [B12]
Barriers Encountered to Expressing Gender Using Dress
Participants noted several barriers to the effective use of dress when expressing their gender. These barriers included stereotypes tied to dress that prevent people from accurately inferring others’ gender or presentations that did not fit within traditional norms for men's and women's appearance, limitations concerning what dress could and could not do, contextual concerns, and negative past experiences.
Whatever it be about me or about someone else, I do not believe these impressions are accurate at all. Simply because most of these impressions are influenced by stereotypes that were made in a bias[ed] manner and typically generalization of a group of people with similar characteristics. [C214]
Another participant commented that a significant barrier to announcing gender identity was fear and a lack of knowledge.
I think the only barrier there is for this is lack of knowledge and the fear of ‘other’ and change. I find unless people are educated on the topic there won’t be any growth of understanding because some people might believe their normality is being tested [C214]
A participant also noted that stereotypes concerning gender enabled individuals to make inaccurate extended inferences. “They assume that I am into guys, because there's a stereotype that a lot of transwomen are actually just gay men and it is not true. There are a lot of different types of transwomen” [B14].
Now as I have gotten older I have molded and gotten comfortable with myself a lot more and while I still do identify as a female woman I am aware that I have masculine body language at times and can come off as ‘aggressive’ which also has helped me become more aware of the space I can take when communicating or even walking. [C214]
I could pass as a straight person if I need to or if I do not feel safe. Usually at work I wear a short-sleeved shirt so it's (gendered tattoos) pretty visible so people can see them. But, like my family get-togethers, depending on which side of the family, I wear longer sleeves… [B12]
Experiences of rude behavior was particularly true for participants living in rural locations. A participant shared that others gawked. Working on a college campus, …where a lot of people are rural, I am the first trans person they have ever seen. So I have seen parents just stopping and stare, having the ‘I'm not sure what to do’ look on their face and even lot of students… [B14]
Effective Expression of Gender: Verification or not?
While participants did not specifically note that they consciously sought verification of their gender identities, they provided evidence that their presentations of their gender identity were interpreted correctly by others and therefore, verified. For example, a participant identified a tattoo located on an arm (see Figure 1). “My tattoo is a transgender lesbian symbol, so I put it on my arm so when someone sees [it] they know…” [B14]. Another participant noted that she wore dresses almost exclusively so that others are correct in inferring her gender. Additional participants commented about the successful use of dress in specific contexts to announce their gender. “I cannot control which conclusions others draw but my presentation is clear and authentic. In dating, conclusions were made that I was a gay man based on my appearance. That was accurate.” [C00] “I have to wear blazers and general “menswear” in my day to day work life which I think communicates clearly to people my gender identity.” [C32]
Transgender lesbian symbol, participant B14.
Some participants shared that they were not always successful in their attempts to convey their gender identities using dress. They noted confusion when others attempted to infer their gender or that of others because the dress worn was inconsistent or did not fit binary norms. I kind of assume things based on height, so obviously there's …crossovers are inaccurate. If you’re taller, you’re probably a guy. If you’re shorter, you’re probably a girl. Dress, haircut…I mean, especially if you're androgynous, it can be hard to figure out which way to go to [infer] gender …I know a lot of trans guys who still like to wear femme stuff on occasion, and I know transwomen who, at most, tend to dress very from the butch side of femme. [B26]
Discussion and Conclusions
Consistent with previous researchers (e.g. Levitt et al., 2003; McGuire et al., 2016; Reilly et al., 2019), participants used dress to signal their gender identities. As supported by previous research on members of the LBTQIA + community (e.g. Clarke and Smith, 2015), wearing dress traditionally tied to women or men assisted some participants in conveying desired gender identities to others. That these gendered dress items existed was especially important and useful during periods of gender transitioning as wearing gendered items of dress facilitated identification of impending genders. However, some participants presented a post-postmodern appearance (Morgado, 2014) consisting of changing and ambiguous gender signals as well as androgynous appearance traits that were a juxtaposition of masculine and feminine aesthetics. Participants noted that in these instances it is difficult for viewers to make accurate inferences of gender identities.
Participants noted the importance of one's entire presentation (e.g., gait, mannerisms) in conveying gender identity. Participants were aware that dress was not the sole cue to others’ inferences of their gender identity. At times, individuals are objectified into parts– viewers focus on what is most prominent or conflicting (e.g., an individual wearing a dress who has an Adams apple) about another's presentation and use those cues to infer gender. Gender is a multifaceted and evolving category of identity and we should anticipate that new symbols of gender identity will and are emerging along with new gender designations. Dress is only one of many cues that could be used as the basis for inferences of gender, enabling appropriate and respectful interaction with others.
Barriers exist to effectively using dress to express gender. As reported by previous researchers (Chauhan et al., 2019; Reilly et al., 2019), our participants shared that some items of dress do not easily accommodate the variety of body forms in existence. Opportunities exist for fashion brands to broaden their offerings to include non-gendered dress as well as for retailers to offer clothing and accessories in non-gendered spaces to alleviate problems associated with easily accessing diverse items of dress.
Barriers to using dress to signal gender also included lack of knowledge. Individuals may not recognize or correctly interpret dress intended to signal gender information. Participants residing in rural areas specifically noted others’ resistance to moving beyond traditional male or female appearances, people being confused by appearances that fell outside of traditional male or female, and not even wanting to try to communicate their gender because they wanted to avoid evoking rude behavior on the part of others. These results support previous scholars’ research indicating where one lived can impact gender expression (Hulko & Hovanes, 2018).
Our findings also support tenets of self-verification theory (Swann, 2012) and Stone’s (1962) ideas about claiming an identity. Some participants used dress to announce their gender identities to others. Some of the time, their attempts were successful, feedback from viewers was positive, and therefore they experienced verification of their gender identities. Other times, attempts to use dress to convey gender were unsuccessful. These ineffective experiences were linked to instances wherein the dress cues presented varied from traditional western binary norms. Presenting mixed gender cues via dress challenges expectations and may certainly contribute to inaccurate inferences concerning others’ gender identity. Inaccurate inferences of gender identity tied to dress could also be as a result of several meanings of dress including that it is fluid, tied to context, and that the items of dress utilized might be an individual marker of gender rather than a shared societal indicator (Carter & Marony, 2018). Another consideration is that in some cases clearly displayed gender messages were present but viewers were refusing to accept the stated gender identity perhaps because they held to traditional norms for sex, gender, and appearance.
Finally, our findings revealed some information about the importance of dress during periods of transition. Participants who were early in their transition to another gender relied on traditional gender markers (e.g., skirt = female) to convey their new gender identities. Overtime, as they became comfortable with their identified gender, they wore gendered dress less often and in a less obvious manner. This finding is consistent with Arthur (1999) in her work on individuals transitioning into new social identities (i.e., sororities). She noted that, as women adopted their new identity, they adopted the dress and appearance of an ideal sorority member. Over time, however, as they became secure in that identity, they began to present an individualized appearance and wearing the clear symbols of that social identity was less important to them.
Implications for Teaching and Research
There are several implications for teaching and future research. When discussing dress and gender in the classroom, body supplements and body modifications could be presented in a non-gendered manner. However, as participants recognized that many items of dress continue to be linked with males or females, instructors can discuss what it is about forms of dress that cause them to be linked to one gender or another. Among many strategies to enhance student learning about gender, instructors could also discuss how dress is designed along gender lines and to what extent that practice reinforces gender stereotypes concerning dress. The strategy might assist students in recognizing their own biases about gender.
In addition, while acknowledging the existence of emerging genders, course policies could reflect properly used pronouns. Our participants indicated appropriate pronouns were important and gender inclusive language in course syllabi, assignments, and examinations would model acceptance of diverse genders. Informal and formal dress codes could also be reviewed for their inclusive nature.
Our findings raise awareness of the struggle that individuals that do not identify as one of two cisgender identities have in communicating their gender identities to others. The findings also suggest that the communication of a non-cisgender identity might be even more difficult when residing in a rural versus an urban area within the United States. Therefore, additional work could be done in the clothing and textile classroom on educating students on the existence of individuals that do not identify as cisgender. Our study can be a jumping off point to classroom discussion on use of dress to convey gender identities, the possibilities and realities of designing and merchandising dress beyond traditional western binary norms, the development of inclusive dress codes within schools and within the workplace, and the general (or lack of) acceptance of creative gender expression using dress.
As gender identities continue to evolve, dress items and practices that clearly signal male or female are likely to dissipate because dress may be designed more on the basis of body type, weight, and height than on the basis of gender. Future research could include measurements of individuals representing the plurality of genders in existence to enhance design of non-binary clothing. Future investigations could further explore the use of dress as an expression of gender with additional members of the LGBTQIA + community representing a broader array of gender identities. Individuals who agreed to participate were not representative of all of the 31 different genders identified at the time of data collection. Additional research can identify the difficulties LGBTQIA + individuals encounter tied to dress in the workplace, in schools that require uniforms, or in gendered public forums (e.g., swimming facilities). Further research is needed on the use of dress during transitioning from one gender to another. For example, researchers could conduct longitudinal studies to reveal use of dress prior to, during, and after transitioning. Finally, our approach to examining the usefulness of self-verification theory (Swann, 2012) in gender expression using dress was indirect in that we did not question participants on the importance of having others verify their gender identities. Rather, our approach was to allow participants to share their experiences as they desired. Thus, future researchers could address tis knowledge gap. Researchers could explore members of the LBGBTQIA + community responses to others’ unsuccessful identification of their gender identities. If attempts to express their gender identity is unsuccessful, do people change their dress? Do they switch to utilizing other identifiers (e.g., voice, mannerisms)? To what extent does verification by others vary based on who is doing the verifying?
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the PSC- CUNY Research research entitled, “Redefining Gender: A New Continuum of Inclusivenss” (grant awarded) $5,987.65 (grant number # 62494-00 50 Traditional B grant ).
