Non-binary people, who identify with gender categories other than women or men, are invisible, miscategorized, and misgendered, leading to their marginalization. Moreover, some non-binary people have specific and defined gender identities, and others are less specific and less defined. Gender-inclusive language reforms can expand the set of available categories and challenge people’s binary understanding of gender, but they also provoke backlash. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the possibility of language to make space for both types of non-binary identities, as well as to understand the dynamics of perceivers that produce backlash to non-binary people. Moreover, this thesis also aimed to test a recent psychological framework which predicted that people whose gender identity is more central to their sense of self should have a stronger negative reaction to non-binary people. Study I reviewed large national surveys from around the world to assess how the gender identities and sexual orientation of respondents are measured. Results show that most surveys used binary response formats or offer inconsistent non-binary options. Some used more inclusive response options, but these still drew boundaries and implicitly communicated which kinds of non-binary identities could and could not exist. Study II examined how response formats influence the categorization of gender-ambiguous faces. Participants categorized faces using different response options, including binary-only options and formats that included non-binary or “I don’t know” categories. I tested both whether response options could reduce participants’ tendency to think of gender as distinct categories (i.e., categorical perception) and increase their tendency to categorize others as non-binary. Response formats did not reduce participants’ tendency to treat gender categories as distinct (i.e., categorical perception), but formats that explicitly included non-binary options increased non-binary categorizations, especially of androgynous faces. Study III examined whether exposure to the Swedish gender-inclusive pronoun hen affects categorization of faces as non-binary. I also tested whether participants with stronger gender binary beliefs and whose gender identity was more central to their sense of themselves were more likely to categorize others as non-binary. Participants exposed to hen were more likely to categorize faces as non-binary than those exposed to other pronouns or no pronouns. Moreover, participants who believed that gender was binary were less likely to categorize others as non-binary. Participants’ gender identity centrality, however, was largely unrelated to their likelihood of categorizing others as non-binary. Study IV examined the characteristics of targets and perceivers that predict various outcomes related to rejection of non-binary people (specifically misgendering, categorization, and liking). That is, I examined which identities and which gender expressions are rejected. Additionally, I examined whether participants with strong gender binary beliefs and gender identity centrality were more likely to reject non-binary targets. Non-binary targets were more misgendered and miscategorized (but not disliked) than cisgender targets. Moreover, cisgender-prototypical non-binary targets were more often misgendered and miscategorized (but not disliked) than androgynous targets. Participants’ gender binary beliefs strongly predicted all three outcomes, but gender identity centrality only predicted misgendering.
Elli van Berlekom (Thu,) studied this question.