Department of Sociology, University of Cincinnati, Crosley Tower ML 0378, 301 Clifton Court, Cincinnati, OH, 45219, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2023 Jun;327:115953. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115953. Epub 2023 May 3.
I examine how non-binary people who have considered, or accessed, gender-affirming health care experience accountability to transnormativity using 12 in-depth interviews conducted between 2018 and 2019 in a midwestern American city. I detail how non-binary people who want to embody genders that are still largely culturally unintelligible think about identity, embodiment, and gender dysphoria. Using grounded theory methodology, I find that non-binary identity work around medicalization differs from that of transgender men and women in three primary ways: 1) regarding how they understand and operationalize gender dysphoria, 2) in relation to their embodiment goals, and 3) concerning how they experience pressure to medically transition. Non-binary people describe increased ontological uncertainty about their gender identities when researching gender dysphoria that is contextualized by an internalized sense of accountability to the transnormative expectation for medicalization. They additionally anticipate a potential medicalization paradox, where accessing gender-affirming care leads to a different type of binary misgendering and risks making their gender identities less, rather than more, culturally intelligible to others. Non-binary people also experience external accountability to transnormativity as pressure from trans and medical communities to think about dysphoria as inherently binaristic, embodied, and medically treatable. These findings indicate that non-binary people experience accountability to transnormativity differently than trans men and women. Since non-binary people and their body projects often disrupt the transnormative tropes that are the framework for trans medicine, they find trans therapeutics, and the diagnostic experience of gender dysphoria, uniquely problematic. Non-binary experiences of accountability to transnormativity indicate the need to re-center trans medicine to better accommodate non-normative embodiment desires and focus future diagnostic revisions of gender dysphoria to emphasize the social aspects of trans and non-binary experience.
我通过 2018 年至 2019 年在美国中西部一个城市进行的 12 次深入访谈,研究了那些考虑过或接受过性别肯定性医疗保健的非二元性别者如何通过跨规范主义来承担责任。我详细介绍了那些想要体现仍然在文化上难以理解的性别的非二元性别者如何思考身份、体现和性别焦虑。使用扎根理论方法,我发现,非二元性别认同的医学化工作与跨性别男性和女性的工作有三个主要区别:1)他们如何理解和操作性别焦虑;2)与他们的体现目标有关;3)关于他们如何经历医学转变的压力。非二元性别者在研究性别焦虑时,对自己的性别认同感到更大的本体论不确定性,这种不确定性与他们对跨规范主义期望的内化责任有关,即期望他们进行医学转变。他们还预计会出现一种潜在的医学化悖论,即接受性别肯定性护理会导致另一种类型的二元性别错误,并且有可能使他们的性别认同在文化上对他人来说变得不那么可理解。非二元性别者还会因为跨性别和医疗界的压力而对跨规范主义负责,这种压力要求他们将性别焦虑视为内在二元论、体现和可治疗的。这些发现表明,非二元性别者与跨性别男性和女性承担的跨规范主义责任不同。由于非二元性别者及其身体项目经常破坏跨规范主义的比喻,这些比喻是跨性别医学的框架,他们发现跨性别疗法和性别焦虑的诊断经验存在独特的问题。非二元性别者对跨规范主义的责任表明,需要重新以跨性别医学为中心,以更好地适应非规范体现的欲望,并将未来性别焦虑的诊断修订重点放在强调跨性别和非二元性别经验的社会方面。