Cisgendered Organizations: Trans Women and Inequality in the Workplace

This article responds to calls to better understand how intersecting “inequality regimes” operate in organizations. Through in‐depth interviews with 25 white trans women about their workplace experiences, my analyses highlight how trans women navigate relational practices that are simultaneously gendered and cisgendered—that is, practices that maintain cultural connections between sex and gender and maintain gender as immutable. Findings demarcate three distinct mechanisms by which cisgenderism, a system that devalues women and trans people, operates and strengthens hierarchical privileges at work: (1) double‐bind constraints; (2) fluid biases of cissexism and sexism; and (3) group practices of privilege and subordination. In the first regard, analyses reveal unique double binds that trans women face—binds that dictate contradictory feminine and masculine ideal worker expectations but also expectations of gender authenticity. Second, I find that trans women often hover between two subordinate statuses (i.e., gender and transgender status) in a given workday, a fact that prods a more fluid conception of cisgenderism. Finally, this study highlights how cis men collectively mobilize through group practices to repair cisgender system breaches. All three dimensions are critical for understanding the production of workplace inequality between not only trans women and cis men, but all feminine‐identified workers.     

Gender Category and Gender Status: A Critical Distinction

Gender has been of explicit analytical interest in sociology for decades. Despite its centrality to the field, “gender” eludes conceptual specificity in significant ways, such as lacking distinction between gender category (identification as a man, woman, nonbinary, etc.) and gender status (the state of being cisgender or not). I contend that the cisgender status is a rich site of interpersonal and institutional power that has been understudied. This work forwards the concepts of gender category and status as analytical tools to help explore key elements of gender interaction and structure, such as cisness. I argue cisness must be teased out via the express distinction between gender category and status, and I provide empirical evidence from 75 interviews with various gendered actors (i.e., cisgender men, cisgender women, transgender men, transgender women, nonbinary individuals) to demonstrate the applied purchase of my findings.     

Social networks and sexual risk factor differences between cisgender heterosexual and cisgender LGBQ homeless youths

ABSTRACT

Cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer/questioning (LGBQ) homeless youths are more likely to engage in sexual risk behaviors relative to cisgender heterosexual homeless youths. Homeless youths (N = 1,046) were recruited and surveyed from three drop-in centers in Los Angeles, California. This study assessed differences in demographics, background experiences, and perceived social network norms in order to understand the disparities in rates of unprotected sex and concurrent sex between these two subgroups. Results indicate significant differences in engagement in risk factors as well as social network norms. Findings provide support for tailored sexual risk-reduction interventions that cater specifically to LGBQ homeless youths.     

A Comparison of Trans Women,Trans Men,Genderqueer Individuals,and Cisgender Brothers and Sisters on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: Ratings by Self and Siblings

A U.S. national sample of 295 transgender adults (trans women, trans men, and genderqueer individuals) and their cisgender siblings completed the Bem Sex-Role Inventory about their siblings as well as themselves, which enabled a comparison between self-perceptions and sibling’s perceptions of personality characteristics. Self-reported personality characteristics scored as feminine of trans women were not statistically different from those of their cisgender sisters, but they were significantly higher than self-reported femininity scores of trans men, genderqueer individuals, and cisgender brothers. Self-reported personality characteristics scored as masculine of trans men did not differ significantly from those of their cisgender brothers, but they were higher than those of trans women. Trans men and cisgender brothers were viewed by their siblings in a more sex-typed way than they rated themselves, whereas trans women and cisgender sisters were rated by their siblings in a less sex-typed way than they viewed themselves.     

Missing from the Conversation: Sexual Risk Factors Across Young People by Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation

Abstract

Objectives: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer/questioning (LGBQ), and transgender/nonbinary (trans/NB) youth experience health disparities. Much research combines gender identity with sexual orientation or siloes them, ignoring intersections. Methods: Logistic regressions with representative data from 2015 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (n?=?15,970) explores sexual risk. Results: Findings indicate LGBQ and trans/NB youth have differential levels of sexual risk (drugs during sexual interactions, not using condoms) compared to cisgender heterosexual peers. Other identities, mental health, and bullying are also related. Conclusions: There is a need for culturally responsive bullying prevention, mental health support, education, and sexual health services for marginalized populations.     

Girls Get Free Drinks: Undergraduates’ Misunderstandings of Heterosexual Privilege

Heterosexual privilege is a challenging concept to teach in undergraduate courses. Using data from self-reflection essays on the first and last days of the semester, we present students’ learning and growth in their understanding of heterosexual privilege and their ability to distinguish it from cisgender privilege. The majority of students accurately identified an instance of heterosexual privilege in their lives and discussed the counterpart to privilege: the marginalization and/or disenfranchisement experienced by individuals who hold other sexual identities. This article highlights the two most common misunderstandings of heterosexual privilege that emerged in students’ writing. On the first day of class, 18.2% outright denied that heterosexual privilege exists, and 17.6% conflated gender with sexuality. It reduced to 11.9% and 11.3%, respectively, on the last day of class. We saw growth in students’ sophistication of perspective even for some students who demonstrated these misunderstandings at the end of the term.     

Repronormativity in cisgender men's reasons why they would not use womb transplant technology to become pregnant

Much reproductive scholarship presumes that cisgender men do not wish to become pregnant. And within scholarly discussions on womb transplant technology in particular, cis men's desires to be pregnant are constructed as ‘insubstantial’, and cis men are positioned as neither desiring nor requiring womb transplant technology. Repronormativity, including the assumption that pregnancy and gestational desire are antithetical to cis masculinity/manhood, underpins both bodies of work. As part of a study that sought to visibilise, and analyse narratives of, cis men's desires to be pregnant and/or gestational parents, six cis men were asked whether they would use womb transplant technology to enable their pregnancy if womb transplant technology included men as recipients. The majority of participants said they would not do so, giving different reasons. Using a narrative-discursive approach to analyse their responses, I argue that their varied responses disrupt and re-circulate normative discourses on sex/gender, pregnancy, parenthood, and (assisted) reproduction. Ultimately, their varied reasons trouble the normative assumption that cis men do not want to be pregnant and would not take up the opportunity to do so, because they are men.