“Diagnosing” Gender? Categorizing Gender-Identity Variants in the Anthropocene

Abstract

In recent decades, two interrelated major controversies have been unfolding in the area of sex/gender research. (1) Are gender-identity variants to be understood as psychopathology or natural variation? (2) Is gender (and perhaps even sex) better conceptualized as binary or non-binary? The answer depends on the conceptual context and related considerations of utility. In the context of evolutionary biology, marked variants of sex and gender decrease reproductive success and are, thereby, deemed pathologic. In the present era of the anthropocene, however, the material conditions underlying the traditional division of labor between the sexes and the role of reproductive success have dramatically changed. These changes decrease the psychosocial importance of the binary gender distinction, provide more freedom for non-binary gender expression and identity formation, and render the distinction of pathologic and non-pathologic less useful, unless gender dysphoria develops secondary to a psychiatric condition. Although most people state their gender identity in the form of a nominal category, most self-report or interview-based ratings and multi-item scales of gender expression and/or identity show continuous distributions, either unimodal-asymmetric or bimodal, depending on whether they are designed for one or both of the traditional genders. Similarly, the rating scales of androgen-influenced variants of the genitalia—usually designed for one of the traditional sexes—typically represent a unipolar-asymmetric continuum. However, the binary gender system remains the primary framework against which individuals evaluate themselves. For those who develop gender dysphoria, assistance by mental-health service providers continues to be important.