Womack 1
Jonah Womack
V. Guerin
ENG 327
8 May 2012
Gender Construction: Beyond the Binary
Introduction
Language and gender research has traditionally aimed to correlate a speaker’s sex with
particular linguistic tendencies. Sex, however, is no more an indicator of an individual’s
communicative style than the size and shape of their genitals. It is gender we should be
concerned with—and not only gender, but the vast array of social components surrounding the
construction of gender.
In my effort to migrate away from sex and search instead for correlations between
language and gender, I must first settle on a definition for gender. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet,
in “New Generalizations and Explanations in Language and Gender Research,” have posed that
gender is largely constructed through participation in different communities of practice (188). A
community of practice is characterized by regular contact between members as well as shared
goals, values, and norms of communication between them. As we are influenced by and
influential upon different communities of practice, we each construct our identities as ‘masculine’
or ‘feminine’ people doing ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ work. In this sense, we do not intrinsically
have gender, but rather, we perform it (Eckert et. al. 188-190).
To investigate how the social performance of gender is related to linguistic choices, I will
explore the speech of transgender men—individuals who do not fit into the traditional binary of
male and female—and compare their speech to that of cisgender men. Strictly speaking, the
Womack 2
term transsexual most often refers to individuals who do not feel aligned—either physically,
socially, or both—with their sex assigned at birth; transsexuals have taken measures to achieve
better alignment through surgical and/or hormonal treatment—a process known as transitioning.
Transgender is the label most often used for those individuals who are still pre-operative (have
not yet transitioned surgically) or who are non-operative (do not plan to transition surgically)
(Girshick 16). The two transgender men in my study have transitioned hormonally from female
to male, but have not yet transitioned surgically; therefore, I will refer to these men as
transgender. The other two men in my study are cisgender, or individuals who comfortably
identify—both physically and socially—with their sex assigned at birth.
The current understanding of sexual development places hormones in the captain’s seat
overseeing the gendered emergence of the individual. At sixteen weeks in the womb, the
presence or absence of hormones acting on the hypothalamus determines a fetus’s gender
identity, which may or may not be congruent with developing sexual reproductive organs.
Because the brain forms its network around this hormonal basis, gender identity is thought to be
static and prevailing throughout a person’s lifetime (Girshick 25). Though parents may raise a
female-bodied infant to speak and behave in a ‘feminine’ manner, the individual’s gender
identity may in fact be ‘masculine,’ and will eventually challenge the roles and expectations
socialization has assigned to them.
It follows, then, that hormones administered later in life will not reshape the brain’s
neural network (which already has an identity), but instead will alter the physical sex
characteristics, as well as the emotional state, of a trans-identifying individual in order to provide
more harmony between their body and brain. Both transgender men in my study have expressed
this greater achievement of harmony since beginning hormonal transition, which involves either
Womack 3
weekly or biweekly injections of testosterone. Though early researchers like John Money (1975)
have come under criticism for claiming that hormonal sex is a driving force behind ‘masculine’
and ‘feminine’ behavior, the torch of misinformed theories like these has been carried through
much of language and gender research (M. Holmes 23). This hormonal dichotomy, often
assumed to be directly linked to sex, permeates the field with stereotypes of women being more
emotional (presumably due to estrogen) and men being more rational (presumably due to
testosterone); these ‘emotional’ and ‘rational’ personalities have led to more caring and more
aloof styles of communication, respectively, as reflected in claims by Coates and Holmes that
women actively work toward solidarity and men toward gaining information or status (Coates,
Women, Men, and Language; J. Holmes, Sociolinguistic Universals). If hormonal stereotypes
prevail, these transgender men will utilize a speech pattern characteristic of ‘masculine speech’.
But if socialization, as I predict, is the driving force behind ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ behavior,
these men will use utilize a speech pattern largely characteristic of ‘feminine’ speech because
they were raised as females.
I will test this prediction by examining the types of stories transmen and cismen tell.
Jennifer Coates, in a similar study, analyzes narratives told by males and compares them to
female narratives, paying special attention to differences in storytelling styles between the two
(Men Talk, 109). While she admits that labeling stories as either ‘typical male narratives’ or
‘typical female narratives’ belies the vast complexity of gender construction beyond the binary,
she asserts that men and women adhering to hegemonic norms of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’
are actively performing gender, thus reinforcing the stratification between typical male and
female styles of speech (Coates, Women, Men, and Language, 138-139).
Womack 4
According to Coates’s analysis, men tend to talk about their own accomplishments and
skills, while women tend to talk about others’ accomplishments, or downplay their own when
they come up in conversation. The topic of men’s stories is often the retelling of something
unbelievable or out of the ordinary, while the topic of women’s is often about life as usual. In
addition, men’s stories tend to be set in the workplace or otherwise outside the home, while
women’s tend to be set in the private sphere. This phenomenon of setting is thought to be linked
to topic: because women value self-disclosure more than men, they will choose topics which
help to foster a relationship of reciprocal disclosure with their interlocutors; these topics
naturally will be set in the home where friends and family gather. In general, men also do not
include women as central characters in their stories, and when they do include women, it is often
to objectify or denigrate them. Women, on the other hand, include men as central characters in a
large majority of their stories, likely because the status of women has historically been linked to
that of their husbands or fathers (Coates, Men Talk, 107-138).
Methodology
Each of the four participants were interviewed in a private setting—either in their home
or mine—and recorded for my notes. Each interview lasted twenty minutes, during the course of
which the participants were asked to tell three different narratives in sequence; the narrative
topics were chosen beforehand, were the same for every participant, and were given to each
participant in written form five minutes before their interview. The topics were written as
follows: 1) What is something you’ve done that you’re very proud of? 2) Tell me about a time
you got into a lot of trouble. 3) Do you have a fond memory of time you spent with friends or
family? The first two topics are designed to be typically ‘masculine’, reflecting stereotypes that
Womack 5
men like to boast and that boys get into more trouble than girls; the third topic is designed to be
typically ‘feminine’, reflecting the stereotype that women value relationships more than men do.
After the participant had briefly looked over the interview sheet and sifted through his
memory for suitable stories to tell, I began the recording, obtained his consent to the interview,
and prompted him with the first question. Because each participant found it difficult to talk on
one topic for six and a half minutes, I found it necessary to co-construct the conversation by
asking further questions relating to his current line of conversation, such as, What exactly goes
into that process? Can you tell me more about that? Thus, each interview is composed of three
main narratives, but also several peripheral narratives either prompted by me or segued into by
the participant himself.
All participants in this study are white and middle class. The two cisgender participants
are Wolverine and Marsellus (pseudonyms they chose); Wolverine is thirty-two years old and
lower middle class, while Marsellus is thirty-nine years old and middle middle class. The two
transgender participants are Robert and Horace; Robert is twenty-seven years old and lower
middle class, while Horace is forty-six years old and lower middle class. I have known all four
of these men for little over a year, and chose them for my sample because they do not exude an
overt sense of ‘masculinity’; they all seem comfortable with whatever balance of ‘masculine’
and ‘feminine’ traits they may display. I judged that neither group was likely to skew the data
with a conscious desire to prove themselves as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ people.
Analysis and Discussion
As Lori Girshick phrases it best in her book, Transgender Voices: Beyond Women and
Men, “the question is not simply whether gender is biologically or socially constructed; extensive
research has demonstrated that both are influential, and that we attach social and cultural
Womack 6
meaning to otherwise neutral biological givens” (5-6). The available social and cultural
discourses telling us how to ‘be men’ and ‘be women’ ascribe us to styles of speech which aid in
the performance of our gender. The styles we choose are contingent upon a number of factors
which place us in certain communities of practice—among them family history, friends,
socioeconomic status, and life stages. Because there is a notable gap between the participants’
ages, life stages are of particular importance to this study. Past language and gender studies have
simply lumped participants together based on chronological age, without regard to life events
like school, career, and family (Eckert et. al. 246). Both chronological age and occurrence of life
events may serve to alter an individual’s choice of linguistic practices. Though Robert, the
youngest participant, is still in school working toward his PhD, he is in a similar life stage as
Wolverine and Horace: they all are single with no children, all live alone in houses (not
apartments or dorms), and all have a full-time day job which places them in the lower middle
class. The second oldest, Marsellus, is the only exception in that he has been married for
fourteen years, and is in a higher financial class because of his dual-income status; he too has no
children, and has a full-time day job. In this study, Marsellus’s marriage and socioeconomic
status seems to have little effect on his style of storytelling.
What does seem to have an effect on the participants’ storytelling is their current status as
employees. The three older participants are well-established in their jobs, as they have each been
practicing their trade for a number of years and have gained a sense of stability. Robert, on the
other hand, is still in his twenties and works as a graduate student in neurobiology research;
because his job will be terminated within the next year, he entertains ideas of moving across the
country after earning his PhD. The temporary nature of his job and living situation allows him a
sense of freedom the older participants may no longer feel. When the other participants were
Womack 7
asked about a time they got into a lot of trouble, they all told stories from middle and high school
(twenty years ago or more) about stealing cigarettes, sneaking out of the house, and fighting; the
idea seems to be that while they might have caused trouble in their youth, they now are
responsible adults. Robert, on the other hand, told a recent story in which he got banned from
Canada for having drugs and an opened bottle of wine in his car. While the other three might
have been embarrassed to tell such a recent story about breaking the law, facing arrest, and
possibly being fired, Robert told the story with a sense of amusement which seemed to say can
you believe it?! Referring back to Coates’s analysis, Robert’s story also breeches the canonical
script by telling something unbelievable, while the other three stories were about more ordinary
things teenagers often get in trouble for doing. In this case, age, rather than gender, enforced the
participants’ linguistic choices.
When asked about something they were proud of, the cismen were both proud of
accomplishments they had made at work, which serves to reinforce Coates’s claim that men tend
to tell stories set in the workplace. Neither transman responded with a story from work, but
rather, both were proud of accomplishing higher education. Significantly, women have
historically been kept from higher education, and have been thought to be uninterested in as well
as unable to accomplish intellectual tasks. While Robert’s family had always expected him to
make good grades in school, he responded that earning his PhD means he is “not a fuck-up.”
Horace, similarly, responded that getting accepted to college was surprising because “he (Dad)
never really thought that I would do much anyway.” Although the transmen certainly were not
socialized to be “fuck-ups,” the discourses they were exposed to before they began their
transition may very well have taught them that education would be difficult for them to achieve,
and that their status largely depended on whether or not they achieved it.
Womack 8
Three of the men—two cismen and one transman—included mostly males as central
characters1 in their stories. The other transman, Robert, mentioned only two males and three
females.
Table 1.1
Characters Included in Narratives
Participant
Gender
Wolverine
Cisgender
Marsellus
Cisgender
Robert
Transgender
Horace
Transgender
Male Characters
11
7
2
6
Female Characters
3
2
3
4
Since none of the characters mentioned were coworkers, stories set in the workplace cannot
account for the disproportionate number of males. More close relationships with males than
females also will not suffice to explain this stratification, as two of the men (Horace and
Marsellus) claim to have more female than male friends, and the other two men (Wolverine and
Robert) claim to have an equal number of each. However, since several of the main narratives,
as well as peripheral narratives, were told about childhood events, it is possible that Wolverine,
Marsellus, and Horace spent more time with males in their youth, or simply remember more
males from their youth. Four of Wolverine’s and Horace’s male characters, and five of
Marsellus’s male characters, were told in their stories about childhood, as opposed to zero of
Robert’s. Wolverine, who mentioned the highest number of males, might have been credited
with more female characters had he used the pronoun “she” more often; several times, he used
the pronoun “they” in the first person singular, even when the gender of the character was
apparent (such as a skater on all-girl roller derby team). Though most of the male participants
largely left women out of their stories, only one told a story in which he objectified a woman.
1
Peripheral characters, who were mentioned briefly but with no further commentary on characteristics or actions,
are not included here as central characters.
Womack 9
Transman Horace relayed a story from his childhood in which his babysitter took off her top
while she sunbathed; he even added that she had “hairy nipples.”
Each participant mentioned characters which either affirmed or subverted hegemonic
gender norms. Cisman Wolverine affirmed a ‘feminine’ norm by mentioning several of his
female friends who dressed up, did their hair, and put on makeup to go out for Mexican food; he
responded with “we’re getting a taco, do you really need to straighten your hair for tacos?” He
also affirmed a ‘masculine’ norm by talking about a “brotherhood” forming between male
announcers who drank together all day. Cisman Marsellus mentioned that his sister was a
“tomboy;” she lived with three brothers and subverted the gender norm by playing sports, for
which Marsellus commended her as an excellent basketball player. His only mention of his
mother, however, was that she was “quiet and supportive,” just the way a hegemonic woman
should be. Transman Robert described a border control agent as a small man who clearly
enjoyed wielding his power around, which speaks to the stereotype that small men
overcompensate for weakness by exuding more machismo. Transman Horace also confirmed a
stereotype of ‘masculinity’ when he mentioned that his father cried at the dinner table, and it was
only the second time he had ever seen him cry.
Moving away from my qualitative analysis, an important quantitative difference worth
noting is the use of swear words between the two groups. Coates claims that men use swear
words more than women (Women, Men, and Language, 97), but my data speaks to the contrary.
One cisgender man in my study did not swear at all, while the other swore only once; the
transgender men, on the other hand, collectively swore a total of seventeen times.
Womack 10
Table 1.2
Swear Words Used in Narratives
Participant
Wolverine
Marsellus
Robert
Horace
Gender
Cisgender
Cisgender
Transgender
Transgender
Number of Swear Words
1
0
11
6
One explanation is that Robert and Horace are aware of the cultural stereotype that men swear
more than women, and so have adopted linguistic features marked as being more ‘masculine’.
However, like in all studies, the data I collected can also be explained by a number of outside
factors, such as religious affiliation. Marsellus, the participant who did not swear at all, is a
Christian who attends church regularly, while the other three participants do not profess any
religious affiliation. Of course, following the observee’s bias, it is also entirely possible that as
interviewees who knew they were being recorded, Wolverine and Marsellus did not feel
comfortable swearing ‘on the record’. If this is the case, the question then becomes, why did the
transmen feel more comfortable swearing ‘on the record’?
The final feature I will mention is acoustic quality of voice. Testosterone injections have
significantly deepened the voices of the trans- participants; Robert has been on testosterone for
eighteen months at one milliliter biweekly, and Horace has been on testosterone for forty-one
months at one milliliter biweekly. Both men sound adequately ‘male,’ but because Robert is still
in his second year of treatment, his voice will become even deeper, while Horace’s voice has
likely plateaued by now (Zimman 3). As I replayed recordings of the interviews, however, I
noticed one significant feature in Horace’s voice that is lacking from the other men’s voices.
While I did not use a device for measuring acoustic quality, and my observation is entirely based
Womack 11
on my own cultural biases, I found that Horace’s voice sounds more ‘gay’.2 Because his voice
seems just as deep as the other participants’ voices, his quality of ‘sounding gay’ is not
necessarily related to pitch, but rather the age at which he transitioned, forty-three years old. Lal
Zimman documents this very phenomenon in his essay, “Biology, Socialization, and Identity:
Accounting for the Voices of Female-to-Male Transsexuals.” He found that when asked to point
out ‘gay-sounding’ voices from recorded clips by transmen as well as cismen, participants
pointed out transmen as sounding more ‘gay’. After isolating these ‘gay-sounding’ features and
quantifying the data, Zimman found that older transmen used the ‘gay-sounding’ features more
than younger ‘straight-sounding’ transmen. He theorizes these features are linked to their longer
socialization as females, commenting that “language socialization is a process that takes place
throughout the lifetime” (Zimman 4).
Conclusion
“Bodies—gendered bodies—are a location of responsibility for social interactions,”
writes transman Jamison green in his autobiography Becoming a Visible Man (Green 36). After
his own transition, he found that interaction with others took on a new set of rules. Transparticipant Horace made a similar comment after the interview was over. On his way out the
door, he said goodbye, and accidentally called me “hun.” “I’ll be talking to a guy and say
something,” he confessed, “and then when I walk away, my friend will be like, ‘Yo, dudes don’t
say that!’” He went on to explain, “I had forty-three years for patterns to form; it’s been hard to
learn how to interact again.” As socially competent members of society, all of the men in my
study observe and adhere to rules which govern their gender presentation through speech. An
array of cultural, hormonal, and biological influences has led to the construction of their
2
See Zimman’s essay “Biology, Socialization, and Identity: Accounting for the Voices of Female-to-Male
Transsexuals” for a definition of ‘sounding gay’.
Womack 12
identities, and so one factor—like testosterone—cannot be singled out as a cause for similarities
or differences between their speech behaviors.
Socialization is certainly responsible for many of the most ingrained practices of all four
participants. In this study and others, a correlation is apparent between male presentation and the
usage of linguistic features marked as ‘masculine’, such as swearing; but this does not denote
causation. The transmen may have used these features even before they transitioned, and if they
had been included in a study of women’s speech, they would have been cast aside as ‘outliers’ in
the data. But all participants are very different people with very different backgrounds, and each
participant must be seen as a case study, not as a statistic used to further perpetuate an existing
generalization. After all, if gender is more a continuum than an oppositional binary, it is possible
that cismen Wolverine and Marsellus are more toward the ‘feminine’ side of the scale than
transmen Robert and Horace. The most important questions in language and gender research, as
Lori Girshick articulates it best, “are whether we can stop assuming that genitals = gender,
whether we can overcome our knee-jerk tendency to think of masculinity and femininity as polar
opposites, and whether we can honestly investigate how our language and ideas create and
sustain two oppositional sets of identity boxes in which millions of people do not fit” (Girshick
6).
Womack 13
Works Cited
Coates, Jennifer. “She’d Made Sardines in Aspic: Women’s Stories, Men’s Stories, and the
Construction of Gender.” Men Talk: Stories in the Making of Masculinities. Malden:
Blackwell, 2003. 107-138.
---. Women, Men, and Language. Great Britain: Pearson, 2004.
Eckert, Penelope, Sally McConnell-Ginet. “New Generalizations and Explanations in Language
and Gender Research.” Language in Society 28 (1999): 185-201.
Girshick, Lori B. Transgender Voices: Beyond Women and Men. Lebanon: University Press,
2008.
Green, Jamison. Becoming a Visible Man. Vanderbilt University Press, 2004.
Holmes, Janet. “Women’s Talk: The Question of Sociolinguistic Universals.” Language and
Gender: A Reader. Ed. Jennifer Coates. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. 461-483.
Holmes, Mary. What is Gender? Sociological Approaches. London: Sage, 2007.
Zimman, Lal. “Biology, Socialization and Identity: Accounting for the Voices of Female-toMale Transsexuals.” 2010. 7 May 2012
<http://elanguage.net/journals/index.php/lsameeting/article/view/655>.