2 Chapter 2 – Gender Communication and Identity

Chapter 2: Gender Communication and Identity

Do you ever think about your identity and the ways that your personality has been shaped by your family, friends, school, church, and larger culture? Each of us has a unique personhood that begins at birth and reflects our intrapersonal journey created through communication in our interpersonal relationships with others across our lives. Our identity refers to the social characteristics and personal qualities that define our individuality and make us unique from others. While multiple overlapping identities compose our overall identity, gender communication pertains to the ways that one’s gender identity and enactment influence the ways we communicate with others. It is often scripted within a gender binary with two prevalent options: women are expected to be feminine, and men are expected to be masculine. Exploring gender communication involves learning what it means to perform these identity styles, and how interpersonal communication with others constructs, upholds, and challenges these identities. Of course, we know that there are other gender identifications that arise and resist these two separate styles in a variety of gender nonconforming ways (which we will discuss shortly).

Gender communication thus examines how people communicate with each other in distinctly gendered ways, cultivating styles and interests, as we become gendered beings who enact daily gender performances. For example, one of the first things we tend to notice about another person is their gender. This “person” is presenting as a man, and I can tell that from several visual cues – perhaps he is tall with short hair, has a beard, is wearing a suit and tie, speaks in a deep voice, walks in a somewhat self-assured manner, and wears flat leather business shoes. This is typically how we identify gender in others – visually. But consider the difficulty we face when we are potentially “stumped” by what gender another person is. Sometimes this can be so jarring that we have trouble communicating with another person because we can’t tell what gender they are. Is gender the most noticeable identity facet? It might be, but there are many more identity features that compound one’s gender such as those inflecting race, religion, and socioeconomic status to consider. This chapter will begin with a focus on gender communication and interweave various additional identity layers while tracking the many ways that interpersonal communication with others creates our dynamic identity and our evolving sense of self.

Across most of our lived experience, beginning in preschool and likely before, we are sorted into “girls” and “boys” activities and protocols, and taught that there is a big difference: from separate bathrooms to careers, hobbies and friendship preferences, communication styles, and even our emotional behavior (are we “overly emotional” or “not emotional enough”?). In other words, gender is a social construct and cultural performance that is largely produced through our interpersonal communication with our families, friends, significant others, teachers, pastors, and anyone else in our ever-expanding cultural and social lifeworld. Even before we are born, people in our communities begin discussing and guessing what our gender will be as folks excitedly consider what kinds of hobbies and personality traits we’ll possess and enjoy. Will we be a great baseball player like our dad? Or maybe become an excellent chef like our mom? In good faith, our loved ones eagerly anticipate the important knowledge of what this baby is – to begin accommodating the accompanying expectations about who this baby will become and what it means to be born as a gendered being in a particular culture. Perhaps you are wondering, why is this chapter linking identity with gender communication? To begin answering this question, we’ll start with an illustrative scenario about Baby Storm.

Baby Storm the Genderless Baby

In 2001, Toronto couple Kathy Witterick and David Stocker shared with local news outlet The Toronto Star that they were raising the newest addition to their family, Baby Storm, without a gender. The Stocker-Witterick family already had two children, sons Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2. The couple noticed that their son Jazz was exploring various nontraditional styles and interests with his gender expression. Jazz wore his hair long and some days chose to wear dresses; other days, perhaps shorts and a t-shirt. The parents began to wonder how to best let their beloved children express themselves beyond the confining gender norms that their children were largely unfamiliar with until they were “taught” about them. When Storm was born, the parents shared the following message with their family and friends: “We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now – a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place? …)” (Poisson, 2011).

The only people who knew the child’s sex, the biological distinction (following one’s sex organs) of being assigned female or male at birth, were the two parents and their two children. The couple explained that they felt there was too much pressure placed on children by society, and they wanted to let their child make their own decisions about their gender identity without the pressures of social norms that accompany being born female or male, and the cultural scripts that guide one’s social performances of femininity and masculinity. Storm’s father explained, “When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” (Poisson, 2011). Backlash was swift once media networks picked up the story. Some criticism was especially harsh as daytime pundits and journalists accused the couple of “experimenting on their child,” and “playing God.” This unique approach to raising a child was shocking to many people as they questioned how a person can exist in a society so heavily structured by gender expectations without having one. On the other hand, the Stocker-Witterick family explained that their intention was to give their child the freedom to decide how they want to identify to the world. This unconventional approach to parenting a genderless child received international media attention. Across all this hubbub, there was a deep underlying curiosity about what gender Baby Storm would assume – would they become a girl or a boy?

Baby Storm’s story illustrates the immense pressures placed on parents and babies alike by society before an infant has any clue about what a gender identity even is. Gender identity refers to one’s identity performance of femininity or masculinity that correspond with the socially scripted expectations of being a girl or boy, and eventually, a woman or man. However, there are many more ways to identify, as we shall see. This chapter explores the various communicative ways that we become gendered beings as we form and perform our identities alongside others. First, we address important gender and sexuality concepts and terms. Next, we discuss intersectionality and our multifaceted unique identity formation. Third, we examine the social construction of power and identities that propel gender inequality and various forms of oppression. Fourth, we consider the identities from an intersectional approach and learn about four qualities to analyze our self-identity and meta-identity. And finally, we close this chapter by connecting gender, identities, and interpersonal communication.

Gender Identity Terms

There are many ways to enact one’s gender identity. Importantly, communication is the medium we use to express our genders. If you identify with the sex you were assigned at birth and do not experience incongruence with your gender identity, you are considered cisgender (or cis). Cisgender translates from to root word, cis (meaning same), and gender. It is key to understand that gender assignment begins at birth, once a medical doctor observes what we are biologically and enters this information on our birth certificate and other accompanying identification documents. For example, I was assigned female at birth (based on my female sex organs) by the delivery doctor, and I live my life identifying as a woman, so I am cis. Some people prefer the term non-trans, to decenter cisgender as the norm. Transgender generally refers to individuals who identify as a gender not assigned to them at birth. Transgender is formed by the root word trans (meaning across), and gender. Please note that the term “transgender” is typically used as an adjective and not a noun (i.e., “a transgender woman,” not “a transgender”), although some individuals describe themselves by using transgender as a noun.

The term transsexual is a medicalized term (meaning it is derived from doctors and the medical establishment) and indicates a binary understanding of gender and an individual’s identification with the “opposite” gender from the gender assigned to them at birth. Please note that the labels “transsexual,” or “tranny” for short, are understood as out-of-date and possibly offensive to the community. The key here is for non-trans folks to dignify our trans kin and refer to them in the way they prefer. If you aren’t sure, just ask what your friend, neighbor, or peer prefers. When this is done politely, most trans people are happy to share how they identify and how you should address them. The term transgendered is not preferred because it emphasizes the ascription of an outside medical and biological assignment, thus undermining self-definition (the “-ed” can add a sense of outside labeling and containment). Trans is an abbreviated term, and individuals frequently use it self-referentially these days more often than transgender. Transitioning is both an internal and social process of embracing one’s authentic self. Importantly, not all trans individuals undergo transitions – whether these be through surgical, hormonal, or social means. It is important to resist the urge to ask a trans person if they have undergone surgery or not. Imagine if someone else asked you about your genitalia; it’s pretty rude, right? The golden rule serves well in this case – if you don’t appreciate someone asking you about your intimate body parts and genitalia, then why would you impose such an intrusive inquiry on someone else? Some individuals who transition do not experience a change in their gender identity because they have always identified in the way that they do.

Trans* is an all-inclusive umbrella term which encompasses all nonnormative gender identities (Tompkins 2014). Non-binary and genderqueer refer to gender identities beyond binary identifications of woman or man. The term genderqueer became popularized within queer and trans communities in the 1990s and 2000s, and the term non-binary became popularized in the 2010s (Boskey 2023). There is also androgyny, which means “gender neutral,” but describes individuals whose gender expression combines both feminine and masculine characteristics. A couple well-known examples would be David Bowie during his Ziggy Stardust era, or La Roux, a British popstar. Agender, meaning “without gender,” can describe people who do not have or want a gender identity, while others who identify as non-binary or gender neutral have an undefinable identity, or feel indifferent about gender (Brooks 2014). Genderfluid people experience shifts between gender identities. These folks may present femininely at times, masculinely at others, or express themselves outside of these stylistic confines. Miley Cyrus identifies as genderfluid and explains: “I’m just equal, I’m just even. It has nothing to do with any parts of me or how I dress or how I look. It’s literally just how I feel” (qtd. in Stutz, 2015).

Finally gender pronouns regard a person’s preference to be addressed femininely (she/her/hers), masculinely (he, him, his), or gender-neutrally (they, them, theirs). There are many others, but these are the most common. Additional gender identity terms exist; these are just a few basic and commonly used terms. Of course, we all make mistakes and misgender people from time to time – it happens, just do your best. The emphasis on the terms in this section is about changing our socially constructed perspectives about viewing and communicating with individuals to best align with how they view themselves and using their self-designated names and pronouns. The best way to navigate these challenges is through open, honest, and ethical communication with others. And it’s not that hard: “Would you mind please sharing your pronouns, so I know how to address you?”

Sexual Identity Terms

Gender identity concerns the way we identify on the gender spectrum: cisgender, transgender, agender, gender non-binary, and so on. Sexual identity terms pertain to the type of person we are attracted to. Often this arena of desire for others is simplified by the psychological terms heterosexual (attraction to the opposite sex) and homosexual (same-sex attraction). When folks identify as heterosexual, or straight, they fall into the sphere of heteronormativity. Heteronormativity involves the powerful norm emphasizing the idea that sexual attraction is and ought to be between a woman and a man. You can see heteronormativity play out in several movies, TV shows, etc., and once you look for it, you can see how pervasive it is across Western culture. On the other hand, homosexuality challenges the status quo, or cultural center of power, by refusing these expectations and pursuing one’s desire for same-sex partners. Many people who are attracted to their same sex are referred to as, gay, queer, or lesbian. Regardless of the terms, same-sex attraction has been documented since the beginning of recorded history, and thus, is not a violation or abomination of any kind, but simply a preference for intimacy.

People are attracted to who they are attracted to, and this can change over time, or remain consistent. Queer as an identity term refers to a non-categorical sexual identity. It is also used as a catch-all term for all LGBTQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual) individuals. The term queer was historically used in a derogatory way but was reclaimed as a self-referential term in the United States during the 1990s. Although many individuals identify as queer today, some still feel personally insulted by the word itself and disapprove of its use. Thus, it’s important to be open to the fluidity of many of these terms. Bisexual is typically defined as a sexual orientation marked by attraction to both women and men. This sexual status has been problematized as a binary approach to sexuality, which excludes individuals who do not identify as women or men. Pansexual is a sexual identity marked by sexual attraction to people of any gender or sexuality. This does not mean that pansexual people are attracted to everyone, but just that their preference is not dependent or delimited by their partners’ identification as a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual person. Polyamorous (poly, for short) or non-monogamous relationships are open or non-exclusive; participating individuals may have multiple consensual and individually negotiated sexual and/or romantic relationships at once (Klesse 2006). Asexual is an identity marked by a lack of or rare sexual attraction, or low or absent interest in sexual activity, sometimes abbreviated to “ace” (Decker 2014). Asexuals distinguish between sexual and romantic attraction, delineating various sub-identities included under an ace umbrella. Here, some folks prefer sexual attraction to others without the romantic counterpart typically expected. While some other asexuals prefer romantic attraction without sexual intercourse attached to these intimate relationships. It is important to learn these various terms so we can all understand and respect that everyone is different. Please see Chapter 9: Romantic Relationships for more about this topic. Are you beginning to see how much more there is to gender and sexuality, beyond the basic binary terms that we are taught as youths? Next, let’s discuss of how gender and sexuality entwine to create a system.

The Sex/Gender/Sexuality System

Sex, gender, and sexuality are frequently understood as a system. Systems are frameworks that integrate interconnected parts and construct an organized basis for understanding something. For example, “the public school system” is organized around the purpose and function of educating youth about U.S. culture, norms, and expectations for how to function as an adult in society. The “sex/gender system,” or “sex/gender/sexuality system” was coined by Gayle Rubin (1984) to describe, “the set of arrangements by which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity.” That is, Rubin proposed that the links between biological sex, social gender, and sexual attraction are products of culture. Gender is, in this case, “the social product” that we attach to notions of biological sex. In our heteronormative culture, everyone is assumed to be heterosexual (attracted to men if you are a woman; attracted to women if you are a man) until stated otherwise. I will take myself as an example of how this system works: I was born a female (biological sex) and I identify as a woman (social gender), and I also happen to be heterosexual (sexual attraction). My identity in this realm supports the system of heteronormativity in that I am cisgendered and straight. However, this system of self-contained assumptions is challenged by someone who is assigned female at birth (biological sex) but identifies as a man (social gender: is a trans man) who is attracted to women (heteronormative sexual attraction as a straight man). When we consider these commonplace departures from the sex/gender system, we begin to see the complexities of our individualized gender identity formation. It makes sense then to look at past understandings of what gender is, where it comes from, and how these assumptions affect people today.

Three Theories About Gender Formation: Biological, Psychological, and Social Construction

Gender is a relatively new domain of identity formation. The fact that gender has both “always” been here yet is constantly changing speaks to the limitations of past theorizations. Have you ever thought about how you became your gender? Let’s look at three prominent theoretical formulations about how we become gendered beings: biological, psychological, and social construction.

Biology is the science of living organisms and how ecosystems evolve and are inhabited by multiple living things. The biology of gender examines how the body constructs chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Central to a biological understanding of gender are the bodily functions inherent in our bodies from birth. This frame centers the binary understanding that gender follows sex “naturally,” so if someone is born with a penis, they are a male. If a person is born with a vagina, then they are a female. The gender association is believed to follow one’s genitalia. Thus, if someone is male, then they are a baby boy, then a boy, and eventually a man. Alternately, if someone is born female, then they will become a baby girl, then a girl, and eventually a woman.

Biological understandings of gender begin and end with the body parts one has a birth. Therefore, there is no space for considering the existence of gender identities that stray from this 1-1 formation of gender. We are the gender we are because of our biological sex at birth, which is assigned by a doctor in the delivery room. But what happens if a baby is born with a reproductive anatomy that is not clear, and is a combination of male and female parts? This is not that uncommon and is known as being intersex. Intersex people can have a variety of biological features that challenge the idea that gender can be determined at birth by sex organs. For example, a baby that presents a visible vagina at birth, and is assigned female, may well also have testes inside their body that will drop during puberty. A second example might be a male baby whose body will inevitably reject testosterone during puberty and begin to grow breasts and other anatomical changes driven by hormones. All of this is to say that biological frames of gender reinforce the gender binary, deny the existence of a gender spectrum, and ignore the notion that gender is something that evolves throughout our lives.

Psychology encompasses the scientific study of the mind and behaviors, focusing on mental processes like thoughts, feelings, and motives and how these interact and relate to an individual’s behavior. Psychology also involves the idea of pathology, or a scientific determination of what is “normal” and what is “abnormal” in the human world. For example, it is common for trans people to need to consult a psychologist before undergoing gender affirming surgery. In these cases, individuals need to be diagnosed with gender dysmorphia, or the authentic experience of not feeling that one is in the correct body – that their gender identification does not align with their assigned biological sex. Regarding gender formation, psychology primarily focuses on early childhood and how one’s environment influenced them to become who and what they are. If we think about how impressionable we are as children, it makes sense to think about what we saw as children and the many ways that we modeled ourselves after our parents, siblings, teachers, and other influential people in our lifeworld. Psychology challenges the intrinsic (from birth) biological claims that we are already gendered before we even become conscious of other people around us. Instead, psychology argues that gender is formed through our interactions with the people that we admire and detest. Even so, psychology tends to preserve the idea that gender follows one’s biological sex, and in the case of nonbinary gender, it assigns this experience as “abnormal,” or departing the cisgender norm expected for everyone.

Social construction is the complex historical, social, and cultural process of sedimenting collectively agreed-upon understandings of what things are in the human world of communicated meanings. An example would be money. If we think back to early history, money did not exist, and in its place was a bartering scheme of trading goods. Then, precious metals such as gold and silver dominated the globe as the most valuable form of commerce. But, as the world expanded and globalized, there was not enough gold and silver to satisfy the scope and demand of trading goods. Thus, paper and coin monies were created, and people had to be convinced that this paper is the same as gold or silver. Through social construction and collective understanding, we now appreciate paper money as being just as valuable as gold or silver coins. But the social construction of currency continues. Most Americans today use debit and credit cards, which is another example of how social construction creates changes in how we understand what things are and what can be included in these associations. Also consider that even while you read this chapter, cryptocurrency and bitcoin are being socially constructed as bases for conducting and verifying economic transactions.

Now to the social construction of gender. While biology locates gender formation in our sex organs, chromosomes, and reproductive qualities, and psychology understands gender as a phenomenon that happens during childhood, social construction appreciates that the processes of becoming a gendered person differ across time, place, and culture. How can biology explain the existence of trans people? How can psychology explain gay children from straight parents? These gaps in understanding necessitate a broader frame that takes into consideration that identical twins can be born with the same anatomy, raised in the same household, and yet one might end up identifying as trans while the other does not. Social construction embraces the reality that people grow up in a social world and surrounding culture that impact our identity. As such, social construction examines the story of our biological sex, how our gender identity was influenced during childhood, and how it continues to evolve throughout life as we encounter new ideas and ways of being that perhaps we didn’t have access to as children. Have you ever wondered why we tend to think that women are better nurturers, caretakers, cooks, and cleaners? Or why men are presumed to be better leaders, more aggressive, independent, and at times, unemotional? These cultural scripts have been shaped by centuries of human relations. But this doesn’t mean that there is an undeniable “truth” to these enactments. Rather, it exemplifies the ways that society instills and socially constructs gender expectations, or norms. Thus, social construction theorizes that gender is a product of our social world, the people in it, the exposure we may or may not have had to nonnormative gender identities, and the larger cultural understandings that hold great power over us. For example, in many Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality is illegal. How might this fact affect how many openly gay people live there? Trans people? No doubt there are fewer people out and publicly recognized in these places. But this does not mean being gay or trans is rarer there, it simply means that the social norms and cultural world try to eliminate gay and trans people from existing through punitive legal means.

Let’s return to Baby Storm from the start of this chapter. A baby knows nothing about anything, and they must be taught who they are and how to do everything. How can you see the tensions among the above three models of gender formation at play in this case? What are the stakes, potential benefits, and possible negative consequences of Storm’s parents’ approach to raising a genderless child? Does one frame feel more useful than another in considering your take on Baby Storm? Are you curious about which gender Storm ended up identifying as? If yes, why do you think that knowing this fact is important to you? (You can look up Baby Storm and see for yourself if you wish to know. If you do, does anything surprise you?)

Gender Performativity

Up to this point, we have learned about the broad spectrum of gender and sexuality terminologies and three prominent theories of gender construction. Now, we will connect these ideas with the embodied enactment of doing gender. Gender performativity was conceptualized by Judith Butler (1988, 1990) as the embodied and performed aspects that we all do to create a sense of having an intelligible gender. Butler describes this process:

As Butler observes, our gender identity is best understood as a performance of repetitive and stylized acts that create a sense of stability and permanence. But in the same ways that gender is constituted, it can also be undone, redone, changed, etc. Gender performativity encompasses the many stylized aesthetic things we do to be recognized as a gender. Things like our hair style, clothing, hygienic choices, body hair (shave or no shave?), speaking styles (tone, content, etc.), hobbies, and even our gait and the way we walk and move construct our sense of being a gendered person. Now, on its face, gender performativity might seem obvious, but the important center of this theory is the idea that most of us perform these activities daily, and yet, most of us do not even consciously realize that these gender choices are ours to make. So the flipside of this concept concerns people who are not normatively gendered in the binary system of female/male, girl/boy, and woman/man. For people experiencing a schism between their biologically assigned gender identity and their authentic gender identity, performing femininity or masculinity can be at the least uncomfortable, and at most, tormenting. In view of this possibility, we next explore the identity concept of intersectionality and how it connects to cultural systems of power.

Intersectionality, Power, and Identity

Now that we have considered how gender is socially constructed by our performances of it, others’ receptions and similar performances, let’s turn to the difference it makes when we examine various identity markers. See, people perform and become a gender – say, a woman – but not all women experience “being a woman” in the same way. For instance, there is an educated white woman, Sally, who is heterosexual and married to a white man, who both work as lawyers, have two children, and live comfortably together in Greenwich, Connecticut. There is also Jamea, a Black single mother of three, living in Gulf Shores, Alabama, and working a minimum wage job as a waitress at a local café. Would you expect to hear the same experience of being a woman in America from Sally and Jamea? Intersectionality is a conceptual lens from legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw that speaks to the multiple compounding cultural identities we each inhabit as people. In an interview from 2017, Crenshaw explains that:

As such, women are not all created equal, and neither are men, or anyone for that matter. Our multiple identities combine in real life and affect our abilities to be successful in fulfilling our potentials as people. The reason for this claim is that some identities are privileged, while others are oppressed (due to this privilege). Privilege involves unearned advantages that come at the cost of others’ suffering, or oppression. Frequently, considering gender, race, and social class together illuminates these marginalizing cultural discrepancies through comparisons with others. Back to Sally and Jamea – we can describe Sally’s multiple intersectional identities (from what we know) like this: Sally is a woman – who is white – with an advanced education – married to a successful white man – with two children – and a successful job. Jamea is a woman – who is Black – undereducated – unmarried – with three children – working a low-paying job. These two women are not living parallel lives, as Sally possesses much more power. But Sally’s power is not singly due to one identity facet – she has several privileged identities: she is white, educated, married to a contributing partner, and has a great job. The way power functions in society pertains to these identity compounds. It is fair to say that white people have greater access to resources in the U.S. than people of color do (POC). This has been constructed over generations going back to slavery. Second, having an advanced education and access to even pursuing one is another privilege that makes her life easier. And these identity markers continue to shape her possibilities. Conversely, Jamea is already marginalized by being a Black woman, who also happens to be poor, and must work alone to support her three children.

There are other important identity categories to consider alongside the ones I’ve listed so far. Below is a social identities wheel that features several more intersecting identities that I haven’t discussed. Take a moment to examine this depiction. How are you described by it? How about someone you consider to be less fortunate than you? How about someone that you might envy in certain ways? How do these intersecting social identities seem to relate to our understandings of ourselves and our own and others’ possibilities in life?      **[I have a picture of the social identity wheel I’d like to add here]**

Intersectionality is thus a lens for examining how our multiple cultural identity markers converge or intersect and produce our uniquely embodied self (Crenshaw, 1989). Importantly, there are privileged identities that hold greater cultural power and influence than others. For instance, in the U.S., some status quo privileged identities include being a man, whiteness, wealth, being heterosexual, able-bodied, educated, native-born, Christian, being thin but muscular, and speaking English as one’s first language. These prominent identities tend to be rewarded with greater power in society than some of the corresponding alternatives: being a woman, trans people, being Black or Brown, belonging to the lower rungs socioeconomically, being gay or Queer, having a physical or intellectual disability, being undereducated, being an immigrant, being overweight or deemed unattractive or at least not normatively attractive, being non-Christian such as a Muslim, and having a native language other than English. People exist at a multitude of distinct identity intersections that may privilege them in some ways, while compounding their oppression in others.

Relational Identities: Self-Identity and Others

Thus far we have discussed how we become gendered beings through the biological bodies we inhabit, our psychological makeup, social construction, the notion of gender performativity, and intersectionality. The last section of this chapter concerns the ways our identity is received by others. These interactions can highlight which of our identity facets is most conspicuous to others? And which identity facets are perhaps less apparent? To a significant degree, our identities and our self-concepts are accomplished through communication with others. Self-identity pertains to the view we have of ourselves – who we understand our self to be. Consequently, we also have a meta-identity, or what we think others think about us (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). These two concepts entwine when we consider that how we see ourselves affects how we act toward and around others, and how others react to us affects how we see ourselves. The centrality of relational contexts influences the roles we play in various settings that inform our identity formation. Relational contexts involve a history and pattern of interacting with others in specific situations and settings. For example, we behave differently depending on our surrounding environment and the people present, such as when we are in school, on the playground with friends, at church, at work, on vacation, etc. The social expectations of each cultural milieu impacts how we communicate and present ourselves to others, and in turn, how others perceive us and appraise who we are and what we are about. Our identities are multiple, fluid, and constantly in flux, depending on who we are around. As a result, we often prefer to be in the company of people who affirm the positive parts of our identity that we wish to exude. For example, if you like to consider yourself to be a funny person, you might prefer to be around friends that view you as a funny person and laugh at your jokes.

Four Identity Qualities: Salience, Stability, Valence, and Utility

Relational communication scholars Villard and Whipple (1976) provide a framework consisting of four qualities to evaluate our distinct identities: salience, stability, valence, and utility. Each feature examines a different aspect of our identity in relation to others’ perceptions of who we are. The first, salience, refers to the importance “this identity” holds in composing our overall self-concept. You might consider the following two questions when considering your identity salience: 1. How central or important is this identity in composing our overall self-concept? 2. How crucial is this identity to our own self-recognition? I will take myself as an example. I am a white woman who works as an assistant professor in Utah (having advanced educational degrees), who is heterosexual, able-bodied, in her early 40s, childfree, agnostic, native-born (in Pennsylvania), and was raised by educated, married parents in a middle-class household. My identity as an assistant professor holds great salience for me, as I am proud of my accomplishments, I enjoy my career, and I love teaching college students. When I am in front of a class, I appreciate the respect and gratitude many students have for me, and thus, my salient identity as a college professor is bolstered through these dynamic interactions with students. On the other hand, identity salience varies from context to context. For instance, when I visit a mechanic to work on my car, my professor identity is less salient, or relevant, so perhaps my gender as a woman (who is largely uninformed about cars) might become my most salient identity marker.

The second identity quality is stability, which involves considering how much support or confirmation from others we require to sustain a specific identity as a significant part of our self-concept. Additionally, a second concern is how rigidly “this identity” is imposed by and enforced by others. Essentially, the question here is: how stable is this identity in my eyes and in the eyes of others? Along with my confidence in my work and my competence, a large part of my identity stability as a professor relies on my relationships with students and how they respond to my lessons, lectures, assignments, and our interpersonal communication with each other. When I am on campus, the stability of this identity is strong. But when I’m at the mechanic’s shop because my car won’t start, my identity as professor may be undermined if I am responded to as “just some woman who knows nothing about cars.” But again, for this demonstration we are focusing just on my identity as a professor and how it might be supported or undermined by how others respond to me.

The third identity quality is valence, or how positive or negative this identity is for us. And, how contextually or relationally dependent is this identity? When I am on campus and in the classroom, the valence of my identity as a professor is positive as the context of a college campus typically celebrates scholars and teachers who work hard and connect authentically with students. Even so, some years ago I lived in Maine where I earned my master’s degree. The summer before moving to southern Illinois to attend a doctoral program, I tried to get a serving job at Applebee’s, Olive Garden, and Texas Roadhouse. I listed my master’s degree on the job applications, without thinking this would be disqualifying, and I never heard back from a single restaurant – even though I had years of experience being a server and bartender. This scenario is a good example of how my credentials as an (over)educated person perhaps held a negative valence in these relational contexts. My credentials possibly portrayed me as someone who might think they are “better” than other employees, or perhaps I might be intimidating for the managers. Due to the relational and contextual aspects of my failed job quest, I honestly can’t know which or if both perceptions from others at the restaurants may have thwarted my employment. Valence helps us gauge if “this identity” evokes positive experiences that others have with me. When others value my identity as a professor, it affirms the salience, stability, and positive valence this identity holds for me.

The fourth identity dimension is utility. As Villard and Whipple explain, “Utility or usefulness refers to how congruent our self-perceptions are with either our immediate or long-term goals. Do they complement or support what we wish to accomplish in our career or interpersonal lives or are they conflicting and antagonistic?” (1976, p. 82). Utility relates to the usefulness “this identity” holds for the things we wish to achieve in our lives. As a college professor, I enjoy a strong sense of utility when I’m working with colleagues to solve problems, or in the classroom learning with my students. I feel valuable, qualified, and appreciated with a strong sense of utility. On the other hand, my advanced degrees and occupation likely hold much less utility at a restaurant in the eyes of managers and co-workers. And I imagine these achievements are even less useful in the minds of auto mechanics, who likely do not understand what a college professor does or how one becomes one.

As discussed, these four identity qualities examine how an aspect of our identity shifts depending on the relational contexts we inhabit with others. As an exercise, you might consider a well-known person and examine their most salient identity quality with attention to the corresponding stability, valence, and utility of this identity. Some people to consider might include Taylor Swift, LeBron James, Elon Musk, Hillary Clinton, Justin Bieber, Eminem, John Stewart, and Billie Eilish.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented some of the foundational concepts of gender communication and identity. We have learned that gender is an identity facet that cannot be limited to merely “girl” and “boy,” or “woman” and “man” because there is a broad, ever-evolving spectrum of potential identifications that are created, supported, and at times threatened by our relational communication with others. Understanding how gender is socially constructed in culture, through history, while also being enacted and performed at a particular time and location alongside the other people in our lifeworlds, shows us how powerful the ways we communicate with others truly is. Identity involves an ethical realm of who were, who we are, who we hope to become, and how we treat and are treated by others. It is essential to include intersectionality in considerations of identity to highlight the various identity facets and combinations that privilege or work against us as we embody and perform our self-identity alongside relational experiences with others that form our meta-identity. Thus, an important takeaway from this subject is the centrality that ethical treatment of others holds for both other persons’ and our own identities. In this spirit, it is important to communicate with others in ways that affirm their existence. Gender neutral and inclusive language practices can help to create edifying relationships with others through consideration of how our interpersonal communication shapes our own and others’ possibilities to become the best persons we can be.

Let’s return one last time to Baby Storm from the beginning of this chapter. When the Stocker-Witterick family chose to let their baby explore the world of gender possibilities without having one imposed on them, this nearly broke the internet because of the perceived central cultural importance of gender. The broad international suspicion of a “genderless baby” highlights how essential gender is to our identities. Now that we know that we have multiple and interlocking identity facets, are you rethinking your initial reaction to this baby and their family? As it turned out, Baby Storm was born with female genitalia and currently identifies as a cisgendered girl. Storm is a happy, dynamic, 13-year-old young woman (in 2025) with friends and hobbies, who is loved by her family, and likely doesn’t even remember ever being “genderless.” When we work to understand the profound impact that interpersonal communication has on people and their identity development, my hope is that we reflect on ourselves and others in a way that cultivates relationships built on love and respect that transcend uninformed emphases on difference, otherness, alienation, and discrimination.

References

Diversity Wheel. Bentley University Center for Women and Business. “Intersectionality in the workplace: Broadening the lens of inclusion.” https://bentleydownloads.s3.amazonaws.com/cwb/Bentley_CWB_Intersectionality_Research_Report_Winter_2019.pdf. Accessed 7 June 2025.

Brooks, Katherine. (2014). “Profound portraits of young agender individuals challenge the male/female identity.” The Huffington Post, 3 June 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/chloe-aftel-agender_n_5433867.html. Accessed 5 June 2025.

Boskey, Elizabeth. “What does it mean to be genderqueer or nonbinary?” verywellmind, 14 Feb. 2023 https://www.verywellmind.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-genderqueer-or-non-binary-4140578. Accessed 5 June 2025.

Butler, Judith. (1988). “Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory.” Theatre Journal, 40(4): 519–31.

Butler, Judith. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

Columbia Law School. “Kimberlé Crenshaw on intersectionality, more than two decades later.”

Interview. Published 8 June 2017. https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality-more-two-decades-later. Accessed 5 June 2025.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé. (1989). “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1, Article 8: 139-167.

Decker, Julie Sondra. (2014). The invisible orientation: An introduction to asexuality. Carrel Books.

Klesse, Christian. (2006). “Polyamory and its ‘others’: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy.” Sexualities, 9(5): 565-583.

Poisson, Jayme. (2001). “Parents keep child’s gender secret.” Toronto Star, 21 May 2001. https://www.thestar.com/life/parents-keep-childs-gender-secret/article_03418142-70e8-561e-9cdf-0a04c8df3b79.html. Accessed 22 May 2025.

Rubin, Gayle. (1984). “Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality,” in Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality, edited by Carole S. Vance, pp. 267-319, 1984, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Stutz, Colin. “Miley Cyrus says she’s gender fluid: ‘It has nothing to do with any parts of me.” Billboard, 6 June 2015. https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/miley-cyrus-gender-fluid-nothing-to-do-with-any-parts-6598191/. Accessed 5 June 2025.

Tajfel, Henri, & Turner, John C. (1979). “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.” In The social psychology of intergroup relations, edited by W. G. Austin and S. Worchel, pp. 33–37, Brooks /Cole.

Tompkins, Avery. (2014). “Asterisk.” Transgender Studies Quarterly 1(1-2): 26-27.

Villard, Kenneth L., and Whipple, Leland James. (1976). Beginnings in relational communication. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Some content included from: Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies by Miliann Kang, Donovan Lessard, Laura Heston, Sonny Nordmarken is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. https://share.google/wU8hBZ7y5Omsz8938