Doing Gender, Determining Gender

Westbrook, Laurel; Schilt, Kristen

doi:10.1177/0891243213503203

Cited by 346 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In conclusion, we know that race (Schilt 2006), class (Grant et al 2011), sexuality (Westbrook and Schilt 2014) and religion Cragun and Sumerau 2014) all shape the experiences of transgender people. It is now time to better understand how folks who exist at the specific intersection of being transgender and nonreligious experience their lives in a social context where Christianity and cisnormativity dominate.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding on the Experiences of Transgender Nonreligious People: An Exploratory Analysis

Mathers

2017

Secularism and Nonreligion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on research that points out the specific forms of marginalization that transgender and nonreligious people face in contemporary U.S. society, this exploratory analysis focuses on the experiences of transgender nonreligious people who were raised in religious households. Utilizing interviews with eleven formerly religious, now nonreligious, transgender people I draw out some of the future pathways scholars of nonreligion should take to better account for the lives of transgender nonreligious people in scholarship on nonreligion. Specifically, scholars of nonreligion should begin analyzing transgender nonreligious people's experiences in religious settings, with family, and with organizations and networks outside of religion. I conclude by discussing the ways this study can shed light on the broader processes by which inequality is reproduced and make suggestions for nonreligious leaders to make room for and listen to transgender people in nonreligious spaces.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding on the Experiences of Transgender Nonreligious People: An Exploratory Analysis

Mathers

2017

Secularism and Nonreligion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Julie’s telephone interactions with customers illuminate the part played by forenames in the doing of gender: Forenames are key to the social practices of placing others in gender categories (“determining gender” as Westbrook and Schilt 2014, p. 32, term it) and to processes whereby individuals are held to be accountable to sex category membership (West and Zimmerman 2009). Forenames, then, have a key role in presenting and authenticating individuals as belonging to the assumed binary sex category of either female or male and are important in the interpretation of the individual’s identity as authentically either feminine or masculine.…”

Section: Transgender People’s Forenamingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Names and “Doing Gender”: How Forenames and Surnames Contribute to Gender Identities, Difference, and Inequalities

Pilcher

2017

Sex Roles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Names, as proper nouns, are clearly important for the identification of individuals in everyday life. In the present article, I argue that forenames and surnames need also to be recognized as “doing” words, important in the categorization of sex at birth and in the ongoing management of gender conduct appropriate to sex category. Using evidence on personal naming practices in the United States and United Kingdom, I examine what happens at crisis points of sexed and gendered naming in the life course (for example, at the birth of babies, at marriage, and during gender-identity transitions). I show how forenames and surnames help in the embodied doing of gender and, likewise, that bodies are key to gendered practices of forenaming and surnaming: we have “gendered embodied named identities.” Whether normative and compliant, pragmatic, or creative and resistant, forenaming and surnaming practices are revealed as core to the production and reproduction of binary sex categories and to gendered identities, difference, hierarchies, and inequalities.

show abstract

“…In the case of sexual and gender minorities, being nonreligious actually may reduce the ramifications of sexual and gender nonconformity because such an endeavor erases conflicts between religious assumptions and marginalized selfhood. Stated another way, people may easily make sense of an agnostic, bisexual, genderqueer person by relying on the combination of normative assumptions suggesting (1) agnostics are incompatible with American norms (Edgell et al 2006), (2) bisexuals are incompatible with religion (Barton 2012; though welcomed in some religious cases, see Harper 2010) and American mononormativity (see Moss 2012), and (3) gender variant people are incompatible with religion (see and American cisnormativity (Westbrook & Schilt 2014). The congruency of these assumptions in such a case may allow people to ignore or easily dismiss any claims by such people, but may also protect such people from explicit religious conflicts with others since they are -on average -not expected to be religious in the first place (see also Sumerau 2014 for LGBT Christians' experiences constantly having to explain their existence to other Americans).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No One Expects a Transgender Jew: Religious, Sexual and Gendered Intersections in the Evaluation of Religious and Nonreligious Others

Cragun¹,

Sumerau²

2017

Secularism and Nonreligion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While a large body of research has established that there is substantial prejudice against atheists and nonreligious individuals, both in the US and in other countries where nonreligious people are minorities, to date very little research has looked beyond attitudes toward solitary identities (e.g., "atheists" vs. "gay atheists"). Given the growing recognition of the importance of intersectionality in understanding the experiences of minorities, in this article we examined attitudes toward intersected identities, combining five (non)religious identities (i.e., Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, and nonreligious) with four sexual/ gender identities (i.e., heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transgender) using a 100-point thermometer scale (N = 618). We found that sexual/gender identities were more influential in ordering the results than were religious identities, with heterosexual individuals being rated most positively, followed for the most part by: homosexual, bisexual, and then transgender individuals. However, within the sexual/ gender identities, (non)religion ordered the results; Christians and Jewish individuals rated most highly among heterosexuals while nonreligious and atheist individuals rated most highly among transgender individuals. We suggest these results indicate that people believe minority sexual/gender identities "taint" or "pollute" religious identities, unless those religious identities are already perceived as tainted, as is the case for atheists and the nonreligious.

show abstract

Doing Gender, Determining Gender

Cited by 346 publications

References 25 publications

Expanding on the Experiences of Transgender Nonreligious People: An Exploratory Analysis

Expanding on the Experiences of Transgender Nonreligious People: An Exploratory Analysis

Names and “Doing Gender”: How Forenames and Surnames Contribute to Gender Identities, Difference, and Inequalities

No One Expects a Transgender Jew: Religious, Sexual and Gendered Intersections in the Evaluation of Religious and Nonreligious Others

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About