Examining Relationships Between Transgender Prejudice, Gender Essentialism, and Defining and Categorizing Transgender People

Abstract

Some definitions and adoptions of the word “transgender” may be rooted in transgender prejudice and result in different conclusions about who is considered transgender. Transnormative definitions, fixed to the gender binary and medical transitions, could lead to categorical exclusions, whereas umbrella definitions, centered on people’s self-identification and often featuring a greater range of gender identities, could lead to broader inclusion. The present work explored whether the relationship between attitudes toward transgender people and transgender target categorization is associated with divergent definitions of the word transgender. We hypothesized that higher prejudice and gender essentialism would predict agreement with transnormative definitions that would then predict lower categorization of transgender targets. We also hypothesized that lower prejudice and gender essentialism would predict agreement with umbrella definitions that would then predict higher transgender categorization. Using a sample of MTurk Workers (N = 497), we tested these hypotheses with a parallel moderated-mediation analysis. Results support that gender essentialism moderated the relationship between prejudice and umbrella definitions, and umbrella definitions mediated the relationship between attitudes and categorization of transgender targets (index of moderated mediation = .46, BCa CI [.20, .76]). Transnormative definition agreement was not predicted by prejudice or gender essentialism, and did not mediate the relationship between these attitudes and categorization (index of moderated mediation = .00, BCa CI [–.06, .05]). These findings provide insight into the role of underlying attitudes on categorization, which has implications on transgender and gender-diverse people’s identity affirmation, social belonging, and healthcare access.