Abstract
The growing visibility of trans and gender-nonconforming individuals paved the way for a novel politics of transgender recognition in the legal sphere and state-governed public policies. Considering that the possibilities for registering multiple genders beyond male or female are taking effect in several countries, this article examines recent developments and claims that recognition is complicit with misrecognition for two main reasons. Firstly, because models of recognition tend to equalize all the interactions and all the fields of social life. Drawing on Axel Honneth’s notion of spheres of recognition, I argue that inasmuch as different forms of recognition (legal, moral, affective) are governed by different norms and gender regimes, the dynamics of recognition produce misrecognition. Secondly, because legal and institutional recognition tends to reify individual identity. Drawing on Nancy Fraser’s critique of the identity model of recognition, I contend that the identity recognition model tends to impose a norm rather than recognizing diversity. Therefore, gender identity categories can—through a process of reification—block the entitlement to affirm one’s self-determined gender identity. The paradoxical dynamics of recognition are empirically illustrated through an analysis of third-gender markers and their effects upon the lives and narratives of trans and gender-nonconforming individuals. By examining the case of Nepal in comparative perspective with other developments in Asia and South America, it is demonstrated that the identity model of recognition is complicit with feelings and practices of misrecognition.
Highlights
In recent years, gender identity gained centre-stage as a growing number of individuals claimed the right to a gender identity outside the binary model that opposes male and female
While the emergent visibility of trans, gender-nonconforming, gender nonbinary or intersex people paved the way for reframing gender citizenship afar from the medicalized model of transsexuality first established by endocrinologist Harry Benjamin in the 1950s (Baisely, 2016; Dunne, 2017), the political inroad to transgender recognition remains filled with controversy (Powell, Shapiro, & Stein, 2016; Sky, 2018)
In the section that follows, I briefly contextualize the expansion of third-gender markers and how activist claims have been reinterpreted in legal developments and institutional policies
Summary
Gender identity gained centre-stage as a growing number of individuals claimed the right to a gender identity outside the binary model that opposes male and female. The legal recognition of non-binary gender markers by the state (whether X in Australia or Denmark, Diverse in Germany, Others in India or Nepal) is often interpreted as a victory for the trans rights movement (Young, 2016). If state regulation of gender difference garnered critical debate, less attention has been given to the value, whether instrumental or symbolic, of third-gender categories for gender-nonconforming individuals, especially outside Europe and North America. Aiming to narrow this gap, my argument is empirically illustrated by a qualitative study that combined document analysis of legal and institutional developments with in-depth interviews with trans and gender-nonconforming individuals. The Nepali case is singled out, findings are interpreted in comparison with developments in Asia and South America and carry important lessons to the European context
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
