Importance

Society is constructed within the framework of the gender binary: clothing stores are divided by men and women, single-use bathrooms are designated by gender, and tampons are labeled as feminine hygiene products. People whose gender identities do not align with the binary are often forced to mislabel themselves due to these omnipresent social norms. Many cisgender people (individuals whose gender identity corresponds with their birth sex) take their gender privilege for granted because they exist in a world already structured to their needs.

Objectives

• To spark a more gender-inclusive society by creating awareness and stimulating self-reflection and critical thinking about gender exclusion.

• Illuminate exclusion of genders by increasing awareness and education of trans issues.

• Make cis participants grapple with their gender identity by simulating the experience of being “othered.”

Method 

I created a survey asking participants their gender and age and presenting questions based on whether they identified as cisgender or not. The survey excluded the binary genders male and female from the list of options, leaving cis people with the options “prefer not to say” and “other” as their only relevant choices. Trans and non-binary folks were consulted to ensure methods were accurate and respectful.

The survey initially asks the age and gender of the participant as shown in Figure 1. A drop down list of the gender options is shown in Figure 2. Male and Female were excluded from the drop down list to disrupt the flow of cis participants who are used to their gender identity always being an option.

Figure 3 shows the question structure for the survey. Due to the possibility that a non cis participant’s identity had been excluded from the drop down list or they chose prefer not to say, all those who selected “other” or “prefer not to say” were brought to a rerouting question. Participants were then directed to a set of questions based on whether they identified as cis or not.

Responses

At the end of their set of questions, cis participants were asked to describe the experience of not seeing their gender identity on the drop down list. 

Figure 4. Question and reported experiences

 Discussion

Attributing the study to a fake organization, as shown in Figure 1 legitimized the survey for the purpose of the experiment. If the study is conducted by the “Human Identity Project” participants might be less likely to think that “male” and “female” were omitted by mistake. Cis people and non-cis people had discrete question sets to collect data about contrasting experiences regarding misgendering, gender presentation in clothing, and preferred pronouns. Because the options “prefer not to say” and “other” could apply to both cis and non-cis participants there had to be a rerouting question for those options so no one ended up answering questions for the wrong gender identity. The pie charts in Figure 3. show what percentage of people chose which gender option. 

Participants being unaware of the purpose of the study was crucial to its efficacy. Subverting their expectations left them vulnerable to authentic emotional responses to being excluded. Though people with privilege, whether racial, ethnic, gender-based, or otherwise, cannot actually experience how it feels to be marginalized, giving them an interactive experience that briefly undermines their privilege can stimulate a natural curiosity to learn more about the experiences of others.

Interactions with participants that were possibly stuck or unsure how to answer in the survey are shown in Figure 5. You can see how in two of the examples, once they figured out how to move on past the first page they found the experience stimulating and interesting. 

As shown in the responses of Figure 4 and Figure 5. This project successfully caused cisgender people to confront their gender identity and privilege. This study has broader applications than just gender identity. Several cis participants said they were used to exclusion in regards to their racial or ethnic identities, and would like to see the experiment recreated through a racial lens. 

Self-selection is a flaw in this study. People familiar with conversations around gender had no issues answering the first question while some who had not been involved in discussion about gender could not arrive at the conclusion necessary to move on. Some gave up and did not finish the survey. Data from people who could not adjust and consider whether “other” applied to them was not recorded. The impact of the experience was lost on them as well, despite the fact that it stands to reason that those individuals would benefit most from a perspective shift.

Future Steps

The resources and skills to create a website that can support more complex functions would minimize the impact of flaws such as self-selection in the survey. Introducing a pop-up if someone exits the survey without submitting, as illustrated in Figure 6. could provide an alternate route to the experience. Framing the pop-up request as an opportunity to give feedback on this erroneous survey gives even people who are angry and frustrated reason to continue engaging. 

Those who continue onto the follow-up survey would be rerouted back to the appropriate set of questions for their gender identity on the original survey once they finish the follow-up. It would be noted that they arrived at the questions via the alternate survey so comparisons can be made between the answers given by those who figured out the trick and those who did not. The site would track how many people ignore the pop-up and exit to get data on what percentage makes it through. The site would be able to time how long someone spends on the first page to collect data on the degree to which individuals struggled.