Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Spanish

French

Life course theory often views transitions as a linear progression of normative stages, but this perspective overlooks the fluidity and complexity of social change. In particular, transgender and gender non-conforming identities challenge the assumption that transition unfolds in discrete stages. Drawing on six exemplary cases in Portugal and the United Kingdom, this article highlights the temporal asynchrony, ambiguity and constantly evolving nature of gender transitions. Revisiting van Gennep’s notion of liminality, it shows how conventional life-course models fail to capture the recursive, context-dependent processes that often define trans experiences. Rather than viewing transition as a singular disruptive event that is resolved by conforming to a binary norm, we show that it is an open-ended space of negotiation in which identities are continually adapted to shifting socio-historical contexts. Empirical findings suggest that non-linearity is more common than traditional frameworks allow, revealing prolonged states of in-between, multiple trajectories of becoming and the persistent possibility of redefinition. We argue for expanding the analytical toolkit to include these uncharted dimensions of transition, thereby developing more inclusive and nuanced approaches to exploring diverse experiences at the margins of conventional life course theory. In doing so, this article opens up new ways of understanding how change itself can remain a persistent, liminal state.

Keywords

Gender transition life course liminal non-binary non-linearity

Introduction

The fundamental role of life transitions is indisputable. Lives undergo changes over time, which accumulate in various ways. Time is undoubtedly a multifaceted concept, encompassing multiple dimensions such as flow, rhythm, progression, sequence, regularity, evolution, adaptation, tempo, timing, age, generations, temporal duration and more (Abbott, 2001). Nevertheless, despite its extensive influence on sociological theory, time has frequently been oversimplified, or even entirely disregarded (Hassard, 1990). Life course theory has been an important focus, developing as a way to examine the interplay between individual lives and social change (Nielsen, 2023). The life course represents the sequence of positions (in employment, aging, parenthood or other) of a person over time, considering the frequency and timing of changes in these positions (Kok, 2007). Each change or event is a transition, the key element that unifies the biographical fabric of lives.

Notwithstanding, life-course theory has been the subject of criticism. It conceptualises transitions as milestone-driven normative stages (Mandemakers and Kalmijn, 2018; Thoma et al., 2023). From birth to death, events are assumed to follow each other in a linear, age-structured life course, whereby individuals are expected to overcome risks and disruptions to reach a state of stability (Hareven and Masaoka, 1988). Main limitations include the tendency to assume normative, linear progressions of life stages, insufficient attention to individual agency and diversity and inadequate integration of intersectional factors such as race, gender and socioeconomic status. Furthermore, under the lenses of life-course theory, often the concept of transition loses its depth and complexity of meanings (see Garnier, 2012). Ambiguity and blurriness are often overlooked as brief phases between two fixed states. This is evident in the terms male-to-female (MtF) and female-to-male (FtM), which frame gender transition as a binary, sequential shift from one stable identity to another.

Recent changes in biographies challenge linear views and require new conceptual tools. In order to better capture ambiguity and non-normative lives (Aboim and Vasconcelos, 2021; Garnier, 2012; Gravett, 2021; Martin et al., 2008), we reclaim Arnold van Gennep’s (1960) notion of liminal transitions. Liminal transitions are transformative periods during which individuals navigate uncertainty and reconstruct identities. These transitions highlight the non-linear nature of life, which does not always coincide with normative stages. The term ‘liminality’, from the Latin limen, denotes the temporary suspension of social boundaries. Coined by Van Gennep to describe rites of passage (Szakolczai, 2009: 142) and later expanded by Turner (1969; St and John, 2014), it remains an important sociological tool for examining uncertainty and change. Liminality captures formative and transformative experiences in which established structures are briefly disrupted, fostering new identities and social reconfigurations.

As current life course tools do not adequately address the dynamic changes (Colley, 2007) in the lives of trans and gender non-conforming people, this article discusses liminality based on an empirically reconstructed analysis of gender transitions in Portugal and the UK. To this end, the next section develops the conceptualisation of time and defends liminality. After outlining the research context and methods, we use illustrative cases based on qualitative data to rethink gender transition as liminal, incorporating ambiguity and temporal non-linearity. We conclude with a summary and directions for further research on this topic.

Liminal transitions: time and the dynamics of non-linearity

Several studies have highlighted the diffuse temporality of life-course transitions (Gravett, 2021; Ögtem-Young, 2024; Taylor and Harris-Evans, 2018) and critiqued the notion of prioritising change over the complexity of time (Gale and Parker, 2014). A critical feminist perspective emphasised the need to rethink the taken-for-granted notion of time as a ‘natural flow’, which assumes time as independent of social actors and historical experience (Adam, 1989).

Barbara Adam’s contributions are significant, as they challenge linear and dualistic conceptions of time. Adam (1989) argues that time is not a neutral, universal framework, but socially constructed and linked to human actions, institutions and cultural norms. Adam identifies at least five key features of social time – frame, temporality, tempo, timing and modality – which underline the non-linear, processual and cyclical nature of life-course transitions (p. 462). Adam’s framework shows that transitions are lived through socially and contextually imposed temporalities rather than following a fixed, chronological progression.

This perspective is relevant to the concept of liminality, which refers to the ambiguous, in-between phase that occurs during transitions such as rites of passage or identity shifts. Van Gennep (1960) outlines three stages of transition – separation, liminality and reincorporation – where individuals move from one social status to another without necessarily following predictable paths (pp. 9–11). Van Gennep (1960) notes that ‘in specific instances these three types are not always equally important or equally elaborated’ (p. 11). Van Gennep (1960) notes that ‘in specific instances these three types are not always equally important or equally elaborated’ (p. 11). Adam’s work extends this theory by illustrating that transitions are not bound by strict linear timelines but are fluid, influenced by broader social, historical and cultural forces. Liminal transitions unfold non-linearly, often involving stasis, regression or repetition. Adam’s concept of modality – linking past, present and future – illuminates these stages, where individuals may face temporal uncertainty, disconnecting from past identities while struggling to envision their future.

Reconceptualising life-course (and gender) transitions through this temporal framework requires a critical examination of how modality (past, present and future) and time-frame shape restrictive life-course models. It also highlights how temporal features have been used to reinforce certain epistemological views in life-course research. These analytical gaps justify a focus on temporality as dynamic and support the call for using the liminality to capture transitions non-linearly.

Using liminality as a heuristic tool requires distinguishing between its normative and analytical dimensions. Transitions should not be seen as mere interruptions or obstacles, but as fluid, dynamic processes that both challenge and create structures (Szakolczai, 2009; Thomassen, 2014; Turner, 1974). Rather than imposing artificial linearity, liminality allows for a deeper understanding of transitions as transformative and boundary-reconfiguring (Thomassen, 2014; Van Gennep, 1960). It challenges reductionist frameworks that fail to capture unstructured periods and contingent events, thereby enhancing critical engagement with transitions and subjectivities (Bhabha, 1994).

Rather than seeing liminality as the opposite of equilibrium (Horvath, 2014) or as a rigid, linear, monolithic concept, we argue that social experiences of change are inherently dynamic and multidimensional. Liminal transitions are important for understanding how individuals navigate temporal boundaries and how these are justified, contested or redefined. Through this lens, liminality offers a more nuanced understanding of gender transitions, recognising fluidity and evolution rather than fixed paths. It acknowledges the interplay of time, identity and social structure (Bettcher, 2014; Stryker and Whittle, 2006). The following sections demonstrate how this perspective enhances our analysis of gender transitions.

Gender transitions

Gender transitions have historically been framed within normative models, much like other social transitions. In the case of transgender trajectories (Aboim and Vasconcelos, 2021), gender transition has often been conceptualised as a disruptive process requiring resolution through a ‘migratory’ movement (Ekins and King, 2006), whereby individuals are expected to move from one binary gender to the other. Initially rooted in biomedical discourses of correction, transition was framed through the ‘wrong body’ narrative, positioning medical intervention as a means of aligning bodies with binary sex norms. Over time, however, conceptualisations of gender transition have expanded to reflect greater diversity in identity, expression and self-recognition (Coleman et al., 2022). Dominant frameworks still often structure gender transition as a linear sequence of milestones. Thoma et al. (2023) outline stages such as: changing clothes and hairstyle, adopting a new name, starting hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and undergoing gender-affirming surgery (p. 448). However, these models overlook the fluid, non-linear nature of many gender transitions.

While these steps are relevant for many, they do not universally define gender transition, nor do they fully encompass the range of identities and trajectories within trans and non-binary experiences. The ways individuals identify are highly context-dependent, shaped by historical, cultural and socio-legal structures. The term ‘transgender’ itself is a relatively recent category, encompassing diverse terminological variations (e.g. trans, trans+, trans*) and contested definitions. While some individuals transition within the binary framework, adopting the opposite gender category (man/woman), others dissociate from gender entirely or identify within specific gender categories beyond the binary. Non-binary identities explicitly reject the compulsory alignment with one of two binary gender categories, resisting a rigid masculine-feminine dichotomy (Aboim and Vasconcelos, 2025; Merlini, 2018).

Of course, because everyone has a gender identity, even if these milestones are considered markers of gender transition, they remain fluid and context-dependent. Gender expression, in particular, is shaped by the degree of accountability and recognition assigned to a person’s gendered position in different social spaces (Connell, 2009; Stone and Gallin-Parisi, 2024; West and Zimmerman, 1987). As research in trans-geographies demonstrates, gender transition is not solely a temporal process but a spatially contingent experience individuals navigate multiple environments of acceptance, regulation and exclusion (Browne et al., 2010; Doan, 2010). These spaces – whether workplaces, public restrooms, medical institutions or legal systems – mediate how transition is experienced and whether one’s identity is recognised or contested.

Furthermore, research highlights that liminal states can be persistent and enduring. Individuals in non-binary or gender-fluid positions often occupy spaces of ‘permanent incoherence’ (March, 2020: 464), where their identities remain illegible to dominant institutions and require constant negotiation and self-explanation. This is evident when bureaucratic processes fail to accommodate gender diversity, resulting in fragmented recognition.

Trans/gender studies (Bryant, 2009; Butler, 2004; Ekins and King, 2006; Enke, 2012; Kunzel, 2014; Namaste, 2005; Salah, 2007; Singer, 2013; Stryker and Aizura, 2013) have long demonstrated the structural power of gender norms, revealing deep asymmetries in practices, institutions, bodies and language.¹ While binary gender transition models – particularly biomedical ones – position transition as a movement between two fixed points, the biographies of non-binary individuals reveal ambiguity and liminality as enduring and transformative states. This is especially true for those whose identities are not legally recognised, creating incoherent gender experiences across different social institutions. As Doan (2010) argues, the tyranny of gendered spaces creates a paradox where one’s gender identity may be valid in one context but erased in another – a phenomenon that complicates traditional narratives of gender transition. These advances require a sharper definition of ‘gender transitions’ for two reasons. First, changing social norms (Martin et al., 2008) have reshaped transitions across life stages, including adulthood (Ögtem-Young, 2024), higher education (Amundsen, 2021) and gender trajectories (Aboim and Vasconcelos, 2021). Second, the increasing visibility of gender non-conforming identities (Aboim and Vasconcelos, 2025; Risman, 2016) highlights the fluidity of gender identification, necessitating frameworks that address its indirect instantiation (McNay, 1999) and immanence (Bourdieu, 2000). In light of these shifts Nordmarken (2023) emphasises the importance of examining how ‘alternative cultural understandings of gender shape identity formation’ for marginalised groups (p. 588).

Gender identification is shaped by the interaction between ‘spaces of experience’ and ‘horizons of expectation’ that structure lived temporality. Building on Ricoeur, McNay (1999) conceptualises identity narratives as reflections of temporal existence – where past, present and future simultaneously construct and mediate selfhood (p. 333). These narratives resist singular definitions and instead respond to contextual positioning (Lanser, 2013), illustrating how individuals un/do gender within socially expected norms.

The following sections outline our research strategy and methodology.

Materials and methods

Our analysis builds upon the life stories and transition journeys of transgender individuals in Portugal and the United Kingdom, offering a comparative perspective on gender transitions across distinct sociopolitical and historical contexts. Privileging a narrative approach, in-depth interviews with 65 transgender individuals aged between 18 and 75 years were then carried out in Portugal and the United Kingdom between 2015 and 2018. A narrative approach was used to explore the complexity of gender trajectories, highlighting the plurality of identities. Convenience samples (Given, 2008) were used in both countries to reflect diverse self-definitions² and experiences, including trans-masculine, trans-feminine and non-binary individuals.

While gender self-identification was key, we found significant commonalities between the two national contexts. However, key structural and historical differences between Portugal and the UK warrant a closer comparative analysis.

Context overview and cross-national differences

Browne et al. (2010) emphasise that the political, social and economic structures of a place shape the availability of services, community networks and activism, which in turn impact trans lives and experiences (p. 574). Despite their common positioning at the forefront of LGBTQ+ rights in Europe, Portugal and the UK have followed different trajectories in terms of legal recognition, activism and institutional responses to transgender identities.

The UK has a longer history of transgender activism and institutional support. Trans support groups have existed since the 1970s, and politically organised activism, such as Press for Change, gained traction in the 1990s, playing a crucial role in shaping legal rights and policies (Aboim and Vasconcelos, 2025; Hines and Santos, 2017). In contrast, Portugal’s trans activism emerged much later, only gaining visibility in the 2000s, with significant legal advancements occurring after 2010. However, despite its later start, the pace of legal change was rapid. This is best exemplified by the 2018 gender identity law (Law 38/2018 of August 7), which positioned Portugal as one of the first countries in the world to implement a legal gender recognition process based on self-determination, removing medical requirements from legal gender changes. However, this law remains binary in its legal framework.

These differences have shaped how gender transition is recognised, regulated and lived in both national contexts. Over the period we studied, activism gained enough strength to amplify non-binary claims (Monro, 2019), yet the challenges remain substantial, particularly in light of contemporary political developments. While Portugal rapidly adopted a progressive self-determination model, the UK has historically required medical diagnosis and bureaucratic approval for legal gender recognition. Portugal quickly adopted a self-determination model, while the UK maintained a medicalised and bureaucratic approach to legal gender recognition. These contrasting frameworks reflect wider socio-cultural differences. Portugal’s legal progress was rapid, but social and institutional change lagged behind. Meanwhile, the UK, despite a longer history of activism, faces growing political debates about trans rights, particularly around access to healthcare and legal reform (Aboim and Vasconcelos, 2025).

This comparative framework enables analysis of trans experience, offering a broader perspective on how gender transition is shaped by policy, activism, culture and institutions. Both samples show more similarities than differences, particularly regarding non-binary gender identity experiences.

Sample and case selection

Participants were recruited by various means (personal contacts, participation in public and/or activist events, networks associated with trans rights organisations), and a snowball method was used. The interviews were conducted in locations always chosen by the participants and lasted 1–4 hours following the protocols associated with a semi-structured qualitative approach. Ethical approval was granted by the Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon and the European Research Council Executive Agency. Clearance was also given by the Portuguese National Commission for Data Protection. All participants were given detailed information and were cognizant that their voluntary participation could be withdrawn at any moment. The terms of confidentiality and information use were explained. It was made clear that results would be reported in such a way that no individual would be identifiable.

All participants have been assigned pseudonyms, and relevant data have been omitted or altered without compromising the participants’ stories and voices. For this reason, respecting the participants’ perspectives and cooperation, the stories here are not linked to other individuals with similar names or characteristics. Participants are identified by the gender they claim to be and always referred to by the personal pronoun they prefer to be associated with (he, she, both or other more neutral pronouns such as zie/they). The sociographic data collected also guided our selection and analysis.

From our sample (see Table 1), we selected cases that illustrate the complexity of gender transitions. Out of 65 cases in the UK and Portugal, we identified 19 non-binary gender trajectories and analysed their life course events. These selected cases highlight the non-linearity of gender transitions, reflecting common patterns in both samples and emphasising their relevance to our study.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characterization of the illustrative cases, selected within the research participants in Portugal and the UK.

Country	Pseudonym	Age	Education	Work status	Gender identification	Sexual orientation	Legal name change	Years since the beginning of the transition process according to the participant
PT	Domingas/os	34	Secondary	Employee	Bigender, transgender, cross-dresser, Travesti	Gay, heterosexual	No	13
UK	Nelle	73	Secondary	Retired	Dual gendered	Gay	No	12
PT	Noa	58	Basic	Unemployed	Non-binary, trans-feminine man	Gay, queer	Yes	14
UK	Jim	40	University	Employee	Trans man	Queer	Yes	15
PT	Lé	23	University	Employee	Gender terrorist, gender-queer trans man	Queer, pansexual	No	4
UK	Lou	44	University	Unemployed	Non-binary, gender-queer, gender non-conformist	Bisexual	No	4

The processes of gender identification and transition are very heterogeneous and non-linear, far from traditional conceptualisations of time and transition. Following the biographical-interpretive method (BIM), we combined biographical and historical time through critical narrative analysis and the reconstruction of the told story (text, individual subjective and retrospective testimonies) and the lived life (history, contextual data; Cohler and Hostetler, 2003; Souto-Manning, 2014; Wengraf, 2000). In the following analyses, we seek to take account of this complexity.

The concept of liminal transitions was developed following grounded theory protocols (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), where the themes of impermanence, situationality and multiplicity in gender transitions emerged inductively from participants’ narratives (Charmaz, 2006). After identifying these patterns, we engaged in theoretical sampling, confronting our findings with established gender theories, such as Van Gennep’s (1960) notion of liminality, which further informed the construction of our conceptual framework. This iterative process refined our understanding of gender transitions, ensuring the emerging theory was grounded in empirical data and existing scholarship.

Liminal transitions over the life course

Life-course and gender transition models are unadjusted to capture biographical practices, let alone transgender journeys. So, moving beyond a general definition (e.g. Noble and Walker, 1997), the concept of liminal transition is expanded and analysed, based on the analysis of gender transition narratives of non-binary lives, organised according to the three identified dimensions in our research:

Permanence/impermanence: The transition is not limited in time, but rather represents a way of experiencing life and time.

Situationality: The presentation of the gender journey and identity is contingent upon the context and spatial elements, with space being integral to transitions.

Multiplicity: The individual may experience numerous gender identities in rapid succession, albeit with a high degree of temporal intensity.

Our illustrative cases demonstrate the shortcomings of models of gender transition that assume linear temporality. The experience of non-binary people provides insights into unique events, temporalities and transitions that highlight the relevance of liminality. For this purpose, we will consider three dimensions of liminal transitions. For each dimension, we have selected examples from our samples that illustrate the analytical value of liminality.

Impermanence

The concept of liminal transitions is a useful framework for understanding the fluid and contextual nature of gender identity, particularly in cases where individuals oscillate between different gender expressions. Drawing on interviews with Domingos/as from Portugal and Nelle from the UK, we illustrate how trans participants resist binary categorisations in everyday life, instead of inhabiting a liminal space where gender identity remains unfixed and adaptable. Both stories demonstrate that gender identity is rather fluid and oscillating, with individuals navigating between spaces rather than settling into a static gender identity. These cases provide strong evidence that gender identities – like other identities and transitions – are impermanent and can shift across contexts. Both Domingos/as and Nelle articulate a deep awareness of the impermanence of gender as they describe their experiences of navigating multiple gender identities simultaneously in multiple contexts.

Domingos/as, a 34-year-old spatial engineer, identifies as bigender, living part of his life as Domingos (masculine name) and part as Domingas (feminine name), depending on the context. This fluidity is not simply a matter of personal expression, but a necessity for maintaining a sense of wholeness. Domingos/as emphasises that a complete transition to either male or female would feel incomplete. As he or she/they says: ‘I live most of my days as a boy, and from time to time I give expression to my feminine side . . . I wouldn’t be complete if I made the transition from man to woman’. This quote encapsulates the core of liminality, which Turner (1969) describes as a persistent state of in-betweenness. In this case, Domingos/as resists the notion of a permanent transition to either end of the gender binary, illustrating the impermanent nature of their identity (Szakolczai, 2009).

The fluidity of these trans-participants’ identities has been a feature of their lives since adolescence, with Domingos/as recalling that their dual-gender expression began around the age of 12, during puberty. In their early 20s, they revealed this aspect of their identity to their partner, marking a key moment in their interpersonal transition. Furthermore, he or she/they notes that the term bigender only became part of their vocabulary around 8 years ago, further illustrating the evolving nature of their self-understanding. ‘Only recently . . . has the idea of being bigender emerged’, Domingos/as noted.

Similarly, Nelle, a 73-year-old retired artist from England, offers an example of how gender identity can remain fluid throughout one’s life. Nelle identifies as dual-gendered and describes their gender identity as fluid. Nelle’s journey to understanding their identity began much later in life, at the age of 60, when they discovered their transgender identity through online research. Since then, Nelle has lived fluidly between male and female roles, often choosing to present as female in social situations, while embracing a more androgynous presentation in other contexts. As Nelle says: ‘The real me is not either, but a bit of both . . . My personality is more, say 60% feminine and 40% male-ish’.

Like Domingos/as, Nelle avoids medicalised transitions, emphasising that their gender identity does not require permanent physical alterations. Despite feeling discomfort with the male role throughout their life, Nelle consciously chose to avoid surgery and hormone therapy, preferring instead to negotiate their gender expression through presentation and social interaction: ‘That old phrase “trapped in the wrong body” has never really resonated with me . . . I can be Nelle without doing that’.

Both cases demonstrate that gender identity is not a fixed endpoint but an ongoing, negotiated process. Both narratives challenge the traditional framework of gender transition as a one-way, permanent shift from one binary identity to another (Ekins and King, 2006). Instead, their experiences support a view of gender as a liminal, flexible space where identities can shift fluidly based on personal comfort, social expectations or professional circumstances. For example, Domigos/as, whose profession as an engineer exists in a male-dominated environment, chooses not to reveal their female identity at work for fear of discrimination. Nelle’s experience reflects a similar adaptability, particularly in public spaces where presenting as fully female can reduce social friction. Nelle notes: ‘When I go out . . . it is easier if I make the effort to present fully female . . . I get less hassle then’.

These examples show that gender expression is fluid and shifting, influenced by how individuals expect to be perceived or treated by others. The ability to move between gender identities is not just a personal choice but a survival strategy within a rigidly gendered society. The concept of liminal transitions helps to explain why some individuals resist the pressure to conform to a static gender identity. Instead, they occupy a space of impermanence where gender remains flexible, shifting in response to social, emotional and environmental contexts. This challenges the assumption that the process of transition necessarily leads to a fixed, final identity and opens up possibilities for understanding gender as a dynamic, contextual and deeply personal experience (Gale and Parker, 2014). Gender practices can flow according to social acceptability, conditioning transitions to the gendered life experiences and time ‘as frame’, that is, the socially imposed period of activities that are organised temporally.

Situationality

A second key dimension of liminal transitions is situationality, which refers to the contextual nature of gender identity, whereby individuals adjust their gender expression based on changing social, occupational and interpersonal contexts (Butler, 1990; Goffman, 1963). This perspective highlights how identity is fluid and contingent on the norms and expectations embedded in specific environments, demonstrating that gender is continuously negotiated rather than fixed (Connell, 2009; West and Zimmerman, 1987). Drawing on the experiences of Noa, a 56-year-old trans activist living between Portugal and South-America, and Jim, a 40-year-old British trans man and community worker, we explore how their gender identities are continuously shaped by the environments in which they operate.

Noa, who began their gender transition at 45 years old, embodies the fluidity of gender transitions by navigating between different gender identities based on situational demands. Originally from France and now an active trans activist, Noa identifies as a trans person, neither strictly a man nor a woman. However, in public settings, such as when interacting with neighbours or engaging in everyday activities like shopping, Noa is perceived as a man due to their masculine presentation. Noa says: ‘I interpret myself as a trans person, not a man, not a woman. But to my neighbours or people in stores, I am interpreted as a man’. This duality reflects the situationality of Noa’s gender transitions. While their trans identity is central in activist spaces, where they work against rigid gender norms, Noa’s public presentation aligns to an extent with a version of masculinity. In certain situations, particularly in environments dominated by traditional masculinity, Noa feels pressure to perform in a more conventionally masculine way: ‘When the builder comes around . . . I feel I should try and be more masculine’. This situational fluidity aligns with West and Zimmerman’s (1987) concept of ‘doing gender’, where gender is performed based on contextual expectations and pressures. Noa’s navigation of these different spaces underscores the constant negotiation of identity within the framework of liminality (Turner, 1969).

Noa’s experiences underscore the contextuality of their gender expression and how identity is dependent on intersectional situations (e.g. Yuval-Davis, 2015). Their gender identity is not fixed but is managed fluidly based on the specific social environment they find themselves in. This situational adaptability highlights the liminal aspect of Noa’s transition, as their gender identity constantly moves between boundaries rather than settling into a single category. That is why Noa is adamant in explaining:

I’m always in transition, my transition won’t end one day because I have an evolution . . . it’s not just an evolution of the body, it’s all intellectual. (. . .) I interpret myself as a trans person, not a man, not a woman. With my personal history . . . I interpret myself and present myself socially as a ‘puto’ because I want people to understand that my story is all about homophobia . . . I don’t have the specifically macho, heteronormative male behaviour. [What do you mean by ‘puto’?] It is a re-appropriation of the insult. ‘Puto’, like ‘paneleiro’³ in Portuguese.

Jim, a 40-year-old trans man from the UK, also exemplifies how gender identity is negotiated based on situational factors. Identifying as trans masculine, Jim’s gender expression shifts depending on the social context. In heteronormative or mainstream environments, Jim often presents in a more traditionally masculine way to fit societal expectations, but in LGBTIQ+ spaces, they feel comfortable expressing a more fluid, non-binary form of masculinity: ‘You switch things on and off, I think we all perform slightly differently to different audiences’.

Jim’s reflections on their gender identity reveal that transitioning is not a one-time, linear event but an ongoing process influenced by social dynamics. Despite undergoing physical changes such as testosterone treatment, Jim acknowledges that their gender identity remains situationally fluid, evolving based on the context. This ability to switch between masculine and trans-masculine presentations highlight the liminal nature of Jim’s transition, where gender expression navigates multiple arenas and adjusts to social context. Jim’s work as a self-employed designer further illustrates the situational dimension of their gender expression. In professional settings, Jim often has to navigate how their gender is perceived and addressed, balancing their public role as a trans advocate with the personal complexity of their identity. Jim is acutely aware of the societal pressures to present in a more traditionally masculine way, yet they resist the idea of a final, fixed identity. Jim is very clear: ‘I think we need to resist the idea of permanence in gender anyway, but how we do that in society is the challenge’.

Both Noa and Jim’s experiences highlight how situationality – the context-dependent negotiation of gender identity – is a key dimension of liminal transitions. For Noa, public perceptions of masculinity in everyday life contrast with their more fluid identity in activist spaces. Similarly, Jim’s ability to move between a more rigid masculine presentation and a fluid trans masculine identity demonstrates how their gender expression is deeply influenced by the context in which it is performed.

The situational aspect of their transitions reflects the broader liminal framework, where individuals do not transition into a final, fixed identity but continuously navigate and renegotiate their gender based on external expectations and personal comfort. In this way, situationality is a core aspect of the liminal transition experience, where gender is not a static end state, but a dynamic and evolving process influenced by social interactions. Gender transitions are not linear or final but are ongoing, context-driven processes. By understanding situationality as a central dimension of liminal transitions, we can better appreciate that transitioning is not always about reaching a final, stable identity but about continuously navigating gender identity and expression. Rather than freeze and stable moments, gender experiences are also compromised by the context and spatial elements which guide situations.

Multiplicity

Our concept of liminal transitions in gender identity encompasses several dimensions, one of which is multiplicity – the idea that individuals may experience multiple gender identities and transitions throughout their lives. This multiplicity is analogous, for example, to the way in which people may have multiple careers over the course of their lives, each reflecting a different stage or aspect of their identity. Transgender journeys and transitions illuminate other areas of social life where transitions are more complex. The cases of Lé, a 23-year-old trans masculine person from Portugal, and Lou, a 44-year-old non-binary individual from the UK, exemplify this notion of multiplicity, revealing how both individuals navigate multiple gender identities and transitions throughout their personal journeys.

Lé (23, Portuguese, student, bartender) identifies as a trans masculine person but has also navigated multiple gender identities over time. During the interview, Lé resorted to eight different words to describe his gender: from FtM, trans man or feminine man to gender-queer, queer, gender fluid or, even, gender terrorist and ‘potato-gender’. Indeed, Lé’s life course reflects the fluid and evolving nature of their gender identity, with transitions not being linear but marked by shifts in self-identification and presentation. Initially, Lé identified as gender-fluid, experiencing gender as something that shifted day by day, depending on how they felt or desired to be perceived:

There were moments when I felt like a woman, and there were moments when I felt like a man . . . It didn’t necessarily have to do with my clothing or how I dressed, but simply how I felt and how I wanted to be treated

This fluidity in gender expression showcases Lé’s early experiences of multiplicity. At times, Lé expressed femininity through their clothing, wearing dresses and skirts, while at other times, they embodied more masculine presentations, such as shaving their head and wearing trousers. Despite these oscillations, Lé later made the decision to take testosterone, a turning point in their journey towards embracing a more masculine identity. However, even after beginning testosterone, Lé continues to explore the interplay between masculinity and femininity.

As Lé admits: ‘I think I am recreating my gender. Right now my gender is a potato, but maybe tomorrow I will identify as a man’. Lé still identifies with and through beyond-the-binary semantics (through terms like gender-queer or gender fluid). However, he is now exploring words that bring him closer to the male pole of the gender spectrum. Lé is trying to find his own words to express the metaphor (increasingly real in his practices) of the FtM transition he is going through, without falling into the binary scheme of biomedical models.

In seeking to articulate his journey of transition beyond overly linear terminologies, Lé’s trajectory illustrates the prevalent (often ambiguous and contradictory) entanglement between binary codifications and beyond-the-binary gender vocabularies. From an early age, Lé has never been comfortable with labels. At 17, when he began to think about the possibility of being trans and the desire to ‘experience a new identity’, Lé embarked on a ‘quest for the right words’. He soon realised that his experience did not fit into binary lexicons. However, it was only after navigating the Internet a few years later that Lé found information about non-binary genders and was finally able to express his own self-description. As Lé recalls:

I met two trans men before, when I did the coming out, with a very binary transsexual story. In fact, the first one was the one who told me: ‘Oh, no! But you can’t be transsexual because you don’t have a binary story!’ And then I said to him, ‘Then I’m not transsexual! (. . .) and he came to me saying, ‘I feel genderqueer’. I was like, ‘Okay, fine. Me too!’ (. . . ) I’ve identified myself as gender fluid. It wasn’t necessarily about the expression of gender, how I dressed, but simply how I wanted to be treated – by ‘him’ or by ‘her’. . .

After this verbal interaction and for the next 2 years, Lé identified as gender fluid, which required a constant negotiation between his pursuit of authenticity and his need for social recognition. As a gender-fluid person, Lé felt both isolated and misunderstood, which led him to adopt male pronouns and a trans-masculine gender label. His gender fluid identification is reserved for activist contexts only. At 19, Lé also started taking testosterone.

I have always lived in a society where the non-binary gender was not exactly recognizable. I tried ‘x’ for a long time, non-binary genders and it simply came to a time when there was so much discrimination and no one listened to me, that I, for the time being, is like: I prefer ‘he’ (. . .) ‘trans man’ yes, that is, I identify myself more as FtM, in the sense that it’s more of a process, it’s not (. . . ) a transition . . . Ok, I don’t feel like a ‘trans man’ . . . For me to say ‘man’, there are days when it’s a little uncomfortable . . .

The normative pressure to conform led Lé to adopt a masculine self-description and a material-semiotic performance that was easier for others to read. Lé may use the pronoun ‘he’ and trans-masculine codifications of gender identity, but alternative readings of binary masculinity are needed. For Lé, non-binary labels and performances are not at odds with doing transmasculinity. In truth, multiple labelling is the only way to transform masculinity, and it is a process.

This ongoing negotiation of gender reflects the broader liminal framework, where identity is not static but continually shifts based on personal exploration and societal contexts. Similarly, Lou (44, British, university-educated, unemployed, non-binary), has experienced multiple gender identities and transitions throughout their life. Originally identifying as bisexual, Lou’s understanding of gender evolved over time, moving from a recognition of their sexual identity in their 20s to embracing a non-binary gender identity later in life. For Lou, their non-binary identity represents a more settled and calm understanding of themselves, but this realisation came after navigating various aspects of gender and sexuality: ‘I fluctuate sometimes between gender queer or gender nonconforming . . . non-binary kind of fits because it stands on its own two legs’.

Lou’s gender journey reflects the idea of multiplicity, as they transitioned through different identities – starting with their exploration of bisexuality and later shifting towards a non-binary understanding of themselves. Interestingly, Lou contrasts their experience of coming to terms with their sexuality, which involved a period of anxiety and self-reflection, with their more comfortable and less traumatic discovery of their gender identity. This highlights how the multiplicity of identities can exist across both gender and sexual orientation, each transition involving its own distinct challenges and realisations.

In trans and non-binary spaces, Lou reflects on how they have often felt excluded or misunderstood, especially when engaging with predominantly trans masculine environments: ‘I was very aware of my discomfort at [the event] with my breasts . . . It wasn’t about being ashamed of my body, but more about feeling excluded’. Lou’s experiences in these spaces further illustrate the multiplicity of gender identity. Their non-binary identity does not neatly fit into the binary categories often dominant in trans communities, which can create friction between their understanding of themselves and the expectations of others. This experience underscores how multiplicity in gender transitions often involves negotiating visibility and acceptance in spaces that may not fully embrace diverse gender expressions.

The stories of Lé and Lou highlight the dimension of multiplicity. Both experiences illustrate that gender transitions are not a simple journey from one identity to another but involve continuous movement between multiple identities and expressions. Their stories challenge the traditional understanding of gender transition as a process with a clear beginning and end, emphasising instead the ongoing, non-linear negotiation of identity over time. Social validation and recognition can determine and intensify the possible modes of gender self-identification, particularly when belonging is marked by interpretative obstacles in gender transitions.

Conclusion: embracing non-linearity in gender transition studies

The findings presented in this article suggest that gender transition is a far more complex process than a straightforward passage from one stable identity to another. Rather than occurring as a single event with a clear culmination, transition emerges as a liminal period marked by ambiguity and constant reconfiguration, echoing the insights of Van Gennep, Turner and others who have studied in-betweenness and rites of passage. Conceptualising transition in this way does not deny the strong sense of identity that many trans people have (March, 2020). Instead, it foregrounds the constantly shifting interplay of time, space and social context that underpins each person’s process of becoming. This perspective is relevant not only to individuals who identify outside of normative gender binaries but also to those whose trajectories may appear more conventional but still deviate from linear narratives (Cho and Hayes, 2024).

Recent research on transgender experiences, while rapidly expanding, is often limited by either assuming that binary categories can accommodate all forms of variation or by applying milestone-based models that assume a clear starting point and a singular endpoint. This overlooks the inherently non-final nature of transition and risks misrepresenting individuals whose experiences of transience extend throughout the life course. Similarly, studies that emphasise uniform sequences of name changes, hormonal treatments or surgical interventions fail to capture the complexity of transitions, which may involve back-and-forth movement, unforeseen interruptions or deliberate rejection of certain procedures.

In contrast, viewing transition through the lens of liminality and non-linearity, and taking into account the dimensions of permanence/impermanence, situationality and multiplicity, reveals how gender identities are in constant dialogue with shifting personal, interpersonal and institutional expectations. The idea of permanence here refers to recognising that transition is not a brief 'phase' that ends neatly; for some people, the desire to maintain fluid gender expressions lasts for years, if not indefinitely. Liminal spaces of impermanence, while often difficult to inhabit, can foster creative ways of resisting the constraints of rigid gender norms. Similarly, situationality underlines that individuals are constantly adapting their presentation to contexts that may validate or challenge their identities. Rather than settling into a singular self-description, trans people perform and negotiate their gender identity contextually. Even if someone identifies more closely with the male or female end of the gender spectrum in one setting, they may adopt a more fluid or hybrid identity elsewhere. Finally, multiplicity allows us to consider how individuals may move between different self-definitions throughout their lives, blending elements of multiple identities or inventing new labels that reflect overlapping cultural and personal influences. Rather than treating this complexity as a sign of confusion or illegitimacy, acknowledging multiplicity illuminates how trans and non-binary people creatively chart paths that defy standard classifications. The notion of reduced temporality – the idea that transition is a temporary phase with long-lasting consequences (Garnier, 2012) – needs to be replaced by a broader understanding of change.

A reorientation towards non-linearity has profound implications for research and methodology. Relying primarily on structured surveys or milestone-oriented interview schedules risks overlooking the subjective and contextual dimensions that shape transition over time. Longitudinal designs, as well as open-ended and narrative-based methods, are better suited to capturing how individuals continually redefine their identities in relation to social change, personal reflection and access to resources. Researchers can thus pay more attention to the interplay between personal agency and structural constraints, while recognising that transitions often involve detours, reversals or partial changes that defy neat categorisation. Equally important is the need to create space for participant agency in how data are collected, interpreted and presented. When people are given the freedom to describe themselves, articulate shifts or claim multiple markers of identity, it becomes easier to see how transitions unfold in layered ways rather than through a linear route from ‘before’ to ‘after’.

Ultimately, rethinking transition as liminal and non-linear recognises that many individuals neither seek nor arrive at a single, static destination. Instead, they are constantly adapting, exploring and even reinventing how they understand and present themselves in relation to the social structures that both shape and are shaped by their identities. When researchers prioritise open-ended and context-sensitive inquiry, they reveal the wide range of experiences that exist within the conceptual realm of transition, from those who resist any final definition to those who move purposefully between multiple states or identities. Placing these narratives at the centre of sociological enquiry into gender allows for a richer account of the myriad ways in which people do – and sometimes undo – gender over time. Through this lens, transition itself remains a potent space for challenging entrenched norms, illuminating new forms of embodiment and belonging and expanding the possibilities for inclusive scientific and social understandings of gender.

Footnotes

The authors are grateful to the editorial team and peer reviewers of the journal Current Sociology for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this text. This article draws on data collected during the European Research Council–funded Project TRANSRIGHTS: Gender citizenship and sexual rights in Europe: Transgender lives in transnational perspective .

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement no. 615594.

ORCID iDs

Sara Merlini

Sofia Aboim

Author biographies

Sara Merlini is a researcher at the Interdisciplinary Center for Gender Studies (CIEG-ISCSP/ ULisboa) since 2021. She has a PhD in sociology from the Institute of Social Sciences (University of Lisbon) and is currently an Assistant Coordinator of Research Network 33 – Women’s and Gender Studies of the European Sociological Association. She has participated in diverse projects,contributing to advance knowledge on gender differences and inequalities,policy evaluation,education and social exclusion. In all,Sara has produced,as sole author or co-author,one book,four book chapters and eight scientific articles in national and international journals with peer review.

Sofia Aboim is a Research Professor of Sociology at the Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon. She has been involved in numerous research projects,including a European Research Council Consolidator Grant (CoG 615594),and is currently leading the RACE TROUBLE project funded by the Portuguese Science Foundation. This project explores the intersections of gender,migration,race and ethnicity,from postcolonial and decolonial perspectives. Sofia’s recent publications include numerous academic articles and the monographs ‘Plural Masculinities: The remaking of the self in private life’ (Routledge,2016) and ‘Gender Fields: The social organisation of gender identity’ (Routledge,2024).

References

Abbott

(2001) Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press.

Aboim

Vasconcelos

(2021) Gender trajectories and the production of inequalities from a life course perspective. In: Nico

Pollock

(eds) The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Inequalities and the Life Course. Oxon; New York: Routledge, pp.338–348.

Aboim

Vasconcelos

(2025) Gender Fields: The Social Organisation of Gender Identity. London: Routledge.

Adam

(1989) Feminist social theory needs time: Reflections on the relation between feminist thought, social theory and time as an important parameter in social analysis. The Sociological Review 37(3): 458–473.

Amundsen

(2021) Life is not always linear: Expanding the notion of transitions in higher education to challenge structural, static and linear processes facing Indigenous and older adult students. Studies in Higher Education 47(8): 1681–1693.

Bettcher

T M

(2014) Trapped in the wrong theory: Rethinking trans oppression and resistance. Signs 39(2): 383–406.

Bhabha

H K

(1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Bourdieu

(2000) Pascalian Meditations (trans. Nice

). Standford, CA: Standford University Press.

Browne

Nash

Hines

(2010) Introduction: Towards trans geographies. Gender, Place & Culture 17(5): 573–577.

10.

Bryant

(2009) Transgender studies. In: O’Brien

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, vol. 12. London: Sage, pp.848–852.

11.

Butler

(1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London & New York: Routledge.

12.

Butler

(2004) Undoing Gender. Oxon; New York: Routledge.

13.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications.

14.

Cho

Hayes

(2024) ‘I hold the key to the cage and nothing can keep me there without my permission’: Exploring gender identity through identity journey mapping in a study abroad program. The Educational Forum 88: 309–323.

15.

Cohler

Hostetler

(2003) Linking life-course and life story: Social change and the narrative study of lives over time. In: Mortimer

Shanahan

(eds) Handbook of the Life-Course. Devon: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 555–576.

16.

Coleman

Radix

Bouman

, et al (2022) Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health 231: S1–S259.

17.

Colley

(2007) Understanding time in learning transitions through the lifecourse. International Studies in Sociology of Education 17(4): 427–443.

18.

Connell

(2009) Accountable conduct: ‘Doing gender’ in transsexual and political retrospect. Gender and Society 23(1): 104–111.

19.

Doan

(2010) The tyranny of gendered spaces: Reflections from beyond the gender dichotomy. Gender, Place & Culture 17(5): 635–654.

20.

Ekins

King

(2006) The Transgender Phenomenon. London: Sage.

21.

Enke

(2012) Transfeminist Perspectives in and beyond Transgender and Gender Studies. Philadelphia, PL: Temple University Press.

22.

Gale

Parker

(2014) Navigating change: A typology of student transition in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 39(5): 734–753.

23.

Garnier

(2012) Complexities of transitions: Theoretical and empirical challenges in understanding life-course transitions. Annual Review of Sociology 38: 419–440.

24.

Given

(2008) Qualitative Research Methods. In: Salkind

(ed.) The Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 827–831.

25.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

26.

Goffman

(1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

27.

Gordon

(2019) Who Can Say Faggot? A Two Part Study on Online Slur Reclamation. Masters Thesis. Universiteit van Amsterdam.

28.

Gravett

(2021) Troubling transitions and celebrating becomings: From pathway to rhizome. Studies in Higher Education 46(8): 1506–1517.

29.

Hareven

Masaoka

(1988) Turning points and transitions: Perceptions of the life-course. Journal of Family History 13(3): 271–289.

30.

Hassard

(1990) Introduction: The sociological study of time. In: Hassard

(ed.) The Sociology of Time. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.1–18.

31.

Hines

Santos

(2017) Trans* policy, politics and research: The UK and Portugal. Critical Social Policy 38(1): 35–56.

32.

Horvath

(2014) The perspective of liminality. Voegelin View. Available at: https://voegelinview.com/the-perspective-of-liminality/

33.

Kok

(2007) Principles and prospects of the life course paradigm. Annales de Démographie Historique 113: 203–230.

34.

Kunzel

(2014) The flourishing of transgender studies. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly 1(1–2): 285–297.

35.

Lanser

(2013) Gender and narrative. In: Hühn

Pier

Schmid

, et al. (eds) The Living Handbook of Narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University. Available at: https://www-archiv.fdm.uni-hamburg.de/lhn/index.html

36.

McNay

(1999) Gender and narrative identity. Journal of Political Ideologies 4(3): 315–336.

37.

Mandemakers

Kalmijn

(2018) From bad to worse? Effects of multiple adverse life-course transitions on mental health. Longitudinal and Life-Course Studies 9(3): 299–311.

38.

March

(2020) Queer and trans* geographies of liminality: A literature review. Progress in Human Geography 45(3): 455–471.

39.

Martin

Schoon

Ross

(2008) Beyond transitions: Applying optimal matching analysis to life-course research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11(3): 179–199.

40.

Merlini

(2018) Other genders: (Un)doing gender norms in Portugal at a microsocial level. Portuguese Journal of Social Science 17(3): 349–364.

41.

Monro

(2019) Non-binary and Genderqueer: An Overview of the Field. International Journal of Transgenderism 20(2–3): 126–131.

42.

Namaste

(2005) Sex Change, Social Change: Reflections on Identity, Institutions, and Imperialism. Toronto, ON, Canada: Women’s Press.

43.

Nielsen

(2023) Biographical Life Course Research. Studying the Biography-History Dynamic. Cham: Palgrave MacMillan.

44.

Noble

Walker

(1997) Exploring the relationships among liminal transitions, symbolic consumption, and the extended self. Psychology and Marketing 14(1): 29–47.

45.

Nordmarken

(2023) Coming into identity: How gender minorities experience identity formation. Gender & Society 37(4): 584–613.

46.

Ögtem-Young

(2024) Belonging-assemblage: Experiences of unaccompanied young people seeking asylum in the UK. Sociology 58(3): 641–658.

47.

Risman

(2016) Southern sociological society presidential address: Are millennials cracking the gender structure? Social Currents 4(3): 208–227.

48.

Salah

(2007.) Undoing trans studies. Topia 17: 150–154.

49.

Singer

(2013) What is transgender studies for the twenty-first century?. In: Stryker

Aizura

(eds) Transgender Studies Reader 2. Oxon; New York: Routledge, n.p. https://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/_author/stryker-9780415517737/primer.php

50.

Souto-Manning

(2014) Critical narrative analysis: The interplay of critical discourse and narrative analyses. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 27(2): 159–180.

51.

St John

(2014) Victor turner. In: Jackson

Jr (ed.) Oxford Bibliographies in Anthropology. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0074.

52.

Stone

Gallin-Parisi

(2024) What happens when gender accountability is reduced? The experiences of nonbinary and genderfluid people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gender & Society 38(3): 379–407.

53.

Stryker

(2008) Transgender History. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

54.

Stryker

Aizura

(2013) Introduction: Transgender studies 2.0. In: Stryker

Aizura

(eds) The Transgender Studies Reader 2. Oxon; New York: Routledge, pp.1–12.

55.

Stryker

Whittle

(2006) The Transgender Studies Reader. New york: Routledge.

56.

Szakolczai

(2009) Liminality and experience: Structuring transitory situations and transformative events. International Political Anthropology 2(1): 141–172. Available at: http://www.international.politicalanthropology.org/images/articles/2009_1/1_2009_szakolczai.pdf

57.

Taylor

Harris-Evans

(2018) Reconceptualising transition to Higher Education with Deleuze and Guattari. Studies in Higher Education 43(7): 1254–1267.

58.

Thoma

Jardas

Choukas-Bradley

, et al (2023) Perceived gender transition progress, gender congruence, and mental health symptoms among transgender adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 72(3): 444–451.

59.

Thomassen

(2014) Liminality and the Modern: Living through the In-between. Farnham: Ashgate.

60.

Turner

(1969) The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-structure. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.

61.

Turner

(1974) Dramas, Fields and Metaphors. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

62.

Van Gennep

(1960) The Rites of Passage. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

63.

Wengraf

(2000) Uncovering the general from within the particular: From contingencies to typologies in the understanding of cases.In: Chamberlayne

Bornat

Wengraf

(eds) The Turn to Biographical Methods in Social Science: Comparative Issues and Examples. Oxon; New York: Routledge, pp.140–164.

64.

West

Zimmerman

(1987) Doing gender. Gender & Society 1(2): 125–151. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/189945

65.

Yuval-Davis

(2015) Situated Intersectionality and Social Inequality. Raisons Politiques 58: 91–100.