Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Cis- and transnormative narratives percolate through dress and shape trans people's lives as they negotiate social legibility with self-expression. Recognizing their influence, this study explored nonbinary dress strategies and their implications on identity formation. Three dress strategies were identified: dress to direct others’ perception of one's gender, dress to disturb cis- and transnormative normative norms and dress to obtain safety. The study found that nonbinary people's dress strategies evolve directly in relation to cis- and transnormative narratives. While some made use of these narratives to signal their gender or their queer kinship, others needed to reject them to move towards congruence. Dress strategies assisted participants’ identity development, enabling them to gauge others’ and their own perception of different versions of themselves. Far from being a banal detail, the study showed that paying attention to and creating space for nonbinary people's dress and self-presentation strategies may offer therapeutic benefits.

Keywords

gender identity presentation management nonbinary trans LGBTQIA+transnormativity cisnormativity

Dress, defined as “the totality of appearance that includes body coverings, body modifications, body supplements, and body enhancements” (Eicher & Roach-Higgins, 1992, p. 15), plays a pivotal role in identity construction (Pollen, 2011) assisting the continuous and ever-shifting performance gender is (Butler, 2006). Femininities and masculinities are played out through embodied dressing (Entwistle, 2015), with gender symbolism directly shaped by the fashion industry (and free market capitalism by extension) and vice-versa (Kaiser et al., 1995). Dress “does” one's gender (Butler, 2006; West & Zimmerman, 1987); certain clothing items carry symbolic meanings that highlight the wearer's gender identity, while others modify, hide or accentuate body characteristics to conform to prevalent ideas of femininity (Rudd & Lennon, 2000) and masculinity (Frith & Gleeson, 2004). Jointly, these cultivate the image and gender one wants to platform (Jones et al., 2023); thus, gender role attitudes and role-taking influence consumer and dressing behavior in every gender category (e.g., Pinna, 2020).

Dressing has been examined for transgender people (anyone whose gender identity does not align with that which they were assigned at birth), with research finding that wearing traditionally “female” or “male”-coded garments can help one experiment with, express and display their true gender identities while and/or after transitioning, influencing identity formation in turn (Jones & Lim, 2022). However, nonbinary or genderqueer people's (anyone whose gender identity falls outside of the Euro-colonial construct of the male/female gender binary) dressing strategies may differ given that their self-image may neither align with depictions of femininity nor with those of masculinity. The limited available research shows that nonbinary people adapt their dress to different environments, balancing considerations of safety and risk of social ostracization with the desire to express their true gender (McGuire & Reilly, 2022; Osborn, 2022). However, no prior studies have explicitly examined how dress may feature in nonbinary peoples’ identity formation, leaving gaps in knowledge for how community and therapeutic interventions may support this population. The present study therefore aimed to explore nonbinary dressing practices and their impact on nonbinary identity formation. It analyzed nonbinary dressing practices and identity development through the lens of the Master Narrative Framework.

Nonbinary Identities and Dressing

Cisnormativity, defined as societal ideologies that being cisgender is the norm and/or the ideal, and transnormativity, defined as societal or sub-cultural sets of expectations or pressures to be a certain way as a transgender person, have both been found to negatively impact nonbinary people (Inderbinen et al., 2021). Such pressures have been associated with elevated rates of stress, depression and anxiety in nonbinary individuals compared to both cisgender and binary-identified transgender people (Linander et al., 2024; Thorne et al., 2018). Cis- and transnormative pressures to pass as either of the two genders of the enforced binary have been found to weigh particularly on nonbinary people in institutional settings where they are pressured to present a legible gender in order to obtain services (Osborn, 2022), as well as in situations of unsafety, where adhering to either of the two may provide safety, if not authenticity (McGuire & Reilly, 2022). The pressure to sacrifice “authenticity in favor of legibility” (Osborn, 2022, p. 58) has been shown to be salient, including in queer spaces as nonbinary people face the challenge to get their identity recognized outside of “wrong body-model” (p. 59).

While dress may enforce cis- and transnormative standards of gender for nonbinary people, it may also provide opportunities to challenge and disturb these norms. As an example, Barry and Drak's (2019) participatory study explored the use of Otto Von Busch's fashion hacking methodology (2009), concluding that it allowed queer and trans youth to resist erasure. Fashion hacking, through “Hacking-Couture” workshops, transfers knowledge to participants about the behind-the-scenes of the fashion industry and invites them to create their own pieces of high fashion from second-hand clothes, thus redistributing power to previously passive consumers. In a similar vein, nodding to drag, Beemyn (2015, cited in McGuire & Reilly, 2022) and Elder (2016) noted the use of “genderfuck”: an identity label and/or style that defies not only binary notions of gender but also the pressure to pass, by combining for example a beard (a supposedly masculine feature) with makeup and jewelry (supposedly feminine accessories). This is exemplified by genderfuck practitioner Harmodius, captured on David Greene's photo (Greene, 1974) or by Alok Vaid-Menon's genderfuck appearance, documented on their Instagram page (Vaid-Menon, n.d.). Literature on this is sparse, while Osborn's recent qualitative study (2022) explored nonbinary dressing in light of cis- and transnormativity, implications on nonbinary identity development have not yet been specifically studied.

The Master Narrative Framework and Dress

A theoretical framework for examining how individuals’ identity may relate to cis- and transnormativity is the Master Narrative Framework (McLean & Syed, 2015). Master narratives, like cisnormativity are “ubiquitous, powerful cultural stories with which individuals negotiate in constructing personal identity” (McLean et al., 2017, p. 93). They are defined by five principles: utility, or their degree of purpose in individual identity development; ubiquity, or their degree of popularity in society; invisibility, or the level to which they have been internalized; compulsivity, or the moral compass they set up that marginalizes those who transgress them; and rigidity, or their nature to resist change (McLean & Syed, 2015). Individuals engage, negotiate and/or internalize master narratives, integrating parts or the entirety of them into their own self-concept (Bradford & Syed, 2019). Prior research has found that, in response to cisnormativity, queer communities co-create alternative narratives – new stories which serve to resist or negotiate with derogatory master narratives, establishing in turn new, transnormative regulatory norms of belonging and transness (Bradford & Syed, 2019; Johnson, 2016; Magyarlaki & Pipkin, 2024; Schwab & Stamper, 2024). Research initially showed that transnormative narratives most often revolved around ideals mirroring the medical model that expects medical transition culminating in a binary and heterosexual identity (Garrison, 2018; Johnson, 2016; Miller, 2018), which would logically dictate exclusively “feminine” dress for trans women and “masculine” dress for trans men – leaving nonbinary and gender non-conforming people completely off the map. However, in parallel with the increased visibility of nonbinary identities, more recent research demonstrated that transnormative alternative narratives are emerging in queer community spaces. These narratives center the experience of physical or social gender dysphoria rather than medical transitioning or dress, and/or only rely on self-identification as a marker of transness (Sutherland, 2023). Inversely, the emerging alternative narrative of androgynous dress for nonbinary people has been noted by both St Amant et al.'s (2024) in a US context and Magyarlaki & Pipkin (2024) in a U.K. context, along with other transnormative alternative narratives, such as a rejection femininity, an obligation to “break down gender” (St Amant et al., 2024, p. 11), nonconformity in lifestyle and politics, and an active social and night life (Magyarlaki & Pipkin, 2024). Both studies found an emergence of an androgynous body and dressing ideal, pointing to how transnormativity may transpire through dress.

The connection between cis- and transnormativity and nonbinary identity development is currently poorly understood. Given the pressure on nonbinary people to adjust their presentation to the cis gaze, as well as the potential of dress in “doing” one's gender, examining how nonbinary people negotiate these normative frameworks through dress may give insights to their identity formation and wellbeing. Better understanding of these processes is a key task for clinicians and researchers so they could offer tailored care.

Aim of the Study

The study aimed to address the following two research questions: (1) How do prevalent master- and alternative narratives influence nonbinary dress strategies? (2) How influential are these strategies on the identity formation of nonbinary individuals?

Materials and Methods

Design

In line with its interest in lived experience and dynamic social processes, a qualitative approach was used. Photovoice was utilized, which is an arts- and community-based research method aimed at facilitating expression of complex experiences and emotions through participants taking photos related to a research question and reflecting on them during focus groups and individual interviews. The authors held a constructionist epistemological position and constructivist ontology, denoting that gender and identity are socially co-constructed (Lincoln et al., 2018) under the constraints of broader structures of patriarchal oppression (Brisolara, 2014).

Participants

Participants were recruited from London queer digital and in-person spaces. Recruitment was open to any 18+ person living in Greater London, identifying as genderqueer/nonbinary/genderfluid/agender/nonbinary trans or who feels that their identity is off, beyond and/or across the gender spectrum. It was required of participants to make themselves available at two separate times, and to have a smartphone or camera for photo-taking. There were no exclusion criteria. Participants (N = 10) ranged from age 26 to 39 and used various gender labels including nonbinary, genderqueer and trans. Seven participants identified as White or White British, while one was Indian, one Indian British and one Irish/Pakistani (see Supplemental Materials for more information).

Procedures

Following ethical approval, flyers were distributed across London queer venues and digital spaces. Following informed consent, each participant took part in a 45-min online group photovoice training. This included: an introduction by the researcher; an explanation of the research questions; a round of names and pronouns of the participants; an introduction to the methodology and historical use of photovoice; a collective discussion on ethical photo-taking, consent-taking, triggers and ways of managing self-disclosure; a summary of next steps such as timings of focus group discussions; and finally an invitation for participants to choose their pseudonyms. A summary of instructions was shared after the training, and participants had 7–10 days to take a minimum of 3 photos. They were then invited to an online focus group discussion with the alternative option of a 1:1 online interview. The latter was provided for accessibility reasons: firstly, to accommodate participants who preferred 1:1 confidentiality to sharing in a group, and secondly, to ensure participation from those who were able to attend the focus groups. Individual interviews followed the same semi-structured schedule as the focus group for consistency. Two separate focus group discussions took place with three and four participants respectively, each lasting 2 h and 30 min. Two participants opted for a 1:1 interview lasting between 45–80 min. One participant was only able to respond via email. Semi-structured questions and prompts were used to guide photo presentations and discussions, which were also used in the individual interviews, and, as much as possible, for the email exchanges (see Supplemental Materials). All participants were given a debrief sheet with signposting information and offered an individual space to debrief. All online meetings were recorded and transcribed verbatim by the first author. As similar themes were emerging in the final two sessions, it was agreed that data saturation had been reached and recruitment ended at this point.

Materials

Microsoft Forms was used to host the sign-up and Demographics Form. A semi-structured interview schedule was used for all data collection (see Supplemental Materials). Microsoft Excel and Word were used for the coding process.

Data Analysis

Inductive reflexive thematic analysis was conducted (Braun & Clarke, 2023) to discern themes and sub-themes from the participants’ photos, focus group discussions, 1:1 interviews and email exchanges. Participants’ photos were included in the coding and analyzed using visual thematic analysis. The analysis consisted of five stages. After an initial stage of familiarization with the texts and photos through repeated reading, the first author assigned short codes to each unit of meaning (e.g., “male-presenting = perceived as dangerous in queer community”). Codes were continuously revisited and refined, to eliminate researcher bias to the extent that is possible. During this phase, the second author, who provided a supervisory role during the conduct of the study as part of a master's thesis, reviewed 41% of the codes. Next, in phase three of the analysis, codes were grouped into themes and sub-themes and a map of themes was created. In phase four and five, themes and sub-themes were revised for coherence, relevance and density, and defined. During these last two stages, the final list of themes was created, defined and thoroughly reviewed with the second author, resulting in mutual agreement.

Positionality

The first author identifies as nonbinary trans and considers themselves a part of London's queer community. Having only come out as trans in London, they consider the local queer community to have had a big influence on their gender identity. They are White of Eastern European origin. The second author identifies as a gay, cisgender male who is White British, with clinical and research experience of working with trans and nonbinary individuals. The researchers therefore held both insider and outsider positions in relation to the participants and the topic, which was considered throughout the design and conduct of the study. Researcher positionality was addressed and managed through bracketing exercises before and after the interviews, the conduct of a personal reflective journal, and personal therapy for the researcher, and the supervision offered by the second author. The inspiration to conduct the study partly came from the first author's personal experiences of transnormative narratives in London's queer communities. To sift out undue influence, the first author used active listening during interviews and asked open-ended questions, setting aside their own experiences as much as was possible. In the bracketing exercise, the first author shared their viewpoint with the second author, establishing a mechanism of accountability to prevent it from unduly dominating the study design, data collection or data analysis.

Results

The thematic analysis identified three themes and three sub-themes (Table 1). These were organized into a flowchart to demonstrate their interconnectedness (Figure 1). Quotes are verbatim. Where required, the use of [] will provide additional context for clarity.

Figure 1.
Flowchart of Themes.

Table 1.
Themes.

Theme Sub-theme (i/a)

(1) “You’re constantly struggling to be seen”: disconnect between self- and social perception

(2) Strategies of dress (2a) Dress to “tell other people how to do gender to me”

(2b) Dress to disturb the binary

(2c) Dress for safety

(3) “Curating that confusion:” identity development through dress strategies

Theme 1: “You’re Constantly Struggling to be Seen”: Disconnect Between Self- and Social Perception

Reflecting on their positionality within cisnormative masternarratives, eight out of ten participants described a sense of incongruence between their self-perception and the way in which they were perceived by others. As an example, describing the self-portrait they created for the project (see Supplemental Materials), Cyan said:
My idealized perception: it's just a 0 blank. I don't particularly like the way I look most of the time, because it's … like I'm very masculine looking, and I fully understand that, like, I look like a bloke. And I hate that like very, very common perception about me. I wish I was more kind of neutral, as it were? – Cyan

Echoing this sentiment, Taylor spoke with frustration of not being able to shift others’ perceptions of them, while Louis described a general sense of nonbinary invisibility in the cis- and heteronormative mainstream.
There's nothing I can do that's not going to get me perceived as a woman without like a major shift, which I don't want to do, because I shouldn't have to bloody do it. – Taylor

You're constantly struggling to be seen by, like every other element of your life. And also you know that you'll never really be seen. – Louis

Despite participants’ clear internal sense of being neither male nor female, they reported being continuously read as either – and most often that of the gender they were assigned at birth. Participants spoke of the frustration of being always labelled and categorized – an experience that points to the prevalence of the binary cisnormative system in which only “maleness” and “femaleness” are legible: leaving nonbinary identities erased.

In addition to experiencing this erasure in the cis- and heteronormative mainstream, some spoke with bitterness of a sense of being misperceived and boxed in queer spaces as well.
If I'm with my partner. I'm like “Indian, married, woman” (…) I am showing up the way I'm showing up [in queer spaces], but I feel I don't look queer. – Esmeralda

These accounts show that cis- and transnormative narratives may have percolated into London's queer scenes as well, rendering nonbinary identities illegible.

In summary, participants spoke of a sense of incongruence between their self-perception and the cisnormative binary way in which they were seen by others. Having to put up with misgendering and mislabeling made participants feel frustrated and erased.

Theme 2: Strategies of Dress

In response to the experienced erasure and mismatch of self- and social perceptions, participants engaged in conscious dressing strategies to shift, disturb or minimize the way they were perceived. Regardless of the strategy, they described putting a great amount of thought into their dressing; balancing the dominant master cis- and alternative transnormative narratives of the settings they encountered with their desire to express their identities.

Sub-theme 2.1.: Dress to “Tell Other People How to Do Gender to Me”

Six participants spoke of consciously choosing their dress to “tell other people how to do gender” to them, directing their perceptions of their gender. Most typically, participants chose dress that distanced them from their gender assigned at birth: as an example, one spoke of wearing earrings to signal that they were not a cis man, while another mentioned acquiring “sturdy” and “masc” clothing for their wardrobe to distance themselves from femininity.
Cis white man's not gonna rock up with earrings, with little toads on it, but I went there with the collar of like a collar chain and some earrings like clip on ones. – CJ

I have a secondhand huge biker leather (…) jacket, which what I found was like one of the most like affirming pieces of clothing, because it's kind of got these big sturdy shoulders that change the way that I stand and change the way that I felt like I carried myself. – Kai

These strategies drew on cisnormativity, as participants expressed their distance to their assigned gender through displaying dress of the other binary gender. While these strategies did at times successfully shift people's perceptions, four of the six participants spoke of having to sacrifice their self-expression for them to work.
I was definitely very girly and very femme, and very into like colour and glitter and pink growing up. And I feel like there's a sense of having to sacrifice that to have my masculinity be recognized. – Sam

Telling people how to do gender to them differed in queer spaces where some participants spoke of androgyny as a pre-requisite for being recognized as nonbinary.
Whenever someone says, non binary. The kind of default appearance of what they're thinking of is someone who's androgynous. – Cyan

People's perception of me now is like … Oh, they're so confident in their … you know, gender and they they they're so confident in their non binaryness because I'm more androgynous. But it's only when I'm under the conditions of wearing particular clothing and all this stuff that I actually feel fully accepted for being non-binary. – Joel, about the image they took of superimposed shirts (see Supplemental Materials ).

This androgynous dress code, which some participants also associated with “thinness and whiteness,” may be seen to reflect transnormative narratives present within queer communities that set out accepted ways of appearing nonbinary. While some participants experienced this as undermining their self-expression, others spoke of the benefits of adhering to the nonbinary androgynous dress code, such as being asked for their pronouns. Serving a similar function of signaling gender nonconformity and kinship with peers, participants mentioned other unspoken queer dress codes, such as bright clothing, blue hair, silver chains, metal hardware and carabiners.

Sub-theme 2.2. Dress to Disturb the Binary

Four participants spoke of strategies of dress that attempted to confuse, rather than direct the onlookers’ perceptions. This was paired with a sense of powerlessness to shift larger cis- and transnormative narratives – and a redirection of intention to find a way out from them.
If I can't not be gendered, then I would like to just kind of dump all the paints into one pot and be confusing (…) if I have sown confusion in some way, I've won. – Taylor

Ultimately, we don't have any control over the the social codes. – I don't think – of femininity and masculinity. But that how you curate that confusion is really interesting to me, because that's something that I really consider. – Kai, responding to Taylor

Disrupting cisnormative setups, this strategy may be seen as a response to the frustration described earlier of always being perceived and categorized as one gender or another. Participants’ aim here was not to be recognized for who they were – a goal that seemed illusory – but merely to at least not be gendered according to their gender assignment at birth. As an example, Joel shared childhood memories of feeling “immense happiness where anytime people couldn't tell what gender” they were. Echoing a similar joy derived from gender ambiguity, one of Panda's photovoice pictures depicted herself, nude, holding her hands over her genitals:
In this particular picture I think it's like a nonbinary persona of neither male, neither female. Something in the middle (…) It just feels like a big question mark, and I feel comfortable with that. – Panda

Sub-theme 2.3.: Dress for Safety

Underpinning dress strategies were considerations of physical and psychological safety. Safety was reached through different ways: for some, it meant blending in by performing cisness, while one participant spoke of employing aposematism, or “the poison frog approach” whereby they would signal by wearing bright, nonconforming clothes that they were not to be messed with. Participants spoke explicitly of having to adjust their dress in situations where they could be subject to transphobia; some shared experiences of having been assaulted due to their gender-nonconforming appearance.
I don't know whether this is going to be a safe space. I don't know what to expect. I have to camouflage. I have to mask up, but that … doing that feels like a betrayal of self. So what can I do to …what can I wear that feels slightly …. that meets both of those needs? You know the need to be safe. The need to kind of go into a new situation and gather information before making a choice about presentation. – Taylor

Within this context, dress also served to gauge risk in new environments, whereby positive feedback on gender non-conforming items could lead way to coming out. However, much like the first strategy, participants described it as coming at the cost of self-expression and authenticity.

Participants also spoke of the psychological pain they felt when they were misperceived. For some, being misgendered or misperceived time and again, despite their efforts to convey their identity through dress, “felt like failure” or “like falling off a cliff.” For others, it was simply unsafe and led to a withdrawal from wanting to dress for self-expression.
I don’t have the time to like match up to somebody else's definition of queerness.

(…)I enjoy wearing dresses and skirts and things like that (…) but if I don't go the extra yard makeup wigs that kind of thing then yeah, it, it just doesn't kind of fit. Even if I'm comfortable. It doesn't fit with other people. And that can sometimes make me uncomfortable in return. And then I just don't want to do it anymore. And I just want to go back to like here where I'm safe. – Cyan

In summary, participants spoke of conscious dress strategies to shift, disturb or minimize the way others perceived them. In some instances, this meant dressing in a way that guided how others perceived their gender by adopting cisnormative garments or by aligning with transnormative ideas of nonbinary androgyny. In other cases, participants tried to confuse, by breaking with all cis- and transnormative narratives and dumping “all the paints into one pot.” Finally, physical and psychological safety was a key consideration in dress strategy – and one that led to a withdrawal from self-expression for some.

Theme 3: “Curating that Confusion:” Identity Development Through Dress Strategies

Participants reflected on how dress strategies shifted their own self-perception and identity. They described a self-reinforcing cycle in which “dressing up as something” enabled them to gauge others’ perceptions of that version of themselves, informing in return their own gender identity. Describing dress as “cosplay,” Taylor spoke of how mirroring and positive affirmation in queer community spaces fueled this process.
[In queer spaces] I don't have to be like, “Hey, look, I'm wearing men's trousers,” or you know, “yeah, my docs are bright green” (…) even if someone doesn't understand the exact message they know that I'm sending a message (…) we're all kind of co-creating who we are through that bouncing off – Taylor

Other participants, like Joel who based one of their photos on this experience (see Supplemental Materials), found queer and kink spaces helpful in this process, as it allowed them to be correctly perceived in dress that felt like “a true expression” of themselves and to be read and validated as trans. This in turn strengthened their understanding of themselves.

For others, encountering transnormative narratives of nonbinaryness in queer spaces set them back, forcing them to live up to a dress code. A frustration over having to explain one's appearance, dress and identity was shared amongst participants–an experience described as “making things feel heavy.” While transnormative dress codes provided an initial ground for experimenting and signaling belonging, they proved to lead back to feeling unseen and misperceived for some. Rejecting them, therefore, was an intuitive response for some.
The idea that, like looking more androgynous is the thing that signifies my comfort in my gender when actually like it takes, like the most confidence in my gender to … wear something that seems congruent with my gender assigned at birth, cause that's when I have to have like that really strong grasp on like … I'm still me, I'm still a nonbinary person. – Sam

Echoing the freeing sense of breaking away from transnormativity, most participants spoke of wanting to be perceived as “just a person,” free of labels, “in flux,” always and ever changing. Dress helped participants establish the fluidity they desired. For instance, Kai's photo (see Supplemental Materials) juxtaposed hyperfeminine lingerie with a chest binder, evoking transmasculinity. Kai spoke of these two accessories helping them seamlessly shift from one to the other end of the feminine-masculine spectrum. They felt the garments helped them they “curate that confusion:” settling in neither the feminine, nor the masculine position. Others, like Panda, spoke of the freedom of experimentation dress brought them.
It's also finding how you feel comfortable in yourself like if you enjoy wearing dresses, if you enjoy wearing trousers just allowing yourself to explore your own journey is so important (…) you're nurturing your future and what you do now is like the building blocks for that. – Panda

In summary, participants spoke of the way in which deploying dress strategies strengthened their understanding of themselves: for some, this process was enabled by stepping into pre-carved identities and/or positive affirmation from queer spaces, while others came closer to themselves through rejecting transnormative dress codes. A desire for breaking with cis- and transnormative dress codes was shared by many participants who spoke of wanting to be perceived as “just a person.”

Tying together the themes that emerged from data analysis, the following was found: A sense of disconnect between self- and social perception (Theme 1) led to a desire to employ strategies of dress serving to increase legibility, disturb binary norms and/or obtain safety (Theme 2). When these were dictated by unchallenged cis- and/or transnormativity, participants found themselves once again erased, while negotiating with or rejecting these norms led to freer and more congruent self-expression, informing participants’ identity development in turn (Theme 3). These connections are illustrated in Figure 1.

Discussion and Conclusions

The present study consulted 10 nonbinary people on their dress strategies and identity development and identified three interconnected themes. The themes were the following: (1) You’re constantly struggling to be seen”: disconnect between self- and social perception; (2) Strategies of dress; (3) “Curating that confusion”: identity development through dress strategies. The links between the themes are presented at the end of the Results section, with Figure 1 providing a visual illustration.

Disconnect Between Self- and Social Perception

Study participants reported a sense of disconnect between their own self-perception and the cisnormative binary way in which they were perceived in society, including in some queer spaces. Being boxed into either the “male” or “female” category left some participants feeling erased. This reflects prior findings of Osborn (2022) who identified that most of their nonbinary participants were resigned to the idea that they would not be recognized as nonbinary in most spaces, causing them considerable anxiety about how best to communicate their identities. Prior literature confirms that misgendering and gender policing is also – albeit less – present in queer spaces (Osborn, 2022), where transnormative ideals influence trans and nonbinary gender performativity (Bradford & Syed, 2019; Johnson, 2016; Magyarlaki & Pipkin, 2024).

Compensating for this erasure, participants engaged consciously in dress strategies to shift, disturb or minimize the way they were perceived. This finding can be linked to self-verification theory, which suggests that people prefer to be perceived in a way that is congruent with how they see themselves (Swann, 2012) and that inconsistencies, such as misgendering, may lead to categorization threat (Branscombe et al., 1999). Indeed, categorization threat has been shown to result in a decrease in wellbeing for trans people (Galupo et al., 2020), who may choose to cope with this by aligning their self-perception with social perception via dress strategies.

Dress Strategies and Cis- and Transnormative Master and Alternative Narratives

Master and alternative narratives were found to have considerable influence on nonbinary dress strategies. Three dress strategies were identified: dressing to direct other's perception of one's gender, dressing to disturb cisnormativity, and dressing to obtain safety.

The first strategy supports previous literature indicating that trans people invest significant conscious effort into creating dress that signals their gender identity (McGuire & Reilly, 2022; Reddy-Best et al., 2023). Engagement with cis- and transnormative master and alternative narratives is notable in this strategy, as participants negotiated with externally dictated norms in their effort to present a legible form of gender–a process that at times came at the cost of self-expression (Osborn, 2022). The transnormative alternative narrative of androgyny was mentioned by a number of participants, supporting previous literature (Magyarlaki & Pipkin, 2024; St Amant et al., 2024) pointing to its prevalence in queer circles. While androgyny was mentioned as a safety strategy in some previous studies (McGuire & Reilly, 2022), participants in this study spoke of androgyny as an enforced dress code to adhere to in exchange for acceptance both in cis-het and queer spaces. Other participants actively embraced transnormative alternative narratives, using them as tools to signal their queerness to their peers.

Participants did not always succeed in their first strategy, leading some of them to employ instead a strategy to “confuse.” This was paired with a sense of powerlessness to be recognized for who one really was and a simultaneous ambition to disturb cis- and transnormative narratives. This strategy resembles “genderfuck” as described by McGuire and Reilly (2022) and Beemyn (2015), a style deliberately aimed at violating gender norms. Genderfuck – also known as gender-bender or genderpunk -– is also used as an identity category under the LGBTQIA+ umbrella. It describes an identity that is based on resistance to gender norms (Elder, 2016) and demonstrates that appearance management plays a significant role in shaping one's identity.

Finally, participants mentioned a third strategy of seeking safety through dress. This supports previous literature indicating that nonbinary people often manage safety concerns (McGuire & Reilly, 2022), by conforming to normative gender presentations or by avoiding external gaze (Osborn, 2022). Adding to this, the study highlighted strategies of aposematism, “the poison frog approach,” used to indicate a disinterest in the male gaze. While prior literature speaks to needs of physical safety (McGuire & Reilly, 2022; Osborn, 2022), participants in this study highlighted a need for psychological safety, describing the pain of being misgendered and misperceived by not even trying to exert influence through dress.

The Impact of Dressing Strategies on Nonbinary Identity Development

All dress strategies were found to be influential on the identity formation of nonbinary participants. Participants described a self-reinforcing cycle in which “dressing up as something” enabled them to gauge others’ and their own perceptions of that version of themselves, informing in return their own gender identity. While prior literature has shown that gender non-conforming people compare themselves to either of the two normative genders and feel they fall short (Jones & Lim, 2022; Mizock & Hopwood, 2016), the cycle uncovered in this study offers a more fluid and positively valenced process by which nonbinary people could flexibly step in and out of different roles and versions of themselves through dress (McGuire & Reilly, 2022) and integrate these experiences into their identity development and consolidation. Cis- and transnormative narratives – when applied strictly – proved to block this process, while challenging and transgressing transnormativity unlocked possibilities of connecting with participants’ inner sense of gender and self. Given that this was described as a positive process, exploring how best to support nonbinary people to understand and challenge cis- and transnormativity may be a key task for clinicians working with this population in supporting their identity development and wellbeing.

Ultimately, the study showed that nonbinary people's dress strategies evolve directly in relation to and within the constraints of cis- and transnormative narratives. The impact of these narratives on identity development differed. While for some they offered useful schemas to signal their queer kinship, others experienced them as erasing and needed to break with them to reach congruent self-expression. Dress was used to mediate this negotiatory process.

Implications

Continued analysis of nonbinary identity development juxtaposed with dress may offer further learning as it highlights how this population negotiates self-actualization (Strübel & Goswami, 2022) in the face of cis- and transnormativity. Examining these processes through the Master Narrative Framework is highly recommended, as it uncovers the influence of societal and micro community processes in shaping minoritized identities. This approach offers a more nuanced perspective, away from the “wrong-body model” that is still too frequently employed to describe any and all trans experiences. In analyzing dress, scholars should embrace the plurality of strategies beyond that of doing “male” or “female” gender (Michelman & Kaiser, 2000) and beyond signaling class (Hester & Hehman, 2023) to encapsulate and further analyze dress intentions such as genderfuck or safety-seeking. Furthermore, the insights offered by this study on the connection between appearance management and dress for nonbinary people could inspire further investigation into the impact of these strategies on nonbinary mental health. While studies on binary trans people show that thin-ideal internalization for trans women and muscular-lean internalization for trans men is strongly linked to depression (Strübel et al., 2020), there is limited research on nonbinary body ideals and their relationship with well-being, warranting further research.

For practitioners supporting nonbinary individuals, exploring the presence, influence, and management of cis- and transnormative narratives could provide an important tool for deepening their client's self-understanding and supporting their individuation. Helping clients identify internalized social narratives and develop their own stance on them may be therapeutically beneficial, as identity development may become mired by master narratives and attempts to rally against them. Existing therapeutic frameworks do not necessarily attend to specifically nonbinary experiences (e.g., Trans-Affirmative Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, Austin & Craig, 2019). The present findings suggest that attending to nonbinary people's dress and self-presentation strategies, formed in response to cis- and transnormativity, may shed light on their identity development and have therapeutic benefits.

Finally, fashion retailers and parents, caretakers or guardians who dress nonbinary children should embrace the fluidity, joyous mixing and/or the refusal to stick to a particularly gendered wardrobe. In fact, going beyond the “blue for boys and pink for girls” paradigm may provide more authenticity for all, regardless of their gender.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the study design aimed for inclusivity, not offering compensation by researchers likely excluded individuals on lower incomes (Largent & Fernandez Lynch, 2017). Photovoice, while providing flexibility for self-expression, was a time-consuming and emotionally demanding process that some prospective participants could not complete due to time constraints or disabilities. The design incorporated two separate focus groups alongside two participants opting for individual interviews, and one responding via email. While this approach was intended to enhance inclusivity, it is a noted limitation as the data collection methods may have influenced the results. Future studies could replicate this approach by employing only individual interviews to explore whether (dis)similar themes emerge. In addition, while 30% of participants were People of Color (POC), the narratives and dress codes mentioned mainly concerned White-dominated spaces. Future studies could investigate how master- and alternative narratives and dress codes differ within London's queer communities in light of other aspects of intersectional identity, such as disability, class, immigration status, or age. Class may be a particularly salient identity marker to explore, given that experimenting with one's dress is conditional on purchasing power. Finally, social desirability bias might have influenced participants’ responses, as they may have adjusted their answers for their peers or the researcher – all in-group members – to gain validation. Using photovoice helped mitigate this by giving participants time to create their photos and narratives before group discussions. Future research could build on this by combining focus group discussions with follow-up individual interviews to further reduce social desirability bias and deepen the analysis.

As nonbinary people gain increased visibility, further research could trace how nonbinary representation grapples with the constraints of cisnormative fashion dictated by free market capitalism. Investigating this through self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) and the Compensatory Consumer Behaviour Model (Mandel et al., 2017) may offer novel insights into the connections between belonging and consumption.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 - Supplemental material for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development by Anna Peter Magyarlaki and Alastair Pipkin in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 - Supplemental material for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development by Anna Peter Magyarlaki and Alastair Pipkin in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 - Supplemental material for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development by Anna Peter Magyarlaki and Alastair Pipkin in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

Supplemental Material

sj-jpeg-4-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 - Supplemental material for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development

Supplemental material, sj-jpeg-4-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development by Anna Peter Magyarlaki and Alastair Pipkin in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

Supplemental Material

sj-jpeg-5-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 - Supplemental material for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development

Supplemental material, sj-jpeg-5-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development by Anna Peter Magyarlaki and Alastair Pipkin in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

Supplemental Material

sj-jpeg-6-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 - Supplemental material for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development

Supplemental material, sj-jpeg-6-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development by Anna Peter Magyarlaki and Alastair Pipkin in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

Supplemental Material

sj-jpg-7-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 - Supplemental material for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development

Supplemental material, sj-jpg-7-ctr-10.1177_0887302X251360329 for “Curating That Confusion”: Nonbinary Dress Strategies and Their Implications on Identity Development by Anna Peter Magyarlaki and Alastair Pipkin in Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

Theme	Sub-theme (i/a)
(1) “You’re constantly struggling to be seen”: disconnect between self- and social perception
(2) Strategies of dress	(2a) Dress to “tell other people how to do gender to me”
(2b) Dress to disturb the binary
(2c) Dress for safety
(3) “Curating that confusion:” identity development through dress strategies

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Anna Peter Magyarlaki

Alastair Pipkin

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Anna Peter Magyarlaki (they/them) Anna Peter is an LGBT Affirmative Counsellor,trainee Psychotherapist and mental health practitioner. They are trans and nonbinary. Their research interests include identity formation and trans issues.

Alastair Pipkin (he/him) Alastair Pipkin is a clinical psychologist and researcher who has worked therapeutically with trans and nonbinary people for a number of years,and has led a range of research projects exploring trans and nonbinary experiences and outcomes of therapeutic interventions.

References

Alok Vaid-Menon [@alokvmenon]. (n.d.). Profile page. Instagram. Retrieved January 4, 2025, from https://www.instagram.com/alokvmenon/?hl=fr

Austin

Craig

S. L.

(2019). Transgender affirmative cognitive-behavioral therapy. In Pachankis

J. E.

Safren

S. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of evidence-based mental health practice with sexual and gender minorities (pp. 74–96). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med-psych/9780190669300.003.0004

Barry

Drak

(2019). Intersectional interventions into queer and trans liberation: Youth resistance against right-wing populism through fashion hacking. Fashion Theory, 23(6), 679–709. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362704X.2019.1657260

Beemyn

B. G.

(2015). “Genderqueer.” GLBTQ: An encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer culture. http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/genderqueer_S.pdf

Bradford

N. J.

Syed

(2019). Transnormativity and transgender identity development: A master narrative approach. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 81(5–6), 306–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0992-7

Branscombe

N. R.

Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Blackwell Science.

Braun

Clarke

(2023). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, M. N. Coutanche, L. M. McMullen, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (2nd ed., pp. 65–81). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000319-004

Brisolara

(2014). Feminist theory: Its domains and applications. In S. Brisolara, D. Seigart, & S. SenGupta (Eds.), Feminist evaluation and research: Theory and practice (pp. 3–41). Guilford.

Butler

(2006). Gender trouble. Routledge.

10.

Eicher

J. B.

Roach-Higgins

M. E.

(1992). Definition and classification of dress: Implications for analysis of gender roles. In Barnes

Eicher

J. B.

(Eds.), Dress and gender: Making and meaning in cultural contexts (pp. 8–28). Berg.

11.

Elder

(2016). From Genderfuck to Nonbinary: Negotiating gender in performance [Master’s Thesis, Texas A&M University, OakTrust Texas A&M University]. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/items/a1a17b7f-e924-4e2c-a2b3-77ce3c225182

12.

Entwistle

(2015). The fashioned body: Fashion, dress and modern social theory (2nd ed.). Polity Press.

13.

Frith

Gleeson

(2004). Clothing and embodiment: Men managing body image and appearance. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.5.1.40

14.

Galupo

M. P.

Pulice-Farrow

Lindley

(2020). “Every time I get gendered male, I feel a pain in my chest”: Understanding the social context for gender dysphoria. Stigma and Health, 5(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000189

15.

Garrison

(2018). On the limits of “trans enough”: Authenticating trans identity narratives. Gender and Society, 32(5), 613–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243218780299

16.

Greene

(1974). Harmodius in exile in his bedroom with pipe and jewelry [Photograph]. Digital Transgender Archive, https://www.digitaltransgenderarchive.net/files/bn9996823 (accessed January 4 2025)

17.

Hester

Hehman

(2023). Dress is a fundamental component of person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(4), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683231157961

18.

Higgins

(1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect, Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340.

19.

Inderbinen

Schaefer

Schneeberger

Gaab

Garcia Nuñez

(2021). Relationship of internalized transnegativity and protective factors with depression, anxiety, non-suicidal self-injury and suicidal tendency in trans populations: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 636513. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.636513

20.

Johnson

A. H.

(2016). Transnormativity: A new concept and its validation through documentary film about transgender men. Sociological Inquiry, 86(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12127

21.

Jones

Lim

(2022). Journey to the self: In-depth case studies of trans men’s self-construction through body work and clothing. Fashion Theory – Journal of Dress Body and Culture, 26(7), 1035–1058. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362704X.2021.1974710

22.

Jones

Strübel

Lim

(2023). ‘I just want a shirt that will fit me!’: An inductive approach to understanding transgender consumers’ shopping experiences. Fashion, Style and Popular Culture, 10(1–2), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00143_1

23.

Kaiser

S. B.

Nagasawa

R. H.

Hutton

S. S.

(1995). Construction of an SI theory of fashion: Part 1. Ambivalence and change. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13(3), 172–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9501300304

24.

Largent

E. A.

Fernandez Lynch

(2017). Paying research participants: Regulatory uncertainty, conceptual confusion, and a path forward. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, 17(1), 61–141.

25.

Linander

Lundberg

Alm

(2024). The gender minority stress model and/or cisnormativity? The need for pluralistic theoretical perspectives in improving trans health and medicine. Social Science & Medicine, 351, 116957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116957

26.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Lynham

S. A.

Guba

E. G.

(2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, (#5 ed., pp. 108–150). Sage.

27.

Magyarlaki

A. P.

Pipkin

(2024). “I got given all these keys”: A photovoice study examining master and alternative narratives and nonbinary identity formation in London’s queer communities. International Journal of Transgender Health, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2024.2387631

28.

Mandel

Rucker

D. D.

Levav

Galinsky

A. D.

(2017). The Compensatory Consumer Behavior Model: How self‐discrepancies drive consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.05.003

29.

McGuire

J. K.

Reilly

(2022). Aesthetic identity development among trans adolescents and young adults. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 40(3), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X20975382

30.

McLean

K. C.

Shucard

Syed

(2017). Applying the master narrative framework to gender identity development in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 5(2), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696816656254

31.

McLean

K. C.

Syed

(2015). Personal, master, and alternative narratives: An integrative framework for understanding identity development in context. Human Development, 58(6), 318–349. https://doi.org/10.1159/000445817

32.

Michelman

Kaiser

(2000). Feminist issues in textiles and clothing research: Working through/with the contradictions. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18(3), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X0001800301

33.

Miller

J. F.

(2018). YouTube as a site of counternarratives to transnormativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(6), 815–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1484629

34.

Mizock

Hopwood

(2016). Conflation and interdependence in the intersection of gender and sexuality among transgender individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000157

35.

Osborn

(2022). “Nobody ever correctly recognises me”: Nonbinary presentation, visibility, and safety across contexts. In Segal

M. T.

Demos

(Eds.), Gender visibility and erasure (Advances in gender research, Vol. 33) (pp. 51–69). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-212620220000033011

36.

Pinna

(2020). Do gender identities of femininity and masculinity affect the intention to buy ethical products? Psychology & Marketing, 37(3), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21298

37.

Pollen

(2011). Performing spectacular girlhood: Mass-produced dressing-up costumes and the commodification of imagination. Textile History, 42(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1179/174329511X13123634653820

38.

Reddy-Best

K. L.

Reilly

Streck

Green

Morris

Doty

(2023). Chest-binding practices for trans and nonbinary individuals within different spatiotemporalities: Redefining the meanings of space, place, and time. Fashion Theory – Journal of Dress Body and Culture, 27(6), 833–860. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362704X.2023.2196761

39.

Rudd

Lennon

(2000). Body image and appearance-management behaviors in college women. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18(3), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X0001800304

40.

Schwab

J. R.

Stamper

A. J.

(2024). Flourishing in a binary world: The creation of transgender alternative narratives. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01475-0

41.

St Amant

Cai

Rider

N. G.

Lee

(2024). Nonbinary identity and pronoun use: A qualitative analysis, International Journal of Transgender Health, 1–15. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2024.2362916

42.

Strübel

Goswami

(2022). Clothing and self concept in cisgender and transgender individuals. Gender Issues, 39, 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09296-9

43.

Strübel

Sabik

Tylka

(2020). Body image and depressive symptoms among transgender and cisgender adults: Examining a model integrating the tripartite influence model and objectification theory. Body Image, 35, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.08.004

44.

Sutherland

D. K.

(2023). “Trans enough”: Examining the boundaries of transgender-identity membership. Social Problems, 70(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab031

45.

Swann

W. B.

Jr. (2012). Self-verification theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 23–42). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n27

46.

Thorne

Witcomb

G. L.

Nieder

Nixon

Yip

Arcelus

(2018). A comparison of mental health symptomatology and levels of social support in young treatment seeking transgender individuals who identify as binary and non-binary. International Journal of Transgenderism, 20(2–3), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1452660

47.

Von Busch

(2009). Engaged design and the practice of fashion hacking: The examples of Giana Gonzalez and Dale Sko. Fashion Practice, 1(2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.2752/175693809X469148

48.

West

Zimmerman

D. H.

(1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.86 MB

0.02 MB

0.19 MB

0.23 MB

0.14 MB

0.01 MB