Troubling genderS and consumer well‐being: Going across, between and beyond the binaries to gender/sex/ual and intersectional diversity

• Published date: 01 April 2024
• Author: Laurel Steinfield,Martina Hutton,Mohammed Cheded
• Date: 01 April 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12573

COMMENTARY

Troubling genderS and consumer well-being:

Going across, between and beyond the binaries

to gender/sex/ual and intersectional diversity

Laurel Steinfield

1

| Martina Hutton

2

| Mohammed Cheded

3

1

Ivey Business School, Western

University, London, Ontario, Canada

2

Royal Holloway, University of London,

Egham, Surrey, UK

3

Work, and Technology, Lancaster

University Management School, Bailrigg,

Lancaster, UK

Correspondence

Laurel Steinfield, Ivey Business School,

Western University, 1255 Western Rd,

London, ON, Canada.

Email: lsteinfield@ivey.ca

Abstract

In this editorial we outline why a call for more inclusive,

conscientious approaches to studying gender/sex/ual

diversity and intersectional identities is needed, and how

the articles in this special issue answered this call. We

summarize keytakeaways from a review of the literature,

noting significant under-representation of gender/sex/

ual diversity and intersectional social locations. We also

explore the history of the gender/sex binaries

(e.g., female/male;women/men; femininity/masculinity)

to help illuminate the premises upon which the popular

trend of studying gender/sex differences between men

and women and the invisibilities of gender/sex/ual

diverse people exist. We conclude with guidance on how

scholars and practitioners might engage in thinking,

doing, and connectingto move the conversation forward.

KEYWORDS

Gender, transgender, sex, sexuality, intersectionality,

institutional activism

1|INTRODUCTION: THE IMPORTANCE OF TROUBLING

GENDERS

Our call for this special issue was one that encourages scholars to trouble genderS. Troubling

genderS invites an expansion of the way we study gender so that our scholarship might reflect

Received: 25 February 2024 Accepted: 27 February 2024

DOI: 10.1111/joca.12573

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits

use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or

adaptations are made.

© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Consumer Affairs published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Council on Consumer

Interests.

J Consum Aff. 2024;58:3–53. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joca 3

lived realities. It calls for critical scholarship that seeks to disrupt, as well as explorative scholar-

ship that seeks to leverage and expand categorizations, going “across, between and beyond”the

binaries—e.g., male/female, men/women, masculinities/femininities, hetero/homo (Hines &

Sanger, 2010, p. 1). Troubling genderS encourages scholars to recognize the vast terrain of gen-

der diversity, and how gender diversity crosses over with sex and sexual diversity and inter-

secting social locations of difference to shape consumers' experiences of marketplace inequities,

interactions with other people, and perceptions of self. Troubling genderS asks scholars to

rethink how they measure, use, or capture gender/sex/ual diversity. In short, troubling genderS

takes us that next step in thinking through how gender matters.

The importance of our call—querying the ways genderS relate to consumer well-being—is

evident from the tumultuous years surrounding it. Our special issue unfolded during the global

pandemic. With hindsight, we know this pandemic amplified and heightened all existing ineq-

uities (Crockett & Grier, 2020; Maestripieri, 2021), affecting genders in different ways. More-

over, it illustrated how gender, sex and sexuality are bound up together in ways that cannot be

readily separated. Men's lives, because of biological, physiological and psychological elements

tied to sexed-bodies and gendered expectations (e.g., working in gender-stratified jobs of agricul-

ture and construction with little protection from exposure, cumulative lifetime effects of stress

and higher risk taking behaviors) were at heightened risk for comorbidities and mortality

(Danielsen et al., 2022). Gender/sex diverse people, such as those who are transgender, non-

binary, and/or intersexed, struggled with accessing gender affirming care and support, were dis-

proportionately affected by job losses, and experienced higher levels of mental distress (Salerno

et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). Women, particularly caregivers, faced—and continue to face—

lasting economic and health consequences as many left the labor market or downsized their

careers and faced increased levels of stress (Peck, 2021). Incidences of gender violence against

women increased under lockdown restrictions (Dlamini, 2021), and Covid-19 put those who

were pregnant at higher risks of severe illness (Smith et al., 2023). These experienced inequities

were magnified and compounded for those whose intersecting social identities and resulting

positionalities heightened disadvantages, vulnerabilities and unwellness (Maestripieri, 2021).

Covid made evident and exacerbated the multifaceted nature of gender/sex/ual inequities and

the ways they compound with other intersecting adversities.

Alongside this, our special issue is being published during times where moral panics and

sex panics (Herdt, 2009) related to reproductive rights (Fanning, 2023) and transgender people

(Miles, 2022; Nagourney & Peters, 2023) have become heightened and politicized in different

ways and in different countries. As others scholars note, throughout history and across coun-

tries, these gender/sex/ual dynamics have, at times, been perceived as natural (Allen, 1992;

Herdt, 1996; Stettner et al., 2017; Vincent & Manzano, 2017), and at other times, demonized

and policed in various ways, with intersectional social identities and positionalities affecting

experiences (Fausto-Sterling, 2008; Herdt, 1996,2009; Stettner et al., 2017). Today, as reproduc-

tive rights and gender/sex/ual fluidity become increasingly acknowledged and accepted in some

legal, medical, psychological, and media arenas, in large part due to the advocacy of affected

groups (Berer & Hoggart, 2019; Stryker, 2006), backlash politics abound (Alter & Zürn, 2020;

Elster, 2022; Pearce et al., 2020). The result has been repressive laws and bills (ACLU, 2023;

Bhandari, 2023; ILGA-Europe, 2023), restrictions to accessing critical healthcare needs

(e.g., reproductive care, gender affirming care) (Costa, 2023; Haines et al., 2023; HRC

Foundation, 2023; Steinfield et al., 2023), bans and invasive requirements in athletics for trans

people (Barry-Hinton, 2022), gender panics surrounding bathroom access (Schilt &

Westbrook, 2015), misrepresentations (Abbott, 2022), policing of education that restricts how

4COMMENTARY

teachers talk about gender (Burga, 2023; Mason & Hamilton, 2023), and the proliferation of

unsafe spaces (Fischer, 2019; ILGA-Europe, 2023; in this special issue see Duncan-Shepherd &

Hamilton, 2022; Hansman & Drenten, 2024, and the panel discussion with Bettany, Bur-

chiellaro, & Venkatraman). These conditions have detrimental impacts on well-being, which

are magnified for those who already face other disadvantages (e.g., lower socioeconomic power,

racial and/or disability biases, lack of citizenship status).

All of these conditions touch elements of consumers' lives and their experiences of the mar-

ketplace. They reaffirm the importance of recognizing the complexities of how gender, sex, and

sexuality interrelate and inform consumer well-being, intersecting with other markers of social

locations. Our philosophy has always been to shed light on the degree to which progress, stag-

nation, or regression has occurred in efforts to resolve gender/sex/ual-related inequities, to rec-

ognize the ways that gender/sex/ual inequities can be normalized in unrecognized ways

(e.g., familial practices), and to expand perceptions and correct misperception about the lives of

people who are often overlooked and misunderstood. In line with this, our goal was—and is—

to expand the discourse beyond the typical binary of White, Western, cisgendered, heterosexual

women and men to recognize GenderS and intersectional injustices.

Our focus on genderS thus acknowledges that all too often, the term “gender”becomes a

misnomer for “women”or the study of differences between men and women or masculinity

and femininity, largely based on Western consumers and contexts. Plausible variances in gender

and sex (e.g., agender, cis, genderqueer, gender nonconforming, intersex, non-binary,

pangender, polygender, trans, two-spirited, questioning), along with sexuality (e.g., bisexual,

heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, polysexual, queer) and degrees of attraction

(e.g., asexual, aromantic, demisexual, demiromantic, graysexual, grayromantic, allosexual, all-

oromantic) remain largely ignored as a cis-hetero-allo-normativity prevails. In short, cis-hetero-

allo-normativity creates a hierarchy that is evident in how it makes cis-hetero-allo-people the

unquestionable norm while denying or overlooking, vilifying, and/or casting as abnormal, devi-

ant, immoral or threatening those who are not cisgendered (those whose do not ascribe to being

trans, and whose self-identified gender identity aligns with that assigned at birth) (Lennon &

Mistler, 2014; Radi, 2019), heterosexual/heteroromantic (those who are sexually/romantically

attracted to people of an opposite/different gender or sex) (LGBTQ Center, 2021), and allo-

sexual and allo-romantic [people who do not identify as asexual/aromantic, rather they regu-

larly experience sexual and/or romantic attraction (Mollet, 2020), which often is presumed

when discussing sexual orientation or consumption (Elkanova & Steinfield, 2024)]. By recogniz-

ing cis-hetero-allo-normativity, our genderS perspective encourages scholars to make obvious

gender/sex/ual diversity (van Anders, 2022)—that is, how gender, sex, sexuality, and attraction

are intersecting, complex and dynamic, invoking identities, expressions and experiences outside

of, across and between the binaries.

This genderS perspective is largely missing despite the recent renaissance of gender-related

scholarship in marketing and consumer behavior literature, such as edited volumes

(Dobscha, 2019; Maclaran et al., 2022), and special issues in journals (Journal of Marketing

Management: Arsel et al., 2015; Dobscha & Ostberg, 2021; Prothero & Tadajewski, 2021;Con-

sumption, Markets & Culture: Tissier-Desbordes & Visconti, 2019;Journal of Macromarketing:

Gurrieri et al., 2020;Journal of Advertising Research: Ford, 2020; and Journal of the Association

for Consumer Research: Coleman et al., 2021). As we and others note, there is still a need to

interrogate genderS and to shed light on more invisible groups —intersex, genderqueer, gender

nonconforming, gender questioning, non-binary, trans, two-spirited, lesbians, bisexual, pansex-

uals, to name a few (Coffin et al., 2019; Steinfield, Littlefield, et al., 2019). There remains a need

COMMENTARY 5