The Complexity of Gender: It Is All That and More....In sum, It Is Complicated

• Published in: Sex roles Vol. 73; no. 11-12; p. 481
• Main Author: Keener, Emily
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer Nature B.V 01-12-2015
• Subjects: Definitions; Feminism; Gender identity; Identity; Individual Characteristics; Qualitative research; Research methodology; Researchers; Sex Role; Sex roles; Sexes; Social research; Sociological research; United States > US
• DOI: 10.1007/s11199-015-0542-5
• EISSN: 1573-2762
• ISSN: 0360-0025

This commentary responds to "Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity," where Wood and Eagly ( 2015 ) discussed two traditions of research on gender identity: gender self-categorization and gender-typed traits. This commentary replies, with a focus on research and theory from the U.S., by noting the importance of each approach, but more importantly, by noting the areas of gender identity not addressed by Wood and Eagly. Issues of complexity discussed include the multidimensional nature of gender, the limitations of the gender binary system, intersectionality, and the developmental context. Also, this commentary provides advice for incorporating the developmental context in research on gender identity. The commentary concludes by discussing the usefulness of qualitative research methodologies for incorporating other complexities in research, but also notes the need for innovation in methodology to better reflect the complex nature of gender in research.