The gender of the user matters. Period.

Introduction

“When it comes to diversity, our good intentions are only the beginning.” — Bethaney Wilkinson, Creator of the Diversity Gap

I am proud and excited that we are at a point in time where gender identity is being discussed at the forefront of the design community. With an ever-growing emphasis on inclusive and ethical design, it is imperative that designers consider the needs and challenges of the LGBTQ+ community when building products.

That being said, when disseminating articles to mass audiences, it is essential that we are painting a holistic solution that understands the nuances of the LGBTQ community, as well as opens the floor to further dialogue.

I want to preface with the fact that I am glad the UX Collective published this article and recognized gender as such an important design topic that it made the top 100 lessons for 2021; The article addresses many salient points including how far too often products incorrectly prioritize gender and use that metric as a means to stereotype their consumers. I applaud the author and UX Collective for bringing this to light and reminding designers that we must be cognizant of how and why we are asking for gender in our interfaces.

However, what makes me nervous about this article is that it offers an incomplete solution and presents behavior-based interfaces as the holy grail of how we should treat gender identity. While yes, there are many products where gender is not essential, to assume that “99% of the applications (medical purposes excluded) are not rigorously oriented towards one or the other sex as opposed biological organisms” and that “the only thing that matters in data collection is behavior” is an incredibly damaging assumption with no basis or perspective from the community actually affected.

So let’s continue that dialogue here and expand upon their solution rather than limit our discussion on gender to the idea that “it doesn’t matter”.

TLDR;

While I will go into detail about why ignoring gender identity in design is problematic, at a high level, the reason why ignoring gender is harmful is because when we ignore gender-based differences we deny the systematic oppression that gender-diverse individuals face.

Unfortunately, in the United States, not all genders are treated equally. It is codified in our laws that transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals do not have the same assurances in terms of rights, safety, and freedom of movement. Trans people are four times more likely to live in poverty, are twice as likely to face unemployment compared to the general population, and in a study conducted by GLAAD, 41% of Transgender individuals reported attempting suicide compared to the national average of 1.6%.

So in short, yes, the gender of the user does matter because if it didn’t matter then transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals would have the same rights and assurances as cis-gendered individuals. While in some use cases gender is not always necessary when we erase their identity from all of our interfaces we are ignoring the oppression and lived experiences that these individuals face. The way to elevate gender-diverse identities is to keep this conversation at forefront of our product teams and meticulously think about how, when, and why we are asking for gender, rather than assume it never matters.

Let’s take a look at some history

Marsha P Johnson (left) and Sylvia Rivera (right). (Netflix)

To understand gender identity in a contemporary design setting we must first reflect on the history of the LGBTQ+ community, specifically as it pertains to gender-diverse individuals.

Members of the LGBTQ community have a history of oppression and erasure from a majority heteronormative culture. While gender-diverse individuals have been documented since as early as 5000 B.C., their narratives have constantly been suppressed and erased from history.

From the 1800s where the U.K. and other European nations put up Criminal Law Acts to make all non-heterosexual behavior illegal, to the constant police harassment leading to the Compton and Stonewall riots, there has been a constant effort to suppress and harm gender-diverse individuals.

Even now, when nearly 1 in 6 members of Gen Z identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, governmental organizations are still trying to erase and suppress gender-diverse individuals. In fact, just recently the Trump Administration proposed a new and narrow definition of gender that would “essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans who have opted to recognize themselves — surgically or otherwise — as a gender other than the one they were born into” (New York Times).

So why is it that after an entire history of suppression and erasure, that we as predominately cis-gendered, straight designers are proposing the best solution for a community that we aren’t a part of and can’t even begin to fathom their lived experiences?

For us to assume that ignoring the identities of the LGBTQ+ community in our UIs is the best solution for the LGBTQ+ community, is to be complacent in the suppression of the identities that the LGBTQ+ community has fought so hard to have recognized.

This type of thinking, where we make assumptions on behalf of the people we design for, is a common problem I see in the design community where designers conflate empathy and humility. It is one thing to empathize and understand a community, but it’s another thing to know when you need to own up to gaps in knowledge and let the community speak for their needs themselves.

“Appreciate and amplify living expertise equally if not more so than expertise.” — Antoinette Carroll, Equity Designer & Founder of CRX Lab

We as designers boast about empathy, but in praxis, are often designing in ivory towers, far too concerned with our agile two weeks sprints, to actually engage with the community in need. To learn more on this, I would highly encourage designers to check out CRX Lab’s approach to community-centered equity design where they break down the difference between empathy and humility in design.

Now that we understand some of the historical contexts of gender identity as well as why we need to look to the community for answers rather than make assumptions for them, let’s dive into some communities where well-intentioned designers assume ignoring identities was the solution, but in reality, caused more harm. To do this, let’s first look at case studies in other minority groups who have faced similar struggles of systematic oppression as gender-diverse individuals.

Parallels to other marginalized communities

Image from Undark, The Invisible Women of Color written by Maggie Koerth-Baker

Women have had a long-standing history of having their identity overlooked by researchers and designers. From the websites we design to cars we engineer, the lack of data collected surrounding women, has made seemingly neutral products significantly more dangerous.

While there is currently recognition that women are underrepresented in the media and fields such as stem, it is the seemingly gender-neutral industries, where gender and biological sexual differences have been ignored, that actually causes some of the most damaging effects to women.

In the book, Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men, author Caroline Criado-Perez shares a peer-reviewed study of how women are 47 percent more likely to be seriously injured and 17 percent more likely to die than a man in a car crash. This is due to the fact that predominantly male designers thought sex-based differences didn’t matter in the creation of safety features in a car. By ignoring biological sexual differences and solely using behavior, car designs are naturally fitted to the average male build and didn’t account for the fact women are naturally lighter and have different pelvis sizes. A seemingly neutral industry, where biological differences were ignored, has now become a mechanism to harm women.

Caroline Criado Perez, winner of 2019 Royal Society Insight Investment Science Books Prize © Debbie Rowe

“This isn’t a conspiracy. This isn’t people wanting women to die. No one wants their mum to get into a car and be in much more danger than they are. So the only way I think you can really explain it is this incredibly pervasive cultural bias that we just don’t realize that we’re forgetting women. We just don’t notice it.” — Caroline Criado Perez in an interview with NPR

This same type of data underrepresentation for minority identities has also manifested itself in terms such as “color-blindness” as a means to uphold systemic racism. In the case of systemic racism, predominantly white individuals have posited an ideological theory of color blindness where the “best way to end discrimination is by treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity” (Williams, 2011).

“At face value, this belief appears to not only amounts to a dismissal of the lived experiences of people of color, but also suggests that racism does not exist so long as one ignores it.” — Fitchburg State University

In the context of an entire history of systematic oppression, there is no way to remove racial bias from products simply by just not naming it. The same goes for the history of gender-diverse individuals. Just because we chose not to ask for gender in our interfaces, doesn’t mean that they are still being harmed and suppressed by our products. In fact, by not naming it and not collecting the data, we are actively omitting our opportunity to ameliorate transphobic elements of our UIs. In order to understand the needs and struggles of a population, we first must gather data on that population.

Implications of Ignoring Gender Diversity in UX

Photo from Sharon McCutcheon

“A culture that readily asks or provides pronouns is one committed to reducing the risk of disrespect or embarrassment for both parties”.— Human Rights Foundation

As we have now seen with other marginalized communities, the well-intentioned omittance of identity does not always equate to the positive impact we expect it to have.

This especially reigns true for gender diversity.

In a study published in the National Institute of Health, PHD Medical Sociologist Taylor M Cruz, found that “ transgender and gender non-conforming Americans receive poorer medical care, partly because many large surveys failed to gather accurate data by masking differences between different consumer groups.”

By not taking the time to flesh out the best way to ask for gender, and omitting it from our UIs, we have created a system that undermines and masks the considerable differences between gender-diverse individuals. This, in turn, leads to higher rates of gender non-conforming individuals postponing primary care and upholds a system of oppression by not recognizing their identity has different needs than the ones of cis-gendered individuals.

This permeates even beyond the realm of social work or medical care but also affects the way gender non-conforming individuals perceive themselves. In studies conducted by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia as well as the Journal of Adolescent Health, researchers found that simply using someone’s preferred name in different contexts of their life can dramatically reduce their risk of suicidal behavior. This applies to our interfaces as well. Whether it be simply asking for pronouns on our social media profiles or having a section for a preferred name on job applications, there are ways we can positively affirm gender to support the mental health and wellbeing of gender-diverse individuals. When we affirm gender rather than ignore it we help to reduce the social burdens that many gender non-conforming individuals face when attempting to navigate a predominantly gender binary world.

Let’s also take a look at how solely using behavior as a metric for creating our “gender-inclusive” interfaces is also misleading and damaging to gender non-conforming individuals. To do this let’s take an industry where you would think asking for gender wouldn’t necessarily matter: retail.

For many transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals finding clothes that affirm their gender identity can be difficult. Many gender-diverse individuals will use baggy or oversized clothes to hide parts of their body that do not align with their gender identity. If we solely used behavior as a metric here, our assumption would be that this particular customer preferred baggy clothes or leisure clothes as their style. However, in reality, what the data is omitting, is that the actual reason they are picking baggy clothes is that they can’t find clothes that affirm their gender identity. To a clothing company, the data would indicate making more baggy or oversized outfits, rather than create a style that would actually affirm this particular individual's identity.

Another salient example of this is social media. Our digital identity and presence are an extension of who we are as a person. When our social media profiles, dating apps, or professional networks omit the opportunity to ask for our pronouns, we miss an opportunity to make someone feel included. As the Human Rights Campaign puts it, “the experience of being misgendered can be hurtful, angering, and even distracting. The experience of accidentally misgendering someone can be embarrassing for both parties, creating tension and leading to communication breakdowns across teams and with customers.” Simply asking for gender mitigates the awkward tension and harm it may cause for a gender-diverse individual.

Best Practices for designers thinking of using gender

Photo by Kelly Sikkema

Now that we understand why affirming gender is essential in creating more inclusive spaces for gender-diverse individuals, let’s look into how to actually go about asking for gender in our products.

The first thing we need to do when thinking about including gender in our interfaces is why we are asking for gender and what is the impact of asking for gender in that instance. This is an opportunity, to have an open dialogue with your team, bring gender-diverse perspectives into the conversation, and utilize secondary research. In some use cases, asking for gender isn’t always necessary, however, it is important that regardless of the use case we ask ourselves should we or should we not include this metric?

Once we have established that we want to ask for gender, the next step is how do we actually formulate that into our UIs. Fortunately for us, there is a plethora of research and information on exactly how to ask for gender identity in surveys or products.

The Williams Institute, the leading research center on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, has published an entire guide on best practices for asking about gender identity. This holistic guide goes through the various spaces where asking for gender may be pertinent and how to go about asking.

For many products the solution is as followed:

Current gender identity: How do you describe yourself? (check one)

• Female
• Transgender
• Do not identify as female, male, or transgender

While this is an ever-evolving space, this style serves to affirm identity while simultaneously gathering new data that could inform more inclusive product decisions later down the line. Note how, as with concepts from Hick’s Law, this survey style only has a few options. It includes all the essential categories without having to overwhelm gender-diverse individuals as well. Similar peer-reviewed studies have been conducted finding that overwhelming gender diverse individuals with too many options are also not the best solution.

An open dialogue with the UX and Queer community

Circling back to the initial article published in the UX Collective, I want to commemorate the author for bringing this subject to the forefront of the UX community. It has sparked new ideas, frameworks, and concepts for how we should consider gender identity. Just as this article served as a continuation of that dialogue, I implore other UX practitioners to continue this conversation and do their own research as well.

Photo from Charles Plant

I want to remind everyone that good UX, especially when considering marginalized identities, requires more than just empathy but also humility. It requires co-creation and the willingness of a designer to take a step back and let the community themselves guide the conversation versus our assumptions.

I also want to remind the UX community that a core foundation of our practice is responsible iteration (more on this in Ruha Benajmins Race After Technology). While we may not get it right the first time or even the second time, it is our drive toward creating a perfect solution that guides our work. I truly hope that this article isn’t the solution, but another evolution toward a better working solution.

Thank you for reading and I am excited to see the gender-affirming products the UX community is about to make.