Journal of Family Communication, 12: 75–92, 2012

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1526-7431 print / 1532-7698 online
DOI: 10.1080/15267431.2010.509283

Transitioning Meanings? Family Members’

Communicative Struggles Surrounding
Transgender Identity

Kristen Norwood
Office of the Vice President, Saint Louis University

With the growing number of transgender individuals coming forward, it is important that scholars
turn attention to the experiences of these identities and transitions for transgender persons and their
families. The present study used a relational dialectics approach to analyze communication of family
members (both transgender and not) about transgender identity and transition via online postings to
discussion forums. Results showed three sites of struggle present for family members and partners,
as well as transgender persons: Presence vs. Absence, Sameness vs. Difference, and Self vs. Other.
The presence-absence and sameness-difference struggles centered on family members’ and partners’
experiences with grief surrounding the transgender person’s transition process and the self-other
struggle was centered on the issue of support. The tensions illustrated in the data, and especially the
experience of loss, indicate that family members and spouses/partners of transgender persons may
struggle with meaning-making surrounding a transition in sex and/or gender identity. This struggle
over meaning suggests that sex and gender are fundamental to the ways in which we conceptualize
and interact with relational partners and that when they change, we may conceptualize and relate to
partners/relatives differently.

INTRODUCTION

Transgender (TG) and transsexual identities may not be as rare as once thought by the medical
community. New estimations have emerged to suggest greater prevalence of a variety of gender
identities. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) views transgender identity as a form
of Gender Identity Disorder (GID), defined as a “persistent desire to adopt the social role and
to acquire the physical appearance of the other sex” (American Psychiatric Association, 1994,
p. 532). Although some people who identify as transgender do not feel a persistent need to
make a physical transition to another sex category, many of those who identify as transgender
do make physical and/or social transitions. Such transitions may involve change either from one
sex category to another (e.g., male to female) or from one sex category to a more nuanced or
ambiguous gender identity (e.g., female to gender queer).

Correspondence should be addressed to Kristen Norwood, Office of the Vice President, Saint Louis University, 3733
West Pine Mall, 313 Xavier Hall, St. Louis, MO 63108. E-mail: [email protected]
76 NORWOOD

These transitions can include name and pronoun changes, changes in clothing choice, facial
and cranial hair, use of gestures and voice, surgery on genitals or secondary sex characteristics
(e.g., breasts) and many other communicative and physical alterations. Such transition changes
may constitute a change in the identity performance (Goffman, 1959), and so they may also
cause changes in a transgender person’s relationships, as identity and relationships go hand in
hand (Burkitt, 1991; Mead, 1934; Goffman, 1959).
In U.S. culture, relationships involving a transgender person are even more marginalized
than gay and lesbian relationships, both in lay recognition and scholarly research (Emerson &
Rosenfeld, 1996; Green, 2000; Hines, 2006). Because of this, we know little about the relational
challenges that TG individuals face. Existing research suggests that transgender identity and a
transition in sex or gender identity (or both) might affect the nature of close relationships in
profound ways. For example, families often experience feelings of loss or grief when a mem-
ber transitions (Emerson & Rosenfeld, 1996; Granucci Lesser, 1999; Gurvich, 1992; Peo, 1988).
It is important for communication scholars to explore the ways that both transgender persons
and relational partners of transgender persons talk about these experiences in order to discover
what sort of meanings are constructed for transition and the transitioning person that may be
connected to these feelings of grief or loss. Working from relational dialectics theory, this study
took the first step to identify points of struggle in the communication of transgender persons and
their families that might lead to an understanding of the renegotiation process and consequently,
the experience of loss.

GENDER AND SEX VARIATIONS

The terms “sex” and “gender” have been differentiated in scholarly literature so that sex is consid-
ered a biological category determined by a combination of anatomy, hormones, and chromosomal
makeup, and gender is considered a set of social expectations assigned to respective sex cate-
gories (Butler, 1990; Bell & Blaeuer, 2006; West & Zimmerman, 1987; Wood, 2006). Neither
sex nor gender can be easily separated from identity and one or both can be the substance of
transition for transgender persons. Although some might opt to transition physically and socially
to another sex category, there are others who transition only their gender expression. Both sex
and gender are integral to social identity performances (Wood, 2006) and therefore affect the
ways others perceive us.
There are several terms currently used to describe non-normative gender identities, such as
transvestite, transsexual, and transgender or trans-identified (Ellis & Eriksen, 2002; Gagne &
Tewksbury, 1996; Parlee, 1996). The term “transsexual” is usually reserved for individuals who
feel that the bodies they were born with are not reflective of their felt identities and may choose
sexual confirmation/reassignment surgery to bring into line their material bodies with their felt
identities (Ellis & Eriksen, 2002; Meyer-Bahlburg, 1994).
Currently, the DSM-IV estimates that 1 in 30,000 individuals identify as male to female trans-
sexual and 1 in 100,000 individuals identify as female to male transsexual (American Psychiatric
Association, 1994, p. 532). However, some scholars believe this to be an extreme underestima-
tion. More current statistics put forth by scholars outside of the medical field estimate that at least
1 in every 2,500 adult males in the United States has had sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) and
has become a postoperative woman (Olyslager & Conway, 2007). Even this does not take into
 FAMILY MEMBERS COMMUNICATING TRANSGENDER IDENTITY 77

account the number of female to male transsexuals, those who have not come forward for SRS,
or those who consider themselves transgender, but do not opt to transition through surgery.
The term “transgender” is often used as an umbrella term to incorporate the previously ref-
erenced identities as well as a variety of other gender-variant persons. Hines (2006) defines
transgender as referring to “individuals who have undergone hormone treatment or surgery to
reconstruct their bodies, or to those who transgress gender categories in ways which are less per-
manent” (p. 353). Not all persons who identify as transgender take steps to transition to another
sex category or even away from one, but many do choose to engage in identity transition of some
sort. Transition takes many forms, including but not limited to the steps mentioned above which
consist of both physical and communicative changes.
Although terms are often used in different and sometimes contradictory ways, the conceptual-
ization of “transgender” in the present study includes those persons who identify as transgender
or transsexual and have taken one or more steps to transition their sex and/or gender identity
(Meyer-Bahlburg, 1994). Throughout this article, I refer to transgender (TG) persons, since this
term denotes a kinship among those with gender variant identities (Parlee, 1996) and is most
reflective of the sample.
Most research focused on TG issues is clinical and informs about the nature of GID and
treatment options for those who are diagnosed. A more recent area called Transgender Studies
takes on many issues including TG identity and feminism, science and sex, gender identity,
passing, and materiality (for an informative look at these issues, see Stryker & Whittel, 2006).
Though much valuable work is being done to understand TG issues, more work is needed to
understand how relationships are impacted by a trans-identity and transition. Zamboni (2006)
argues that relational partners of a transitioning person may engage in a reconceptualization of
who that person is when transition changes occur.
Communication scholars seem particularly well situated to understand the relational impli-
cations of such reconceptualizations through studying the meaning-making processes that occur
when one relational partner transitions in gender/sex. If a profound reconceptualization of iden-
tity occurs due to a transition of sex and/or gender, then these aspects of identity must be integral
to the ways we understand others and therefore relate to them.

TRANSGENDER IDENTITY AND THE FAMILY

A small body of research exists concerning the relational challenges that ensue when a person
transitions. We know that narratives of transgender persons reveal feelings of isolation (Hines,
2006; Rubin, 2003). Many individuals lose relationships they had before they began to transition.
Transgender individuals may transition at any given time in the life course that could cause a
variety of complicated relational situations to arise including romantic and spousal relationship
issues, family of origin issues, and even parenting issues. Scholars maintain that stigma and
oppressive beliefs and attitudes surrounding the TG identities constrain not only TG individuals,
but also their families of origin and extended families (Connolly, 2006; Fields, 2001).
According to Connolly (2006), family reactions to TG (and GLB) disclosures are “rarely
neutral and typically have a wide range: positive and negative, static and erratic, with overt
and covert communication” (pp. 7–8). Although much research on GLBT disclosure focuses
on gay and lesbian identities, there is evidence to suggest that a disclosure of a TG identity
78 NORWOOD

may be an even harder pill for families to swallow. Israel (2006) suggests that a common
sentiment expressed to TG persons who come out to family is “Why can’t you just be
gay?” (p. 52).
The problematic nature of transgender identity for families may be a result of cultural con-
ceptions of gender, sex, and family identity. U.S. culture maintains deeply rooted ideas about sex
and gender, legitimizing only two sex categories and characterizing variants as abnormal (Butler,
2004). Social norms and expectations, including those pertaining to relationships and institu-
tional practices, are based on the assumption that sex is a dichotomous biological category.
Many family relationship labels are gendered, such as daughter, uncle, grandfather, or niece.
These relationship categories are strictly associated with one sex or another making it difficult
to imagine a man being called “aunt” or a woman being referred to as “father.” These labels
serve as indications that family relationships are steeped in assumptions of stable gender/sex
identities.
A disruption of this gendered family role system may compromise traditional notions of fam-
ily. Green (2000) suggests that once a person has disclosed a “deviant” sexual or gender identity
to family members, any continued family relations after that point are considered voluntary—this
implies that transgender identity could be a deal-breaker for family relationships. This runs con-
trary to our cultural conception of family as a system of nonvoluntary or obligatory relationships
(Segrin & Flora, 2005).
Of course, we cannot take this to mean that all relational partners of TG persons react nega-
tively. In fact, Israel (2006) states that particularly siblings of TG persons can sometimes become
their brother or sister’s “biggest cheerleader” helping him or her to adjust to a new gender role
(p. 56–57). As with disclosures of gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientations, family reactions
to TG disclosure can function to supplement or relieve stress for the TG person (Goldfried, 2001).
Although some families suffer from destructive conflict after similar identity disclosures, oth-
ers form more intimate bonds through support giving (Mallon, 1999). Whether the outcome
is positive or negative, relational changes seem likely. Beeler and DiProva (1999) and Connolly
(2006) suggest that the family begins a transition of its own after this kind of disclosure. Connolly
points to communicative redefinitions stating that “ . . . relational dynamics typically shift and
new patterns are established. Ways that families experience intimacy, distancing, and boundaries
may change” (2006, p. 13). If some sort of transition is also experienced by spouses/partners and
other family members, it is imperative to explore what about this particular change in identity
leads to a transition in meaning, and possibly relationships.
Some studies have examined the complexities faced by relational partners, post-disclosure
of trans-identity. Hines (2006) found relationships and transition sometimes incompatible:
“Findings show that the process of gender transition might initiate irreconcilable shifts in part-
nering roles, leading to relationship breakup” (p. 360). Hines also explored the concept of
transparenting, or parenting as a transgender person, as a very complex relational process. Trans-
parents may be problematic to our cultural ideas of parenthood—ideas that are stalwartly linked
to the binary of biological sex.
Other studies have focused on families’ experiences, revealing many negative responses that
result from a son’s or daughter’s disclosure and transition, including feelings of loss, grief, guilt,
shame, betrayal, anxiety, denial, anger, and depression (Emerson & Rosenfeld, 1996; Granucci
Lesser, 1999; Gurvich, 1992; and Peo, 1988). Research in counseling and therapy suggests that
the experience of grief is one of the main roadblocks to family support of a transgender person
 FAMILY MEMBERS COMMUNICATING TRANSGENDER IDENTITY 79

(Ellis & Eriksen, 2002; Emerson & Rosenfeld, 1996; Granucci Lesser, 1999). But, what is it
about a transition in sex/gender identity that incites feelings of loss and grief?.
During transition, the TG person often changes in material ways as described above. Further,
some TG persons may alter their communication patterns, both verbal and nonverbal, in order
to express the gender associated with a particular sex category (i.e., femininity or masculinity).
Some may adopt a new name and may prefer to be referred to by pronouns that coincide with
their transitioned identity.
These changes constitute a shift in the performed identity (Butler, 1990; Goffman, 1959;
West & Zimmerman, 1987) of the transgender person. This apparent shift might lead rela-
tional partners to perceive that the TG person has a different identity and therefore they may
conceptualize him or her as a different person, posttransition.
Relational partners could construct the meaning that a former identity of the transgender per-
son is gone, replaced by a new or different personal identity. So, even though no death or even
tangible loss of a person has occurred, family members may still feel grief, depending on how
they conceptualize personal identity in relation to transition. In this sense, it may not be clear
over what family members are grieving – the object of the loss maybe ambiguous.
Ambiguous loss is a term first used by Boss (1999) who aimed to capture the dynamics of
both psychological and physical presence-absence paradoxes. Boss (2007) describes physical
absence as paradoxically “leaving without goodbye” and psychological absence as paradoxically
“goodbye without leaving.” The former may be used to describe the experience of having a
missing family member without confirmation of death (e.g., missing soldier). The latter describes
reactions to a family member who is physically still present, but mentally deteriorated (e.g., in a
coma) or drastically changed in some way.
The feeling of ambiguous loss is a psychological phenomenon that may result from the expe-
rience of contradictory meanings. It seems that a person who experiences this psychological
paradox is likely struggling to make sense of and manage opposing meanings. In the case
of transgender identity, the struggle for meaning may be centered on personal identity (male
vs. female identity), familial roles (mother vs. father), nature of the relationship (husband and
wife vs. some other configuration), or all of these. Given that the previous research shows that
reconceptualization may happen for family members/partners of transitioning transgender indi-
viduals and that this reconceptualization may be connected to ambiguity in making meaning of
transgender identity and transition, Relational Dialectics Theory was used to ground the present
study.

THEORETICAL GROUNDING: RELATIONAL DIALECTICS THEORY

Relational Dialectics Theory (RDT) (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Baxter, 2006, 2011;
Montgomery & Baxter, 1998) is an interpretive theory that assumes “relating is a complex pro-
cess of meaning-making” (Baxter, 2006, p. 130). The theory is rooted in the work of Mikhail
Bakhtin, which centers on the struggle between competing meanings. It is in the interplay of
competing voices (i.e., meaning systems) that meaning is made for relationships (Baxter, 2001;
Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
Relational Dialectics Theory is an appropriate tool for exploring relationships in light
of transgender identity for three reasons: (1) transitions in sex and/or gender identity are
80 NORWOOD

likely to cause contradictions for family members in the ways they perceive their transgender
relatives/partners and perhaps the way they make meaning of their relationships with the
transitioning persons (e.g., a son becomes a daughter); (2) previous research suggests that dis-
closure of transgender identity and subsequent transition might function as an unexpected family
stressor that would likely manifest as struggle(s) in communication surrounding the stressor;
and (3) previous research shows that feelings of loss are experienced by families of those who
transition and this type of ambiguous loss seems to be linked to a struggle in meaning making.
Much of the research using RDT narrows the study of relational dialectics to examining three
basic dialectical tensions identified by Baxter and Montgomery (1996): openness-closedness,
novelty-predictability, and autonomy-connection. Baxter (2006) urged researchers not to take a
“cookie-cutter” approach in limiting study to these three tensions, but to consider the complexity
of these tensions, to allow for the surfacing of other possible sites of struggle, and to account for
the interconnectedness of existing tensions (p. 136). Some family communication researchers
have done just that and have applied RDT in interesting ways, uncovering multiple dialectical
tensions that exist for families in a variety of contexts.
Baxter, Braithwaite, Bryant, and Wagner (2004) examined communication of stepchildren
about their stepparents finding competing discourses of parenthood, among others. Later,
Braithwaite and Baxter (2006) identified dialectical tensions present in perceptions of communi-
cation between step-children and nonresidential parents. They identified two main contradictions:
Parenting-Nonparenting, and Openness-Closedness. Other researchers have examined dialectical
tensions present in family experiences such as adoption (Krusiewicz & Wood, 2001), child abuse
(Ford, Ray, & Ellis, 1999), and loss of a child (Toller, 2005).
Particularly relevant to the current study is research focused on contradictions surround-
ing family stressors, specifically grief and loss. Baxter, Braithwaite, Golish, and Olson (2002)
examined the contradictions experienced by wives who were coping with their husbands’ adult
dementia. They identified a complex series of strugggles where wives experienced interwo-
ven dialectics of Presence-Absence, Certainty-Uncertainty, Openness-Closedness, and Past-
Present.
The presence-absence dialectic refers to what has been termed by other scholars as “married-
widowhood” (Rollins, Waterman, & Esmay, 1985, p. 68), which is characterized by the feelings
of spousal loss, but continuing responsibilities to a marital relationship. Wives engaged in “pre-
grieving” for their spouses who were still alive, and were unsure of how to negotiate identities
between the roles of married and widowed (Baxter et al., 2002; Rollins et al., 1985). This
presence-absence dialectic seems to be linked to the psychological experience mentioned earlier,
ambiguous loss. Golish and Powell (2003) found that parents of premature infants experienced
the birth of their child as an ambiguous loss, where parents mourned the loss of a ‘normal’ birth,
but celebrated the birth of their child.
Similar competing meanings might exist for family members and partners who experience the
changing identities of their transgender relatives and partners. As a first step to understanding the
ways meaning is constructed surrounding this phenomenon, the following research question was
posed:

RQ1: What (if any) sites of struggle characterize the online communication of family members
surrounding transgender identity and transgender transition?
 FAMILY MEMBERS COMMUNICATING TRANSGENDER IDENTITY 81

METHODOLOGY

Data were obtained from online postings to transgender support discussion forums posted by
transgender persons and those who consider themselves spouses/partners and family members
of transgender persons. These data were analyzed using interpretive, qualitative analysis. For an
exploratory study, online data provided an ideal tool for “listening in” on naturally occurring
communication of transgender persons and family of transgender persons. According to Bowker
and Tuffin (2004) “the online medium can be conceptualized as a legitimate research tool for
gathering data about of how people operate in the social world” (p. 229).
Two websites were used for data collection: Susan’s Place (www.susans.org) and Laura’s
Playground (www.lauras-playground.com). The purpose of these websites is to provide infor-
mation, support, and suicide prevention for transsexuals, crossdressers, androgynes, the inter-
sexed, and their families. Costigan (1999) argued that online sites, such as those with
bulletin boards and message forums, foster communities between geographically distant and
socially diverse individuals creating opportunities for alternative subjectivities to arise and gain
voice.
Certainly, websites like these provide a unique opportunity for researchers to analyze commu-
nication of members of a population that may be otherwise difficult to reach. On both websites,
members create usernames that ensure as much or as little anonymity as desired. Permission to
analyze messages was granted by the webmasters of each website, given that their members’
identities would remain anonymous and their messages be respected. Each site’s forums were
organized in a topic tree format where an individual posts a new topic (question, comment,
story, solicitation of advice, etc.) within a particular subject forum, and others post replies in a
“topic thread” fashion. For the remainder of this article, the term “poster” will be used instead of
“participant” to reference the individuals whose messages were utilized as data.

Data Collection

For each site, all topic threads posted under subjects that mentioned family, relationships, or sup-
port, such as family/significant other support before October 1, 2007 were counted and analyzed
as data. Additionally, a search was conducted for any topic threads concerning family issues that
were discussed under other forum headings, e.g., transgender talk. Each topic thread featured a
posting with some number of replies (some posted by the original poster in response to others’
replies). Topic threads were copied, pasted, and exported into a word document. The final data
document was 127 pages with 140 distinct posts (single messages) by approximately 63 dis-
tinct posters (the number of posters was determined by counting separate screen names, but it is
possible that the same person could have more than one screen name).
The transgender identity of the poster and/or the relationship to the transgender person was
determined through the contents of the postings. The majority of the posters indicated that
they were TG individuals and spouses or partners of transgender persons, followed by those
who indicated they were siblings of transgender persons. There were fewer posts by parents of
TG individuals and none by children of TG persons. Approximately 38% of posts referenced
spousal or committed romantic partnerships, approximately 21% of posts referenced a sibling
relationship, approximately 20% referenced a parent/child relationship, and approximately 7%
82 NORWOOD

referenced family relationships, more generally. (The remaining posts were posted by TG persons
or family members in response to other posts, but veered from the topic of relationships).
Even though messages can be seen by those who sign up for a screen name and password,
every effort was made to protect the identity of the posters. For the sake of anonymity, contents
of posts were separated from the screen name of the individual who posted the message before
data were read or analyzed. Before analysis, any names mentioned within the body of a post were
replaced with pseudonyms.

Data Analysis

Analysis occurred in multiple stages. In stage one, all data were read multiple times before any
categories or themes were identified. After the third reading, I felt familiar enough with the post-
ings to begin the process of coding. In all subsequent stages, inductive analytic coding (Lindlof &
Taylor, 2002) was used to identify major themes in message postings. In addition to inductive
coding, there was an element of deductive coding in that I was primed by previous research to
look for any talk about grief and loss that might be characterized by contradictions of meaning.
Themes were identified and refined using constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin,
1990). In stage two, postings were flagged for potential contradictions any time the talk reflected
opposing viewpoints or counterpoints (e.g., I want to do A, but I feel I should do B), which were
often marked by words like but, although, even though, on the other hand, and however. In stage
three, flagged postings were analyzed for possible groupings and category formulations. For
example, if a post referred to feelings of loss and acknowledged that the transgender person was
still present, or described the transgender person as “gone,” but “still here,” or when transition
was described as a “living death,” these postings were grouped together in a thematic category.
Each datum was compared to prior data for similarity and difference. If a contradiction in
meaning was apparent that was different from any previous categories, a new thematic category
was formed. In the fourth stage, categories were reviewed to verify coherence and to identify
the broader contradiction in meaning that characterized the themes as sites of struggle. The sites
were then named for the opposing strands of meaning they contained (e.g., Presence-Absence).
Data were analyzed until the point of theoretical saturation, where it was judged that no
new thematic categories were present in the postings (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Saturation was
reached after analyzing the 76th posting gathered, but I continued to collect and analyze relevant
postings in an effort to verify that the interpretation of first 76 postings rang true for the entire
data set, as well as to extract the best possible exemplars to represent thematic categories.
Exemplars were chosen based on the criteria that they were clear and concise examples of the
kind of talk that constituted each struggle. No effort was made to ensure exemplars came from
different posters, as again, the screen names were separated from the content of the data before
analysis.

RESULTS

The research question asked: What (if any) sites of struggle characterize the online communi-
cation of family members surrounding transgender identity and transgender transition? Postings
 FAMILY MEMBERS COMMUNICATING TRANSGENDER IDENTITY 83

rendered three sites of dialectical struggle: Presence vs. Absence, Sameness vs. Difference, and
Self vs. Other. In what follows, each site of struggle is illustrated with exemplar quotes. In an
effort to preserve the actual communication of posters, no edits were made. These exemplars
give insight into the contradictions that surfaced in the communication of the individuals who
posted to these websites. Many postings by those in romantic relationships with a transgender
individual indicated that they were married to the transgender person, but others were less clear.
To respect all committed, romantic partnerships, the term partner is used. As indicated earlier,
pseudonyms are used to refer to the posters.

Presence vs. Absence

One dialectical struggle prevalent in postings by partners, parents, and siblings concerned the
presence and absence of the transgender person. Family members talked of grieving the loss of
their children, siblings, or partners who were not actually gone. This grief was cited as occurring
when their transgender relative/partner transitioned, constructing a sense of loss surrounding the
person’s former identity. Relational partners likened the loss to the experience of the death of a
family member, and sometimes cited their grief as standing in the way of their support for their
TG relative/partner. Below, Judith’s and then Amanda’s posts illustrate this struggle. They both
described the feeling of loss surrounding their partners’ transitions:

Judith: there is a very real sense of loss . . . losing your husband, your family life and dynamic.
Amanda: i understand what you mean by “him dying”, i sort of went through the same thing with
Isabella and her other persona. i was afraid of what i would lose when the old persona was
gone.

The struggle for meaning here occurs around conceptualization of the transgender family
members/partners. The persons being spoken of are not dead but have transitioned their identities
by way of sex and/or gender. Both quotes illustrate that transition can bring dramatic changes to
the lives of family members of TG persons. Judith constructs her experience as one of grief by
claiming that there is indeed a “real sense of loss.” By making the claim that the sense of loss
is real, Judith’s talk recognizes that others may not validate her experience as one of mourning,
because her TG partner is actually still alive. But this statement, along with the phrase “losing
your husband,” shows that the meaning she constructs for her partner’s transition is similar to
death.
The second quote also shows the construction of transition as death. Amanda talks about
her TG partner as having two identities, and references the experience of one persona “being
gone” and the other replacing it. She likens this replacement to “him dying” indicating that she
struggles between her feeling that she has lost her partner (old identity) and the recognition that
her partner (new identity) is present in her life. Just as partners struggled with the presence and
absence of their significant others, siblings struggled with grieving the loss of their brothers or
sisters. Helen’s post illustrates this well.

Helen: I recently lost my only other brother to cancer, and feel as if I am losing my other brother. I
cannot think of him as a sister.
84 NORWOOD

Helen’s talk constructs transition as a sort of death when she says that she feels she is “losing”
her brother. She even references the death of another brother indicating that she experiences
transition in a similar way. However, at the same time, Helen recognizes that her transitioning
sibling is not actually gone, but is in another gendered (and possibly sexed) form when she
says she cannot think of him as “a sister.” Helen’s talk also indicates struggle when she uses
the masculine pronoun “him” and the feminine kinship term “sister” in the same sentence. Her
talk constructs the concepts of male and female as opposing meanings when she implies that
“brother” and “sister” are incompatible, and cannot be used to describe one person. This suggests
that the struggle some family members experience in response to transition is likely rooted in
constructions of sex and gender in relation to personal identity.
For parents of (adult) TG children, the presence-absence[ contradiction seemed to be quite
salient. However, this sentiment from parents was expressed through the postings of sons or
daughters. TG posters described their parents’ struggle between grieving the loss of the child they
raised and accepting the person their child became or will become through transition. Jamie’s
post about her father’s reaction demonstrates this well:

Jamie: He took it very well and said this to me: I will still love you with all my unconditinal [sic]
love knowing with all my support knowing I will lose my son to become my daughter.

Although reported by their TG sons and daughters, comments like this showed the reactions
experienced by some parents. This quote illustrates that even though the parent recognized that
the child would still be present (though with a changed identity) the transition is described as the
loss of a son. It seems especially relevant that the father refers to losing “a son” and gaining “a
daughter,” instead of simply losing “a child.” This implies that what is being lost is a gendered
identity and that sex and gender are perhaps so integral to personal identity that a change in
one or both of them causes family members to feel that the person has fundamentally changed.
This fundamental change in the self, connected to sex/gender identity, is tied to the next site of
struggle which concerns sameness and difference of transgender persons and their relationships
to others.

Sameness vs. Difference

A second site of struggle that characterized the communication of posters concerned the issue
of sameness and difference. This struggle for meaning was related to two issues: sameness-
difference of the transgender person throughout the transition process and sameness-difference of
the relationship between a transgender person and his or her partner. The first of these, continuity
of identity, is connected to the experience of the transgender person as both present and absent.
It seems logical that if the transgender person is conceptualized as the same person even after
transition, then family members will experience that person as still present.
However, if the transgender person is conceptualized as a different person due to transition,
then family members will experience the absence of the pre-transition identity. Family members
as well as the TG persons struggled in their talk with whether the TG person was the same
or different after transitioning. This struggle surfaced in talk of sibling, partner, and parental
relationships, but was constructed slightly differently by TG persons and other family members.
 FAMILY MEMBERS COMMUNICATING TRANSGENDER IDENTITY 85

Transgender posters’ talk constructed a contradiction between what they described as a “true
self” (referring to the sex/gender they are transitioning or have transitioned to) and the self
they presented before transitioning. Some described a change in self via transition while others
claimed the self had been stable throughout the process. Transgender persons discussed difficulty
in trying to make parents and siblings understand the difference and sometimes the continuity
between the selves. Below, Jesse’s and Penny’s posts show how some transgender posters con-
structed who they were on the “inside” as their “true” selves - different from how their families
identified them:

Jesse: When I tell Mum should I dress as Owen or more like as I do most of the time or should I
wear what I really want to wear? . . . I have read how people come out to their familiy [sic]
and friends by showing them who they really are.
Penny: i know who i am and how i feel and i do hope they can eventually accept me for that person
and realize[sic] that its[sic] me theyve [sic] always known underneath im[sic] just being my
true self on the outside.

Transitioning persons discussed their fears that their relatives and partners would not be able
to comprehend the nature of what they talked about as the “true self” versus the self they had been
presenting up to the point of transition. Often, postings from transgender people revealed a strug-
gle to explain to parents and siblings that they are both the same and different after transition,
through a separation of physicality and personality. Jackson’s post illustrates this well:

Jackson: i told them i am still the person theyve [sic] always known on the inside, i may just look
different eventually on the outside.

As this quote demonstrates, some TG persons describe themselves (and other TG persons) as
changing only in outward appearance, constructing the “inner self” as constant through transition.
Other times TG posters described transition as a move from one identity to another. Kyle’s and
Ashley’s quotes show this different construction of identity:

Kyle: speaking from the transgender side of the issue, it would help if you simply sat down with
your new sister and simply got to know her as she is now and not as you remember her as
him.
Ashley: but if you truely [sic] love your sibling, and wish her the best, then getting to know her and
understand her as she is, not as she represented herself in the past, is truely [sic] important
to the both of you.

Drawing from these quotes, it seems that some TG persons sometimes conceptualize the transi-
tioned self as different – as changed not only in physical ways, but also in spirit or personality.
Partners’ postings also showed a struggle in conceptualizing the TG person as either the same or
different, or both. Jane questioned how well she knew her partner:

Pam: what I went through in the beginning in particular, the sense of having one’s basic sense of
reality uprooted. (I know the sun will rise tomorrow, I know there will be death and taxes, and
I certainly know him and who I am with him. Wait. . . . . . I don’t know “him” and apparently
never did . . . do I know anything. . . .?) [quotation marks in original].
86 NORWOOD

This construction of knowing and not knowing her TG spouse may be connected to the
Presence-Absence dialectic in that partners construct the meaning of transition as a falling away
of an identity/person they knew (and over which they might grieve) and the creation of a new
identity, with which they are not familiar. The connection between change in sex/gender identity
and change in self seems to be a strong one.
The second struggle of sameness and difference concerned the nature of relationships between
partners during and after transition. Transgender posters and partners of transgender persons
talked about their relationships as both the same as in the past (i.e., quantitatively existing
between the same two people), and also different (qualitatively, in modes of relating), posttran-
sition. Partners described being pulled back and forth between the relational frame of “partners”
and the relational frame of “friends” by way of physical intimacy and emotional intimacy, while
they questioned which to privilege in their relationships or how to still privilege both given the
change in one person’s sex/gender. Rose’s post captured this struggle well:

Rose: We have been married for 38 years and we are very good friends. I still love her and she has
said the same to me. We are not intimate as she says that she is not a lesbian.

It seems that transition changes some partnerships in monumental ways. Many partners
communicated a desire for both kinds of intimacy, but indicated that relational expectations con-
strained them in experiencing both. The fact that the two relational frames, friend and partner, and
the two types of intimacy, emotional and physical, are constructed as competing is undoubtedly
tied up with complexities of sexual orientation, which seemed to leave partners either struggling
to reconcile these intimacies in their current relationship, or to make a choice between privileging
their emotional relationship together or their sexual desires apart. Opal’s post shows the struggle
of intimacy brought about by complications of sexual orientation:

Opal: i knew that i loved Penelope and didn’t love anyone else and didn’t want to love anyone else.
i also am not gay. and at first i didn’t know how i was going to feel about being married to a
female, but at my age sex wasn’t the most important thing to us.

Partners appeared to both want to remain in the marital/committed relationships and to not
want to compromise their sexual orientation and constructed the relational types of part-
ners and friends as competing. This seemed to be the central issue in the struggle over
whether their relationships were the same, different, or both the same and different than before
transition.

Self vs. Other

The third struggle present in the data can be characterized as one between self and other and
rested on the issue of support. Family members and partners often talked about wanting to be
unconditionally supportive of the transgender person, but because of a lack of understanding,
religious or moral beliefs, or their own emotional issues, they struggled with actually doing so.
Posts from transgender persons also revealed a struggle between self and other, indicating that
they wanted to help their family members come to terms with their identities and transitions, but
that they felt the need to focus on themselves as well.
 FAMILY MEMBERS COMMUNICATING TRANSGENDER IDENTITY 87

Partners seemed to struggle with determining whose needs and feelings should be considered
and privileged, their own or their transgender partners’. It seemed that at times, giving support
meant privileging the needs of the TG partner rather than self needs, which was constructed as
potentially problematic. Danni considered this issue in her post:

Danni: On one hand, you want to support your loved one . . . . on the other hand.. you have your own
feelings, fears, and other emotions rolling through.

Tracy’s post constructs a struggle between needs of self and needs of other, but privileges her
transgender partner’s need for support over her need for understanding:

Tracy: But in the beginning there is also the fear that this may be the one I will not be able to see
through her eyes, to understand in the way she needs. Support whether I come to a complete
understanding of a particular issue or not - is not in question.

The struggle between self and other was also prevalent in postings by siblings of TG persons.
The examples below illustrate the range of issues posters cited as hindrances to support.

June: I understand that transitioning is necessarily a time of being self-centered . . . so I don’t say
anything but I need someone to talk to! My support group consists of people who think I
should just remove myself or transgenders who think everything should revolve around my
sibling.
Robert: I want to be supportive of his choice, but I am feeling angry and sad.
Claire: Loving my sibling and supporting his decision will never be a problem . . . I am also having
some problems dealing with this on a spiritual and theological level. This is not how we were
raised.

June’s posting frames selfishness on the part of the transitioning person as allowable when
she describes transition as a time of self-centeredness, but implies that family members should
not be similarly self-centered. However, June also acknowledges that she is in need of support.
She indicates that she has received different advice from different groups of people - one group
suggests she privilege her own needs, removing herself from a trying situation. The other group,
transgender people, advises her to privilege the needs of her transgender relative.
Robert constructs a struggle between his desire to be supportive of his transgender relative
and his negative emotional response to the relative’s identity and transition, implying that these
emotions might hinder his ability to be supportive. Lastly, although Claire says that support for
her transgender sibling is not in question, she indicates that supporting her sibling creates a
struggle because doing so is not in line with her own theological beliefs.
Postings by TG persons also referenced the tension between self and other. Their talk con-
structed a struggle between respecting and supporting their own needs and feelings vs. the needs
and feelings of their families. Cam and Steph addressed this issue in their posts presented below:

Cam: i just feel like such a nasty person to put my mom through this. but do iwant [sic] tokeep
putting myself through hell pretending to be a straight girl when really i like girls and i am a
guy not a girl.
Steph: I’m very supportive but, at the same time, I have my own issues to deal with.
88 NORWOOD

Sometimes what TG persons see as best for them (e.g., disclosure) may not be what they see as
best for their families, though they may desire to meet the needs of both parties. The same seems
to hold true for family members and partners of transgender persons. This struggle between self
and other, as well as the struggles between presence and absence and sameness and difference,
suggests that meanings of relationships and identities may be salient for both transgender persons
and relational partners when transistions occur.

DISCUSSION

This study provides a first glimpse into the discursive dynamics that surround TG identity in
families. The points of contradiction present in the data seem to indicate that TG identity may
function as a family stressor (Segrin & Flora, 2005), since these family members/partners were
struggling to make sense of a variety competing meanings surrounding this experience, bringing
about feelings of loss, as well as relational change. Clearly, a change in the sex and/or gender
identity of one family member positions families to renegotiate identity and relationships.
The most salient and perhaps the most practically and theoretically significant point of strug-
gle for posters was theme of Presence-Absence. In the present study, partners, siblings, and
parents were described as experiencing a phenomenon like a “living death” of their TG fam-
ily member, which is clearly linked to ambiguous loss (Boss, 1999, 2007). This struggle between
presence and absence is similar to the Presence-Absence dialectic found by Baxter et al. (2002),
but different in an important way. In the previous study, wives with husbands with dementia
experienced their spouse as being physically present, but mentally/psychologically absent.
However, in the present study, family members and partners/spouses were struggling with a
different kind of presence and absence where the TG family member was both present physi-
cally, in that the person was still alive, and also was present mentally/psychologically. Since the
TG person was still present both physically and mentally, the absence seemed to be of a differ-
ent nature than the absence experienced in association with dementia. Family members in the
present study described mourning the “old” person while trying to accept the “new” person. This
particular manifestation of the Presence-Absence contradiction revolves around issues of sex,
gender, and identity, holding particular potential to inform research on the role of gender and sex
in identity and relationships.
Further investigation of this contradiction is needed to understand the complexities of transi-
tion as an experience of death and rebirth of the TG individual. It would be useful to understand
what exactly family members are grieving: Are they grieving due to the physical changes that do
not allow them to “see” the previous form of the family member, the communication behaviors
of the former self (if those change), the nature of the relationship they had with the TG person’s
former self (if change does occur), the familial role the TG person played (e.g., husband), or
perhaps some combination of all of these? Answers to these questions and others would help to
paint a more complete picture of this particular Presence-Absence contradiction.
Both manifestations of the struggle between sameness and difference (i.e., nature of relation-
ship and identity of the transgender person) are related to the findings from the Baxter et al.
(2002). First, partners in the present study struggled with the meaning of their relationship in
the past and the meaning of the relationship post-transition. In their study on adult dementia,
Baxter et al. found the Past-Present contradiction reported by wives who were coping with their
 FAMILY MEMBERS COMMUNICATING TRANSGENDER IDENTITY 89

husbands’ adult dementia, interwoven with other contradictions of Presence-Absence, Certainty-

Uncertainty, and Openness-Closedness, in which wives reported a struggle between the past and
present states of their relationships. In the present study, the sameness-difference or past-present
tension was organized around competing meanings of relationship types (friend vs. partner),
again, differing theoretically from Baxter et al.’s previous description of a similar contradiction.
Although physical intimacy and emotional intimacy are not typically characterized as oppo-
sitional in our conceptions of romantic relationships, the two seemed to be at odds in some
marital/committed relationships where one partner had transitioned. One would typically regard
the ideal romantic relationship as having both types of intimacy. However, sexual orientation
complicates the existence of both once the TG spouse begins to transition, changing the nature
of the couple either from same-sex to opposite-sex or from opposite-sex to same-sex. For the
majority of the posters, the couple transitioned from an opposite-sex couple to a same-sex couple,
which also transitioned them from a heterosexual couple to a potentially homosexual couple.
Postings indicated that once partners were of the same sex, partners desired both the past and
the current states of the relationship, or at least elements of both. Partners wanted physical inti-
macy in their lives, but did not want to forfeit their marital/committed relationship and emotional
intimacy to obtain it; though some felt this was inevitable due to complications of sexual orien-
tation (e.g., they were not lesbian). Partners seemed to be caught between competing relational
frames: platonic vs. romantic.
The second form of the struggle between sameness and difference centered on the personal
identity of the transitioning person. Family members and partners had difficulty conceptualizing
their TG relative’s/partner’s identity in light of a transition in sex and/or gender. The changes
that the transgender persons engaged in were sometimes conceptualized as changes to the per-
son’s identity, but other times were dismissed as merely material changes, having little affect on
who the person is. Still, other times, the transgender person was constructed as simultaneously
the same person, but different in important ways.
Interestingly, a similar phenomenon was also described as characteristic of the Presence-
Absence contradiction in the Baxter et al. (2002) study of marital relationships and adult
dementia. Wives conceptualized their husbands as the same person, but also as profoundly dif-
ferent. On the other side of the issue, TG family members wanted to assure their families that
they were the same at times, but at other times wanted them to recognize that they were different
from the selves they presented, pre-transition.
The final struggle in the meaning making of posters surrounded consideration of self and
other. The struggle between the privileging of the needs, desires, and goals of the self or of the
other centered on the issue of support. Support was referred to in countless postings by both
family members and TG posters as something that was needed from, expected of, and given by
family members of TG individuals. Many posters talked about their desire to give or receive
unconditional support from family members, which demonstrates that posters were operating
from the dominant meaning of family in U.S. culture - that family relationships are obligatory
and nonvoluntary, and support is expected from relational partners (Segrin & Flora, 2005).
Although support was described by TG persons as something much needed from family
members and also at times something that their family members desired to give without pause,
postings showed that unconditional support is not always given to and received by TG family
members. Support-giving was constructed as somewhat problematic in light of religious beliefs,
family values, and even lack of cognitive and empathic understanding of TG identity.
90 NORWOOD

Family members struggled to honor their familial relationships, roles, and obligations in
the face of social stigma, religious commitments, and other personal beliefs that seemed to
work against support of their TG family members’ transitions. In some cases, a disclosure and
transition of this nature may cause family members to redefine or even relinquish ties to their TG
relative/partner (Green, 2000). The reasons why are still unexplored, but this potential disrup-
tion in family/partner relationships suggests that sex and gender identity are vastly important to
family relationships.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Although the data analyzed in the present study were rich, the nature of the data presented some
limitations. First, the findings may be particular to the communication of posters from these
two web sites and therefore cannot be generalized beyond the sample. One factor that might
contribute to the potentially particular nature of these data is that these websites are clearly
meant to be sources of support for transgender persons and their partners/relatives, though it is
not always the case that messages posted are completely supportive of transgender identity.
Still, though, the perception of support for transgender identity and the assumed presence of
similar others (TG persons and family members) (Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998) likely influences
the messages posted to these forums. Posters may feel the need to post positive, affirmative
messages and may downplay negative or even conflicting feelings associated with experiences
of TG identity, which might mask further points of struggle.
Further, since there was no contact between the researcher and the posters, elaborated infor-
mation about contradictions could not be solicited, which could provide a better understanding
of the meaning systems at play at these sites of struggle. For example, it would be helpful to
probe family members about their conceptualizations of personal identity in order to uncover
what meanings are being invoked to make sense of the transgender person’s identity through
the transition process. This could also help to illuminate the role that sex and gender play in
meanings of personal identity.
Interview data would be beneficial for analyzing not just the presence of meaning-making
struggles, but the roots of the struggles, that is, the meaning systems that are at play that bring
about the experience of a transgender person as present and absent, or as the same and different.
Finally, a richer data set could be explored for not only competing meanings but the interplay of
the meanings that make up these sites of struggle. In other words, how do family members handle
competing meanings and frame their experiences through the privileging or dismissal of contra-
dictory meanings? Investigating the meaning making process of family members with regard to
transgender identity and transition with an eye toward competing meanings and their interplay
would provide a more nuanced and complete understanding of how and why this process incites
the experience of ambiguous loss.
The next logical step in this line of research is to gather data via in-depth interviews and
to analyze them using the recently published second iteration of Relational Dialectics Theory,
which focuses more on the aspects of meaning making outlined here (Baxter, 2011).
Even with these limitations, the present study contributes to family communication research
by providing a first step in exploring the contradictions in meaning-making that follow from
a change in sex and/or gender identity of a family member or partner. This research provides
additional support for the argument (Green, 2000) that transgender identity can strain family
 FAMILY MEMBERS COMMUNICATING TRANSGENDER IDENTITY 91

relationships to the point where members struggle to maintain family relationship expectations
of obligatory, unconditional support.
The question of why this type of change might disrupt family relationships is crucial to
explore. Perhaps TG identity disrupts families because gender and sex are essential to the expec-
tations and enactments of family relationships. Further, sex and gender may be so entwined with
personal identity that family members no longer know how to interact with a relative they feel
has changed in such ways. This study emphasizes the importance of gender issues in everyday,
familial relationships, and is therefore an important step in considering ways that gender and
materiality infiltrate our interpersonal and familial experiences.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-
IV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Baxter, L. A. (2006). Relational dialectics theory. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in
family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 130–145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006). Introduction. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories
in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Bryant, L., & Wagner, A. (2004). Stepchildren’s perceptions of the contradictions of
communication with stepparents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 447–467.
Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Golish, T. D., & Olson, L. N. (2002). Contradictions of interaction for wives of elderly
husbands with adult dementia. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 1–26.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Beeler, J., & DiProva, V. (1999). Family adjustment following disclosure of homosexuality by a member: Themes
discerned in narrative accounts. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 4, 443–459.
Bell, E., & Blaeuer, D. (2006). Performing gender and interpersonal communication research. In B. J. Dow & J. T. Wood
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of gender and communication, (pp. 9–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boss, P. (1999). Ambiguous loss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boss, P. (2007). Ambiguous loss theory: Challenges for scholars and practitioners. Family Relations, 56, 105–111.
Bowker, N., & Tuffin, K. (2004). Using the online medium for discursive research about people with disabilities. Social
Science Computer Review, 22, 228–241.
Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (2006). “You’re my parent, but you’re not”: Dialectical tensions in stepchildren’s
perceptions about communication with the nonresidential parent. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34,
30–48.
Brown, L. S. (1988). Lesbians, gay men and their families: Common clinical issues. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Psychotherapy, 1, 65–77.
Burkitt, I. (1991). Social selves: Theories of the social formation of personality. London: Sage Publications.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Connolly, C. M. (2006). A process of change: The intersection of the GLBT individual and his or her family of origin.
In J. J. Bigner (Ed.), An introduction to GLBT family studies (pp. 5–21). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
Costigan, J. T. (1999). Introduction: Forests, trees, and Internet research. In S. Jones, (Ed.), Doing Internet research:
Critical issues and methods for examining the net (pp. xvii–xiv). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellis, K. M., & Eriksen, K. (2002). Transsexual and transgenderist experiences and treatment options. The family journal:
Counseling and therapy for couples and families, 3, 289–299.
Emerson, S., & Rosenfeld, C. (1996). Stages of adjustment in family members of transgender individuals. Journal of
Family Psychotherapy, 3, 1–12.
Fields, J. (2001). Normal queers: Straight parents respond to their children’s “coming out.” Symbolic Interaction, 2,
165–187.
Ford, L. A., Ray, E. B., & Ellis, B. H. (1999). Translating scholarship on intrafamilial sexual abuse: The utility of a
dialectical perspective for adult survivors. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 2, 139–157.
92 NORWOOD

Frable, D. E. S., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive self Perceptions: Feeling better around
similar others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 909–922.
Gagne, P., & Tewksbury, R. (1996). Transgenderists: Products of non-normative intersections of sex, gender, and
sexuality. Journal of Men’s Studies, 2, 105–130.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goldfried, M. R. (2001). Integrating gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues into mainstream psychology. American
Psychologist, 11, 977–988.
Golish, T. D., & Powell, K. A. (2003). “Ambiguous loss”: Managing the dialectics of grief associated with premature
birth. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 309–334.
Granucci Lesser, J. (1999). When your son becomes your daughter: A mother’s adjustment to a transgender child.
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, March–April, 182–189.
Green, R.-J. (2000). “Lesbians, gay men, and their parents”: A critique of LaSala and the prevailing clinical “wisdom.”
Family Process, 2, 257–266.
Green, R. J., & Mitchell, V. (2002). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: Homophobia, relational ambiguity, and social
support. In A. S. Gurman & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 536–568). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Gurvich, S. (1992). The transsexual husband: The wife’s experience. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (8-A), 3089.
Hines, S. (2006). Intimate transitions: Transgender practices of partnering and parenting. Sociology, 2, 353–371.
Israel, G. (2006). Translove: Transgender persons and their families. In J. J. Bigner (Ed.) An Introduction to GLBT Family
Studies (pp. 51–65). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
Krusiewicz, E. S., & Wood, J. T. (2001). “He was our child from the moment we walked in that room”: Entrance stories
of adoptive parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 785–803.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Looy, H., & Bouma III, H. (2005). The nature of gender: Gender identity in persons who are intersexed or transgender.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 3, 166–178.
Mallon, G. P. (1999). Gay and lesbian adolescents and their families. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 2, 69–88.
Mason-Schrock, D. (1996). Transsexuals’ narrative construction of the “true self.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 3,
176–192.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society, from the standpoint of a behaviourist. Chicago. IL: Chicago University Press.
Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L. (1994). Intersexuality and the diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 1, 21–40.
Montgomery, B. M., & Baxter, L. A. (1998). Dialogism and relational dialectics. In B.M. Montgomery & L.A. Baxter
(Eds.), Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships (pp. 155–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Olyslager, F., & Conway, L. (2007). On the calculation of the prevalence of transsexualism. Paper presented at the
WPATH 20th International Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, September 5–8.
Parlee, M. B. (1996). Situated knowledges of personal embodiment: Transgender activists’ and psychological theorists
perspectives on ‘sex’ and gender. Theory and Psychology, 4, 625–645.
Peo, R. E. (1988). Transvestitism. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1, 57–75.
Rollins, D., Waterman, D., & Esmay, D. (1985). Married widowhood. Activities, Adaptation, and Aging, 7, 67–71.
Rubin, H. (2003). Self-made men: Identity and embodiment among transsexual men. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2005). Family communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Stryker, S. & Whittle, S. (Eds.) (2006), The transgender studies reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
Toller, P. W. (2005). Negotiation of dialectical contradictions by parents who have experienced the death of a child.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 1, 46–66.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 2, 125–151.
Wood, J. T. (2006). Gender and communication in interpersonal contexts: Introduction. In B. J. Dow & J. T. Wood (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of gender and communication, (pp. 1–7). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zamboni, B. D. (2006). Therapeutic considerations in working with the family, friends, and partners of transgendered
individuals. The Family Journal, 14, 174–179.