Young people today are increasingly adopting the trend of using pluralistic gender pronouns, especially in the Zoom world during and after the pandemic and in social media self-presentations. For example, in this article titled “I Shouldn’t Have to Look Non-binary” on CBC Canada News, the author expresses their fondness for their feminine name and the occasional choice to wear a dress. However, they emphasize that these personal preferences do not diminish their non-binary identity, which is equally deserving of respect. The author also underscores the importance of asking for people's pronouns, as it signifies that individuals are being acknowledged and embraced for their true selves, rather than being judged solely based on their appearance. This statement highlights the significance of respecting and validating diverse gender identities and expressions.

Gender identification has been a controversial topic in conservative states in the U.S. On the one hand, progressives have made changes enlightening people’s understanding of non-binary gender identification. On the other hand, conservative states like Texas where LBGTQ communities have been going through discriminatory policy changes in recent years. Even authoritative statistics like the U.S. Census would undercount individuals with varying gender identities because they are not able to grasp the complexities behind it. In these states, doctors are now permitted to refuse care based on their moral beliefs. Additionally, the use of preferred pronouns has been prohibited within public schools, marking a noteworthy change in educational policy. Furthermore, children are now barred from attending drag shows, reflecting a shift in cultural and entertainment regulations. Notably, one of these laws, which enforces the prohibition of gender-affirming health care for transgender individuals below the age of 18, is already in effect, impacting healthcare practices for this demographic.

What shapes gender? A common-sensical view points out that specific cultures and societies play a role in shaping gender identities. Gender arises from individual factors (e.g., genetics), specific living environments, and life and cultural experiences that make any attempt to determine the number of genders implausible. The attempt to count genders is constrained by culturally defined categories that cannot account for the vast range of possibilities within specific individuals and their relationship to the environment. As a result, attempting to classify gender in any definitive way is challenging and potentially harmful because it imposes arbitrary categories on individuals and erases the diversity and complexity of the human experience. 

This conversation needs to begin with what the traditional binary definition of gender is. Although this conventional framework has had its support dwindle among academics and activists, it is still relevant for historical analysis purposes. Current literature sets aside the traditional binary view of gender as a fixed and biologically determined concept. The so-called “gender binary” refers to two opposing forms of masculine and feminine gender identities. According to this binary model, one’s sex assigned at birth becomes the dominant category which entails traditional cultural norms and expectations. For example, when a male person is born, gender binarism tends to assume that this individual will evolve into masculine appearance, adopt masculine traits, and have a heterosexual tendency to be attracted to females. These cultural codes were given and imposed upon this male individual from a young age.

Another common example of traditional gender identification framework is in many surveys and applications that require or suggest people select their gender. However, a lot of organizations that ask individuals to do this lack an in-depth knowledge about the complexities of gender identities, which leads to binary system choice or listing non-binary as a third choice, putting people who do not fit traditional gender identities into an outsider position. The design of these surveys may have already limited people’s choices without considering a wide spectrum of gender identities. Also, acknowledging the continuum possibilities for genders instead of a definite number improves the inclusivity of society. 

Some opponents against the traditional framework support the social constructionist perspective, which emphasizes the role of cultural and historical factors in shaping gender. Social constructionists tend to view traditional gender binarism as the product of social situations. They consider gender roles as a continuation of imposed gender status since birth. These binary gender roles have been reinforced by social norms because they serve a purpose to perpetuate the social order. In the context of parenting, for example, traditional views tend to prepare males for certain performative forms of social power while females for more domestic tasks.

Additionally, there is another school of thought that challenges the traditional gender binary framework. The idea of intersectionality leads to a multi-layered definition of gender that highlights its intersection with other social categories, including race, geography and social class. Under these theories, counting the number of genders may seem like a plausible project. However, there are many environmental and cultural factors that should be taken into consideration. For example, it is a common phenomenon for new members to the LGBTQ community to have a mentor who helps them explore a wide spectrum of identities out there before they can align with what they believe to represent themselves. According to Pew Research, 5.1% of adults under the age of 30 identify as either trans or nonbinary, with this group comprising 2% of those who identify as a trans man or trans woman and 3% who identify as nonbinary. Furthermore, two nationwide surveys targeting LGBTQ individuals aged 18 to 60 discovered that a significant 11% of respondents identified as nonbinary.

It would be interesting to hear from the scholarly community about why a nonbinary framework for pluralistic gender pronouns is needed today. Many gender scholars hold onto the social constructionist definition of gender, which posits that gender is not a fixed, innate trait but a socially constructed concept shaped by cultural and historical contexts. According to this school of thought, gender is not determined solely by biological sex but rather by the norms and expectations surrounding what it means in a particular society. For example, in some cultures, personality traits associated with femininity (such as emotional expressiveness and nurturing) are valued highly, while in other social contexts, traits associated with masculinity (such as aggression and independence) are seen as more desirable. When people socially relate to each other, they may unconsciously adopt these expectations about who they are in terms of gender identification. Some stereotypical names (such as “tomboy” and “fanboy”) are even given based on these social expectations.

Taking the social constructionist approach can help us avoid minimizing the impact of discrimination. This is because such a perspective discusses how gender intersects with other social categories such as race, class, and sexuality,  highlighting the impact from systems of oppression and privilege. Intersectionality recognizes that individuals who are not identified as traditional binary genders may experience multiple and overlapping dimensions of discrimination. These dimensions such as race, class, and sexuality are interconnected and cannot be analyzed in isolation from each other. It underscores that these identities and systems of power must be examined together to gain a comprehensive understanding of individuals’ lived experiences and the structural inequalities they have to face. 

Furthermore, the social constructionist definition of gender helps avoid the tendency of simplifying the diversity of cultures. Because there is no empirical evidence of any culture that leads to a specific gender identity, cultural diversity requires a wide spectrum of choices when it comes to gender identification. This again emphasizes the importance of understanding gender as a dynamic and context-dependent concept shaped by various social factors. It is important to remember that traditional cultures did contribute to social norms on the binary system of gender, categorizing individuals strictly into male and female identities. Nevertheless, these concepts still block the diversity of human beings and categorize the unlimited possibility of gender. In addition, culture also involves community traditions, which is how people live and their thoughts for a long time. Despite the communal aspect of cultures, gender identification is almost too personal to be historical. Everyone needs to walk their own paths before finding clarity on that choice.

There has also been a long tradition of critiquing against the norm of assimilation in modern society. Simply ascribing cultural norms as a significant factor in gender identity will"assimilate" people and assume the gender constructs available within society can be the basis for the quantification project. The reference to constructs like "fluid" and "polyamorous" reinforces the fluid and diverse nature of human sexuality and gender. This aligns with my point that gender is a dynamic and context-dependent concept. It supports that gender is not limited to a binary framework and can encompass a wide spectrum of identities. They cannot be limited to a certain number or specific denominations. This continuum means that gender identification exists as a wide spectrum, and individuals can identify as male, female, neither, or any combination of genders. 

In addition to the idea of a wide gender continuum, a theoretical scientific study that attempts to count the number of genders would also face another insurmountable obstacle related to gender fluidity. Gender fluidity suggests that individual gender identity is neither fixed nor static. In other words, an individual's gender identity can change over time. Notably, individuals who identify as gender fluid may experience different gender identities at different times or in different contexts making gender quantification not only unlikely but a never-ending endeavor. The best example is the choices of transgender individuals, especially among more progressive younger generations. A person who chooses to live a gender fluid life may change their gender identity as well as gender expression. For example, in the U.S. alone, around 1.4% of the population ages 13 to 17 identify themselves as transgender. There are also people who identify as intergender, meaning that they are between male and female. Any gender framework should not ignore the existence of these subpopulations. 

This categorization of gender fluidity poses a logical problem if a group of scientists or socialists wanted to determine how many genders there are, which requires a definite categorization of each individual. However, gender exploration and self-reflection can lead individuals to question and redefine their gender identity. Not only is everyone unique in the gene/environment interactions that result in an uncountable number of genders, but these unique life experiences can also result in individuals changing their gender identity over time. Therefore, it would be impossible to count the accurate number of genders.

One final point for consideration is the difference between gender identity and people’s self-expression of gender. Gender identity is different from gender expression as the former expresses the individual's self-identity on gender, and the latter illustrates how individuals express their gender by an outward expression such as behavior, dressing, and pronouns. This differentiation is also a problem for the scientists in the hypothetical example because individuals may have a gender identity that differs from how they express themselves outwardly. For example, someone assigned male at birth may identify as female (gender identity) but express themselves more masculinely (gender expression). This disconnect between identity and expression adds another layer of complexity to quantifying genders, as individuals can have a range of combinations and variations. In addition to all the obstacles mentioned earlier that make determining the number of gender unviable, any scientific method that can be used in the conducting experiment on how many genders there are would have trouble combining identity with expression to generate a definite number of genders. 

To conclude, gender pronouns are important because they allow a pluralistic perspective to both gender identification and self-expression. Gender is not an either-or concept but a continuum allowing for the combination of genders, as well as the inherent fluidity of gender. The traditional biological perspective fails to capture the complexity of gender that emerges from unique life experiences and the continuum concept and fluid nature of gender. This collapse of the binary identification implies that genders become unquantifiable even more as the possibilities can no longer be analyzed linearly from one end of the spectrum.