Content uploaded by Jae A. Puckett
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jae A. Puckett on Nov 30, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Perspectives from Transgender and Gender Diverse
People on How to Ask About Gender
Jae A. Puckett, PhD,
1
Nina C. Brown, BA,
2
Terra Dunn,
1
Brian Mustanski, PhD,
3,4
and Michael E. Newcomb, PhD
3,4
Abstract
Purpose: When inquiring about the gender of research participants, most studies use self-generated questions
about gender or questions prepared by researchers that have been evaluated for comprehension by transgender
and gender diverse (TGD) and cisgender individuals. However, many gaps still exist in this area, including
identifying how TGD people would like to see their gender represented in questions about gender identity.
To address this issue, we explored the perspectives of TGD people regarding the construction of questions
about gender.
Methods: In this online study of 695 TGD people (M
age
=25.52), participants provided written suggestions for
how to ask about gender and these responses were analyzed thematically. Data were collected between fall 2015
and summer 2017.
Results: Three broad categories of responses emerged: (1) specific identities to include in response options; (2)
specific questions to ask about gender; and (3) qualifiers/nuanced considerations.
Conclusion: Participants provided a variety of suggestions for how to ask about gender and future research is
needed to explore the implementation of these suggestions. Recommendations are provided for options that re-
searchers can explore for how to ask about gender. These findings highlight the ways that TGD people would like
their gender to be asked about, which is necessary information to ensure that questions about gender reflect TGD
people’s identities accurately.
Keywords: gender identity, gender minorities, survey design, transgender
Introduction
Research has increasingly focused on the inclusive
measurement of transgender and gender diverse (TGD)
people’s gender identities. Measuring gender has important
implications for accurate representation of TGD people,
access to resources, and quality of data collection.
1–5
Most research has presented TGD people with questions
about gender and asked for their feedback on existing
items.
6–12
From this, a two-step method has been fre-
quently suggested,
2,4,6,11,13–18
entailing asking about
both the sex that someone was assigned at birth and their
current gender. The wording of these questions and response
options has varied across sources. Overall, the two-step method
provides a more comprehensive way of asking about gender
compared with single question formats that often conflate
sex and gender,
15,18
is easily understood by both TGD and cis-
gender individuals, and produces more reliable data on gender
than other methods.
2,6,7,18,19
There is some consensus that a two-step method for ask-
ing about gender is preferable to other methods, yet many
studies do not include these questions
10,17,20
and some col-
lect information about gender in problematic ways, such
as by a person’s voice
21
or through other practices, such
as relying on a person’s sex assigned at birth. Other specific
recommendations for improved measurement of gender in-
clude: providing write-in options,
10,14
recognizing that not
all TGD people identify with the label of transgender,
13
en-
abling multiple response options to be chosen instead of
forced choice formats,
22
including options for genderqueer
and non-binary people,
15,16
and recognizing that regrouping
participants or combining participants across response
1
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
2
College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
3
Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
4
Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellbeing, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
LGBT Health
Volume 00, Number 00, 2020
ªMary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/lgbt.2019.0295
1
Downloaded by Michigan State Univ from www.liebertpub.com at 07/01/20. For personal use only.
options can be invalidating.
10,19
In addition, there can be le-
gitimate concerns about safety for TGD people who share
their identity and individuals should have the option to
skip gender questions.
9,11
Some authors have recommended that questions and re-
sponse options be revised as social shifts in language and un-
derstandings of gender continue to happen.
20
One change
that relates to the frequently suggested two-step method is
the increased recognition of individuals who are intersex, in-
cluding on birth certificates.
23
Many of the existing sugges-
tions were made when states did not issue birth certificates
that recognized intersex individuals and as such, their recom-
mendations for asking about sex assigned at birth do not in-
clude options for people who are intersex. In addition, there
have been other social shifts in language to describe gender
and greater recognition of a variety of gender labels that
should be considered in response options, such as gender-
fluid.
24
Finally, some areas now allow non-binary options
on birth certificates as well and this may influence response
options in research questions (e.g., New York City).
25
Most of the existing research on the measurement of gen-
der has started with preformed questions and asked TGD
people to provide their perspectives on these items, rather
than starting by asking TGD people what questions they
would like to be asked in the first place. As such, there has
been minimal exploration of how TGD people would like
to see their gender represented in research studies—an im-
portant point to consider to improve accuracy and represen-
tation. To add to this literature, we sought to understand how
a TGD sample desired their gender to be asked about and
represented in research studies.
Methods
Participants and procedures
This online study, conducted between fall 2015 and sum-
mer 2017 entailed two sections: (1) a daily diary study for
participants who met the following inclusion criteria: identi-
fied as trans men, trans women, genderqueer, or non-binary,
ages 16–40, had sex in the past 30 days, and either binge
drank or used substances in the past 30 days; and (2) a
one-time survey for any TGD individuals who were at
least 16 years old but did not qualify for the daily diary
study (these participants were only required to be at least
age 16 or older and could have any TGD identity). The
data for the current analyses were drawn from this latter
one-time survey. All participants were from the United
States. The full procedures for this study are described else-
where, including information about ensuring the quality of
the online data collection.
26
The study was approved by
the primary investigator’s institutions (Northwestern Univer-
sity and the University of South Dakota) with a waiver of pa-
rental permission for participants ages 16–17. Participants
provided their consent/assent through the online survey.
There were 695 participants in the one-time survey.
Measures and open-ended item
Demographics. Participants reported their age, gender,
sex assigned at birth, differences of sex development, race/
ethnicity, sexual orientation, income, and education (re-
sponse options are presented in Table 1).
Table 1. Sample Demographics
Characteristic n(%)
Race/Ethnicity
White 526 (75.7)
Black/African American 13 (1.9)
American Indian or Alaska Native 1 (0.1)
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0
Asian 21 (3)
Latino/a 25 (3.6)
Option not listed 8 (1.2)
Multiracial/Multiethnic 98 (14.1)
Gender Identity
Trans man/Transman 180 (25.9)
Trans woman/Transwoman 105 (15.1)
Woman 10 (1.4)
Man 31 (4.5)
Genderqueer 87 (12.5)
Non-binary 132 (19)
Agender 66 (9.5)
Androgyne 7 (1)
Bigender 22 (3.2)
Option not listed 55 (7.9)
Sex assigned at birth
Female 534 (76.8)
Male 156 (22.4)
Difference of sex development
Unsure 124 (17.8)
Yes 20 (2.9)
No 551 (79.3)
Sexual orientation
Queer 174 (25)
Pansexual 130 (18.7)
Bisexual 106 (15.3)
Gay 62 (8.9)
Asexual 100 (14.4)
Heterosexual/Straight 38 (5.5)
Lesbian 35 (5)
Option not listed 50 (7.2)
Education
Less than high school diploma 91 (13.1)
High school graduate or equivalent 88 (12.7)
Some college education, but have
not graduated
228 (32.8)
Associate’s degree or technical school
degree
52 (7.5)
Bachelor’s degree 160 (23)
Master’s degree 63 (9.1)
Doctorate or professional degree 13 (1.9)
Income
<$10,000 357 (51.4)
$10–19,999 112 (16.1)
$20–29,999 59 (8.5)
$30–39,999 49 (7.1)
$40–49,999 39 (5.6)
$50–69,999 36 (5.2)
$70–99,999 29 (4.2)
‡$100,000 11 (1.6)
There were five participants with missing data on the question
asking about sex assigned at birth, and three participants with miss-
ing data about their race/ethnicity and income. There were no cis-
gender individuals in the sample, thus the classification of ‘‘man’’
and ‘‘woman’’ refers to trans men and trans women respectively.
2 PUCKETT ET AL.
Downloaded by Michigan State Univ from www.liebertpub.com at 07/01/20. For personal use only.
Open-ended item. Participants provided suggestions for
how gender should be asked about through an open-ended
question: ‘‘In studies that are for anyone, regardless of gen-
der identity, how would you like to see your gender repre-
sented in a question? Keep in mind that without some way
of indicating that someone does not identify with their sex
assigned at birth, the experiences of trans and gender non-
conforming individuals may be overlooked.’’
Analyses
Frequencies for demographics and demographic differences
in response rates were conducted in SPSS (IBM Corp.,
Armonk, NY). Qualitative coding was conducted in Dedoose
(Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants). To
begin, the first and secondauthors reviewed all data and devel-
oped notes about prominent themes. The second author then
developed an initial code list that defined each theme. The
codes each represented unique suggestions for how partici-
pants believed gender should be asked about. The first author
reviewed the list and met with the second author to refine the
list and definitions for clarity. The second author then applied
the codes and then conducted a review of all the data within
each code. After this, the first author reviewed all coding, cor-
recting small changes to align coding with the codebook.
Afterward, the third author conducted reliability coding with
a random subset of 20% of the data, yielding a Kappa of
0.802 indicating substantial agreement between coders.
27
Results
The full sample of 695 participants ranged in age from 16 to
73 years (mean [M]=25.52; standard deviation [SD] =9.68)
and were primarily White (75.7%). Table 1 includes a full de-
scription of the sample. There were 314 participants who
responded to the open-ended item and reported suggestions
for how to ask about gender. Participants who did not provide
a response to the open-ended item were older (M=26.78,
SD =11.08) than participants who provided recommendations
(M=24.26, SD =7.81), t(627.67) =3.48. Participants who
identified as either transgender men (participants who indi-
cated a gender of man or trans man/transman) or transgender
women (participants who indicated a gender of woman or
trans woman/transwoman) were less likely to provide recom-
mendations (44.2%) than all other gender groups combined
(54.5%); v
2
(1) =7.35, p<0.01. There were no significant dif-
ferences in whether participants responded to the open-ended
question based on income [participants earning below
$20,000 per year compared with those earning more; v
2
(1) =0.001, p=0.98] and race/ethnicity [Participants of Color
compared with White participants; v
2
(1) =0.95, p=0.33]. Par-
ticipants’ suggestions fell into three categories: (1) specific
identities participants wished were included in gender ques-
tions to either capture how they or other TGD people identi-
fied; (2) specific questions to ask about gender; (3) qualifiers
or nuanced considerations for gender questions. Descriptions
of each category and examples are provided. The percentages
reported for each category align to the percentage of the subset
of participants who provided suggestions.
A total of 226 participants (71.97%) provided suggestions
for identities that should be included in gender questions (see
Table 2 for a list of responses). Of note, the raw counts of
these suggestions must be interpreted in light of the identities
of participants in our sample as these likely influenced sug-
gestions. Some labels suggested are infrequently included
in gender questions, such as agender, bigender, polygender,
and neutrois. Participants also offered nuanced ways of
recognizing a TGD experience, such as ‘‘man of transgender
experience.’’
In terms of specific questions to ask about gender (n=44;
14.01%), there were two types of suggestions: (1) separate ques-
tionsforsexassignedatbirthandgender(n=16; 5.10%); and
(2) separate questions for gender and whether participants iden-
tified as TGD (n=28; 8.92%). The first suggestion allows par-
ticipants to indicate their current gender identity in inclusive
ways while also allowing researchers to crossreference this
with their sex assigned at birth to determine whether participants
who do not report a specific trans identity should be considered
TGD (e.g., a participant whose gender identity is woman and
Table 2. Gender Identity Suggestions
Agender (29)
Androgyne (2)
Bigender (3)
Cassgender (1)
Cis man/Cisgender man (4)
Cis woman/Cisgender woman (3)
Cisgender (1)
Demiboy (2)
Demigirl (1)
Femme nonbinary (1)
Fluid (1)
FtM (5)
Gender nonconforming (10)
Gender neutral (1)
Genderfluid (23)
Genderflux (2)
Genderless (1)
Genderqueer (39)
Man (8)
Man assigned female at birth (1)
Man of transgender experience (3)
Man who has transitioned (1)
Masculine nonbinary (1)
MtF (2)
Multigender (2)
Neither (1)
Neutrois (3)
No gender (1)
Non-binary (94)
Polygender (2)
Trans (8)
Trans feminine (6)
Trans boy (1)
Trans girl (1)
Trans guy (1)
Trans man/Transman /Transgender man (39)
Trans masculine (15)
Trans woman/Transwoman/Transgender woman (20)
Trans* (5)
Transgender (14)
Transsexual Man (1)
Two-spirit (3)
Without-gender (1)
Woman (8)
Values in parentheses represent the number of participants who
mentioned this gender identity; participants often made suggestions
for multiple identity labels.
TRANS PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER QUESTIONS 3
Downloaded by Michigan State Univ from www.liebertpub.com at 07/01/20. For personal use only.
who was male assigned at birth). This participant’s response
exemplifies this suggestion:
Make two separate questions, one just about gender identity,
and a separate question about what gender a person was
assigned at birth. If you have the question ‘‘what is your
gender’’ and two of the options are cis man and trans man,
[you’re] implying [that] these two groups are different
genders, which is transphobic, as they are both men.
Basically please don’t ask ‘‘what is your gender’’ when
you mean ‘‘what is you[r] gender and sex.’’
Having separate questions for gender and sex assigned at
birth ensures that sex and gender are not conflated and that
TGD participants are acknowledged appropriately. When re-
searchers do not provide these types of options TGD people
may be erased, as this participant noted: ‘‘If a study asks me
if my gender is ‘male, female, or transgender,’ then I will
check the ‘male’ option, since transgender isn’t my gender.’’
The second option, having a question about gender and
about whether participants identify as TGD, allows partici-
pants to report their identity without it being compared
with their assigned sex. Some participants noted that being
asked about their sex assigned at birth was troubling (e.g.,
‘‘It should ask [if] we are trans, rather than our birth assign-
ment, because having to identify in any way with our sex
assigned at birth can be very painful.’’). Asking in this way
still allows researchers to identify TGD and cisgender partic-
ipants. Participants suggested a few different ways that the
question to indicate being TGD could be worded: (1) using
the language of transgender or cisgender experience (‘‘A
follow-up question, should someone choose man or woman,
is to state, ‘I am a man/woman of.’ transgender experience,
cisgender experience, or a preference not to say.’’); (2) a
yes/no question about identifying as transgender (‘‘I think
‘Are you transgender?’ could be a good follow-up ques-
tion’’); (3) asking if participants are cisgender; (4) asking par-
ticipants to self-select into being cisgender or transgender
(‘‘Fill in the blanks would be lovely, with the possibility for
marking trans, cis, or prefer not to answer.’’).
Other suggestions related to qualifiers or nuanced consider-
ations. Some participants (n=50; 15.92%) emphasized the im-
portance of being able to check multiple answers (e.g., ‘‘The
terms are not mutually exclusive and being asked to pick a sin-
gle term doesnot necessarily give the bestdescription of a per-
son’s gender identity and presentation; particularly terms like
non-binary and genderqueer, which encompass a wide spec-
trum of identities. I personally identify both with trans mascu-
linity and a non-binary identity.’’). Having participants only
choose one answer for their gender can result in less accuracy
in describing the lived experiences of participants or can be
marginalizing to those who identify as genderfluid or other
identities that may shift over time (‘‘I identify differently on
different days but don’t like the term genderfluid for myself,
soIprefertobeabletoselectmultipleoptions’’).
Other participants wanted gender to be asked as a fill in the
blank question (‘‘In a question about gender identity, I be-
lieve the best way to ask would be to just provide a fill in
bar so everyone can write individually their own identity
without feeling erased.’’) or to provide a list of gender op-
tions and the ability to write in a response if the others do
not fit for participants (n=56; 17.83%). Some participants
noted that just clicking an ‘‘other’’ category felt marginaliz-
ing and did not provide them with an opportunity to describe
their gender. Alternatives could be to have a ‘‘Not Listed’’
option with a space for participants to write in how they iden-
tify if they choose this option, which some participants stated
can feel less stigmatizing than the ‘‘other’’ option.
There also are nuances that should be considered in ques-
tions about gender (n=16; 5.10%). Researchers may need to
define terms: ‘‘And, of course, since many cis folks and some
trans folks don’t know this language, the terms would have to
be defined.’’ In addition, participants recommended that re-
searchers use ‘‘male’’ and ‘‘female’’ when asking about
sex assigned at birth and disentangling this construct from
gender, as well as specifying ‘‘cis’’ or ‘‘cisgender’’ when a
response option is going to be interpreted as representing
people who are cisgender (e.g., when researchers intend
‘‘man’’ to mean cisgender men, they should explicitly state
‘‘cisgender man’’). Researchers also might consider the
order in which response options are listed and not placing
cisgender options at the start of the list (‘‘I like having cis-
man and cis-woman listed at the end.’’).
Some participants (n=32; 10.19%) indicated that they
would like the choice to not indicate that they were TGD
and felt that specifying being TGD separated them from
the gender with which they identified (‘‘I prefer to just see
man for me. I hate the implication that ‘transgender’ is
some third gender which others me and bars me from
being seen as fully male.’’). Similarly, some participants
reported that they would like to be able to indicate that
they preferred not to answer (n=9; 2.87%; ‘‘I usually select
‘decline [to] answer’ if that is an option.’’). Lastly, some par-
ticipants indicated that their responses to questions about
gender depended on the setting and the type of survey
(n=17; 5.41%). For example, one participant responded that:
In studies where my being trans is significant or relevant, like
this one, I would prefer to be listed as something like ‘‘trans
woman’’ like above, but if that weren’t relevant to the study
I would probably rather be listed just as ‘‘woman’’ or
‘‘female’’ or [something] like that.
Discussion
Participants reported a range of identities that they would
like to see represented in research studies, such as the uncom-
monly included identities of non-binary, agender, and gender-
fluid. Including terms that are important to TGD people may
result in more accurate reflections of TGD people’s identities
and experiences and better descriptions of participants. Even
so, there is still the issue of cisgender people understanding
these terms and concerns about possibly inaccurately classify-
ing individuals as TGD.
16
This is an important consideration
because inaccurate classification of cisgender people would re-
sult in flawed research and misinformation about TGD people.
Future research should examine whether definitional under-
standings of these gender terms are necessary or if cisgender
people are able to correctly classify themselves even if they
do not know the specific definitions of these terms. It may be
that cisgender people are able to identify that a term does
not apply to them even if they cannot provide a specific defini-
tion. Otherwise, prioritizing cisgender people’s experiences
and often limited understandings of gender identities may re-
sult in the continued marginalization of TGD people in ques-
tions about gender.
4 PUCKETT ET AL.
Downloaded by Michigan State Univ from www.liebertpub.com at 07/01/20. For personal use only.
Consistent with other recommendations, participants also
suggested a two-step method for asking about gender. Typi-
cally, this has been presented as inquiring about sex assigned
at birth and gender separately,
2,6,14,15
which some participants
also suggested. Others indicated that there should be a question
about gender followed by a specific question about whether
participants were TGD. Many of the additional suggestions
reflected nuances that can be considered in future testing of
questions about gender, such as disentangling sex and gender,
phrasing suggestions, and the ordering of response options.
Other suggestions included allowing multiple responses
rather than a forced choice format, providing a fill in the
Table 3. Recommendations for Gender Questions
Section of gender-related
questions Recommendations
1. Instructions or disclaimers: Researchers should state why they are asking about gender in their specific study.
Provide definitions that may be needed for interpretation of the question/response options
Provide any disclaimers about choices in wording (e.g., if the survey is just for TGD
individuals and there is a response option of ‘‘man’’ researchers can explain that this
survey is only for TGD people so they did not include the prefix of cis- or cisgender)
Indicate to participants whether a check-all format or a forced choice format is used in the
items.
2. Question about gender Option 1: ‘‘Which of the following labels best describes your current gender identity?’’
Possible response options:
Exhaustive list of identities, including cisgender and transgender specific prefixes and
labels (see Tables 1 and 2 for some options that could be included), as well as the option
of ‘‘Not listed’’ (with a write-in option to specify)
Brief list of identities for studies that include cisgender and TGD individuals:
Transgender Woman, Transgender Man, Cisgender Woman, Cisgender Man,
Genderqueer, Non-binary, Agender, Not listed (with a write-in option to specify)
Brief list of identities for studies that only include TGD individuals: Transgender
Woman, Transgender Man, Woman, Man, Genderqueer, Non-binary, Agender, Not
listed (with a write-in option to specify)
Always include the option ‘‘Prefer not to answer’’
Future research should examine response options such as ‘‘woman of transgender
experience’’ and ‘‘man of transgender experience’’ and similar types of response options
Option 1 follow-up question:
If researchers provided an extensive list of options and a check-all format, this could be
followed by a second question that asks TGD participants to self-select into a fewer
number of categories to assist with subcategory designation. For instance, in addition to a
check-all question with extensive options, researchers could ask: ‘‘Recognizing that
these are limited options, which of the following categories best describes your current
gender identity (please choose one): Trans Woman, Trans Man, Non-binary, I do not feel
that my identity fits into one of these categories’’
Option 2: ‘‘What is your gender identity?’’ with an open-ended response format.
Follow-up prompt: ‘‘Above you provided your gender identity. To assist us with properly
classifying participants, please choose the gender identity label that you feel most closely
fits for you.’’
Response options: I am transgender; I am not transgender; Prefer not to answer
Option 2 follow-up questions:
For participants who indicate that they are not transgender: ‘‘Which of the following best
describes your gender?’’ with the following response options: Woman, Man, Prefer not to
answer
For participants who indicate they are transgender: ‘‘Which of the following best
describes your gender?’’ with the following response options: Trans Woman, Trans Man,
Woman, Man, Non-binary, Genderqueer, Agender, Not listed (with write-in option),
Prefer not to answer
These response options could be shortened to other possible combinations as outlined
above
3. Question about either sex
assigned at birth or
identification as TGD
Option 1: ‘‘What sex were you assigned at birth?’’
Response options: Male Assigned at Birth; Female Assigned at Birth; Intersex
Option 2: ‘‘I am’’:
Response options: Cisgender, Transgender, Prefer not to answer
Option 3: ‘‘Do you identify as transgender?’’
Response options: Yes, No, Unsure, Prefer not to answer
Additional question: ‘‘Do you identify as intersex or as having a difference of sex
development?’’
Response options: Yes, No, Unsure, Prefer not to answer
TGD, transgender and gender diverse.
TRANS PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER QUESTIONS 5
Downloaded by Michigan State Univ from www.liebertpub.com at 07/01/20. For personal use only.
blank, and including a ‘‘not listed’’ option with a text entry
field. These recommendations may complicate researchers’
use of the data because they may then be faced with uncer-
tainty about how to create subgroups, how to describe their
sample, or how to code written responses. Although these
suggestions create complexity, they should still be consid-
ered. Some recommendations can be more easily imple-
mented than others. For instance, providing a ‘‘not listed’’
option enables participants to write in their gender identity
and researchers can then categorize participants as being
TGD or into specific gender groups based on those re-
sponses. In comparison, check-all formats may be especially
challenging to navigate as there can be a variety of unique
combinations of identities. To summarize, we have provided
a list of potential questions and response options in Table 3
that incorporates the recommendations of our participants
along with the existing literature.
2–4,6,7,22
Although not ex-
haustive, this may provide some avenues for future research
to explore.
Limitations
Many participants did not respond to the open-ended ques-
tion and we cannot be sure if this was due to a misunderstand-
ing or other reasons, such as feeling satisfied with the current
study’s gender question (the open-ended question was directly
after our gender question and was optional). Other research in-
dicates that missingness on open-ended questions is not un-
usual, particularly for online studies.
28–30
In addition, some
suggestions conflicted, such as the options of asking about
sex assigned at birth and current gender identity, or asking
about gender identity only and having a follow-up question
about whether the person identifies as transgender, cisgender,
or prefers not to say. Future research is needed to test various
formats and to identify the method that would result in the
most accurate information while also being the most affirm-
ing. In addition, our sample was recruited online and findings
may differ if conducted in-person, which would also allow
follow-up questions to clarify responses. Future research
should consider the social shifts that have occurred,
20
such
as the recognition of intersex and non-binary identities on
birth certificates.
25
Our sample also was limited in that
*76% of the sample was White and had a fairly young age.
Given that this is common of online studies, future research
may increase their racial and ethnic diversity and may have
a wider age range by utilizing a varietyof recruitment methods
and in-person forms of participation.
Conclusion
Improving items about gender is an important step to in-
creasing accurate representation of TGD people in research.
Although more research is needed to continue evaluating
these suggestions, participants provided some options that
may benefit TGD people. With improved measurement of
gender, future research will be strengthened and TGD peo-
ple’s experiences will be better reflected.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the members of the Trans Health Com-
munity Advisory Board who assisted with this project for
their time, feedback, and dedicated involvement. They also
would like to thank the participants who took part in this re-
search for their time and effort.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Funding Information
The project described herein was supported by a grant from
the National Institute on Drug Abuse (1F32DA038557).
References
1. Maragh-Bass AC: The ‘‘ask’’ is the ‘‘answer’’: Implement-
ing routine documentation of sexual orientation and gender
identity in health care. Am J Public Health 2019;109:1071–
1073.
2. Reisner SL, Conron KJ, Tardiff LA, et al.: Monitoring the
health of transgender and other gender minority popula-
tions: Validity of natal sex and gender identity survey
items in a U.S. national cohort of young adults. BMC Public
Health 2014;14:1224.
3. Schabath MB, Curci MB, Kanetsky PA, et al.: Ask and tell:
The importance of the collection of sexual orientation and
gender identity data to improve the quality of cancer care
for sexual and gender minorities. J Oncol Pract 2017;13:
542–546.
4. Deutsch MB: Making it count: Improving estimates of the
size of transgender and gender nonconforming populations.
LGBT Health 2016;3:181–185.
5. Durso LE: Progress and challenges in sexual orientation and
gender identity measurement in the first year of the Trump
administration. Am J Public Health 2018;108:894–895.
6. Cahill S, Singal R, Grasso C, et al.: Do ask, do tell: High lev-
els of acceptability by patients of routine collection of sex-
ual orientation and gender identity data in four diverse
American community health centers. PLoS One 2014;9:
e107104.
7. Conron KJ, Scout, Austin SB: ‘‘Everyone has a right to,
like, check their box:’’ Findings on a measure of gender
identity from a cognitive testing study with adolescents.
J LGBT Health Res 2008;4:1–9.
8. Maragh-Bass AC, Torain M, Adler R, et al.: Is it okay to
ask: Transgender patient perspectives on sexual orientation
and gender identity collection in healthcare. Acad Emerg
Med 2017;24:655–667.
9. Shelton J, Poirier JM, Wheeler C, Abramovich A: Reversing
erasure of youth and young adults who are LGBTQ and ac-
cess homelessness services: Asking about sexual orienta-
tion, gender identity, and pronouns. Child Welfare 2018;
96:1–28.
10. Glick JL, Theall K, Andrinopoulos K, Kendall C: For data’s
sake: Dilemmas in the measurement of gender minorities.
Cult Health Sex 2018;20:1362–1377.
11. Thompson HM: Patient perspectives on gender identity
data collection in electronic health records: An analysis
of disclosure, privacy, and access to care. Transgend
Health 2016;1:205–215.
12. Lombardi E, Banik S: The utility of the two-step gender
measure within trans and cis populations. Sex Res Soc Pol-
icy 2016;13:288–296.
13. Conron KJ, Landers SJ, Reisner SL, Sell RL: Sex and gen-
der in the US health surveillance system: A call to action.
Am J Public Health 2014;104:970–976.
6 PUCKETT ET AL.
Downloaded by Michigan State Univ from www.liebertpub.com at 07/01/20. For personal use only.
14. Pinto AD, Aratangy T, Abramovich A, et al.: Routine col-
lection of sexual orientation and gender identity data: A
mixed-methods study. CMAJ 2019;191:E63–E68.
15. Tate CC, Ledbetter JN, Youssef CP: A two-question method
for assessing gender categories in the social and medical sci-
ences. J Sex Res 2013;50:767–776.
16. The GenIUSS Group: Best practices for asking questions to
identify transgender and other gender minority respondents
on population-based surveys. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams
Institute, 2014. Available at https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla
.edu/publications/gender-related-measures-overview Accessed
May 6, 2020.
17. Patterson JG, Jabson JM, Bowen DJ: Measuring sexual and
gender minority populations in health surveillance. LGBT
Health 2017;4:82–105.
18. Tordoff DM, Morgan J, Dombrowski JC, et al.: Increased
ascertainment of transgender and non-binary patients
using a 2-step versus 1-step gender identity intake ques-
tion in an STD clinic setting. Sex Transm Dis 2019;46:
254–259.
19. Bauer GR, Braimoh J, Scheim AI, Dharma C: Transgender-
inclusive measures of sex/gender for population surveys:
Mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations. PLoS
One 2017;12:e0178043.
20. Westbrook L, Saperstein A: New categories are not enough:
Rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social sur-
veys. Gend Soc 2015;29:534–560.
21. Downing JM, Przedworski JM: Health of transgender
adults in the U.S., 2014–2016. Am J Prev Med 2018;55:
336–344.
22. Broussard KA, Warner RH, Pope ARD: Too many boxes, or
not enough? Preferences for how we ask about gender in cis-
gender, LGB, and gender-diverse samples. Sex Roles 2018;
78:606–624.
23. Garland F, Travis M: Legislating intersex equality: Building
the resilience of intersex people through law. Leg Stud
2018;38:587–606.
24. Kuper LE, Nussbaum R, MustanskiB: Exploring the diversity
of gender and sexual orientation identities in an online sample
of transgender individuals. J Sex Res 2012;49:244–254.
25. National Center for Transgender Equality: ID Documents
Center: New York. 2020. Available at https://transequality
.org/documents/state/new-york Accessed May 6, 2020.
26. Puckett JA, Matsuno E, Dyar C, et al.: Mental health and
resilience in transgender individuals: What type of support
makes a difference? J Fam Psychol 2019;33:954–964.
27. Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agree-
ment for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.
28. Story DA, Tait AR: Survey research. Anesthesiology 2019;
130:192–202.
29. Phillips AW, Reddy S, Durning SJ: Improving response
rates and evaluating nonresponse bias in surveys: AMEE
Guide No. 102. Med Teach 2016;38:217–228.
30. Chaudhary AK, Israel GD: Influence of importance state-
ments and box size on response rate and response quality
of open-ended questions in web/mail mixed-mode surveys.
J Rural Soc Sci 2016;31:140–159.
Address correspondence to:
Jae A. Puckett, PhD
Department of Psychology
Michigan State University
316 Physics Road, Room 262
East Lansing, MI 48824
USA
E-mail: pucket26@msu.edu
TRANS PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER QUESTIONS 7
Downloaded by Michigan State Univ from www.liebertpub.com at 07/01/20. For personal use only.