CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 424Gender and Feminist StudiesLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyGender Roles and Identity Studies

What is gender, anyway: a review of the options for operationalising gender

Open access
Lindqvist, Anna, Sendén, Marie Gustafsson, Renström, Emma A.·2021·Psychology & Sexuality
DOI 10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the social sciences, many quantitative research findings as well as presentations of demographics are related to participants’ gender. Most often, gender is represented by a dichotomous variable with the possible responses of woman/man or female/male, although gender is not a binary variable. It is, however, rarely defined what is meant by gender. In this article, we deconstruct the concept ‘gender’ as consisting of several facets, and argue that the researcher needs to identify relevant aspects of gender in relation to their research question. We make a thorough exposition of considerations that the researcher should bear in mind when formulating questions about each facet, in order to exemplify how complex this construct is. We also remind the researcher that gender is not a binary category and discuss challenges in the balance between taking existing gender diversity into account and yet sorting participants into gender categorisations that function in statistical analyzes. To aid in this process, we provide an empirical example on how gender identity may be categorised when using a free-text response. Lastly, we suggest that other measurements than participants’ gender might be better predictors of the outcome variable.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Attitudinal and ideological factors, such as sexism, could be better predictors of resistance toward gender-inclusive pronouns.

    “Instead, attitudinal and ideological factors, such as sexism, could be better predictors (see also Lindqvist et al., 2020).”

    From A Sexist Language? Gender Differences in Attitudes and Use of Gender-Inclusive Pronouns (2025) · cites this paper as Lindqvist et al., 2020

    In the passage on identification with gender (section labeled ABSTRACT; page unavailable), the review says that identification with one’s gender predicts attitudes toward gender-fair language better than categorical gender identity. Its Conclusion likewise says related measures can have greater predictive value. The copy does not establish that sexism or other ideological factors specifically predict resistance to gender-inclusive pronouns. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Traditionally, gender has been conceptualized as binary, consisting of the two mutually exclusive categories women and men.

    “Traditionally, gender has been conceptualized as binary, consisting of the two mutually exclusive categories women and men.”

    From A Sexist Language? Gender Differences in Attitudes and Use of Gender-Inclusive Pronouns (2025) · cites this paper as Lindqvist et al., 2020

  • The binary conceptualization of gender assumes a direct alignment between one's sex assigned at birth (female or male) and one's gender identity (self-defined).

    “This conceptualization assumes a direct alignment between one's sex assigned at birth (female or male) and one's gender identity (self-defined) (Lindqvist et al., 2020).”

    From A Sexist Language? Gender Differences in Attitudes and Use of Gender-Inclusive Pronouns (2025) · cites this paper as Lindqvist et al., 2020

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Ansara, Y. G., & Hegarty, P. (2013). Misgendering in English language contexts: Applying non-cisgenderist methods to feminist research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(2), 160–177.
  2. Ansara, Y. G., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Feminism & Psychology, 24(2), 259–270.
  3. APA. (2015). American Psychological Association dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  4. Beauregard, A. T., Arevshatian, L., Booth, J. E., & Whittle, S. (2016). Listen carefully: Transgender voices in the workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1234503(open in a new window) · DOI
  5. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgynous. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
  6. Bem, S. L. (1987). Gender schema theory and the romantic tradition. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 251–271). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  7. Bittner, A., & Goodyear-Grant, E. (2017). Sex isn’t gender: Reforming concepts and measurements in the study of public opinion. Political Behavior, 39(4), 1019–1041.
  8. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.
  9. Broussard, K. A., Warner, R. H., & Pope, A. R. (2018). Too many boxes, or not enough? Preferences for how we ask about gender in cisgender, LGB, and gender-diverse samples. Sex Roles, 78(9), 606–624.
  10. Bruckmüller, S., Hegarty, P., & Abele, A. E. (2012). Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 210–218.
  11. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
  12. Carr, B. B., Hagai, E. B., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2017). Queering Bem: Theoretical intersections between Sandra Bem’s scholarship and queer theory. Sex Roles, 76(11–12), 655–668.
  13. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  14. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2012). Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. New York: Routledge.
  15. Fausto-Sterling, A., Coll, C. G., & Lamarre, M. (2012). Sexing the baby: Part 1-What do we really know about sex differentiation in the first three years of life? Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1684–1692.
  16. Fraser, G. (2018). Evaluating inclusive gender identity measures for use in quantitative psychological research. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(4), 343–357.
  17. Frohard-Dourlent, H., Dobson, S., Clark, B. A., Doull, M., & Saewyc, E. M. (2017). “I would have preferred more options”: Accounting for non-binary youth in health research. Nursing Inquiry, 24(1), e12150.
  18. Geist, C., Reynolds, M. M., & Gaytán, M. S. (2017). Unfinished business: Disentangling sex, gender, and sexuality in sociological research on gender stratification. Sociology Compass, 11(4), e12470.
  19. Gustafsson Sendén, M., Bäck, E. A., & Lindqvist, A. (2015). Introducing a gender-neutral pronoun in a natural gender language: The influence of time on attitudes and behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00893(open in a new window) · DOI
  20. Hammock, G. S., & Richardson, D. R. (1992). Predictors of aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 18(3), 219–229.
  21. Hart, C. G., Saperstein, A., Magliozzi, D., & Westbrook, L. (2019). Gender and health: Beyond binary categorical measurement. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 60, 101–118.
  22. Haupert, M. (2019). Considerations for the development and implementation of transgender-inclusive gender demographic questions (Doctoral Thesis). Indiana University, Indiana, US. Retreived from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/22925/Haupert_Dissertation_2019.pdf?sequence=1(open in a new window)
  23. Hegarty, P. (2001). ‘Real science’, deception experiments and the gender of my lab coat: Toward a new laboratory manual for lesbian and gay psychology. International Journal of Critical Psychology, 1(4), 91–108. Retreived from https://www.academia.edu/1105187/Real_science_laboratory_phantoms_and_the_gender_of_my_lab_coat_Toward_a_laboratory_manual_for_lesbian_and_gay_psychology(open in a new window)
  24. Hegarty, P., Ansara, Y. G., & Barker, M. J. (2018). Nonbinary gender identities. In N. K. Dess, J. Marecek, & L. C. Bell (Eds.), Gender, sex, and sexualities: Psychological perspectives (pp. 53–76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  25. Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965–2004. Review of General Psychology, 10(4), 377–389.
  26. Hoffman, R. M., & Borders, L. D. (2001). Twenty-five years after the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A reassessment and new issues regarding classification variability. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 39–55. Retreived from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-06272-004(open in a new window)
  27. Hughes, J. L., Camden, A. A., & Yangchen, T. (2016). Rethinking and updating demographic questions: Guidance to improve descriptions of research samples. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 21, 138–151. Retreived from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-45623-001(open in a new window)
  28. Huxley, C., Clarke, V., & Halliwell, E. (2014). Resisting and conforming to the ‘lesbian look’: The importance of appearance norms for lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 24(3), 205–219.
  29. Jacobson, R., & Joel, D. (2018). An exploration of the relations between self-reported gender identity and sexual orientation in an online sample of cisgender individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(8), 2407–2426.
  30. Jaroszewski, S., Lottridge, D., Haimson, O. L., & Quehl, K. (2018). “Genderfluid” or “attack helicopter”: Responsible HCI research practice with non-binary gender variation in online communities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal QC, Canada. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173881(open in a new window) · DOI
  31. Joel, D., Tarrasch, R., Berman, Z., Mukamel, M., & Ziv, E. (2014). Queering gender: Studying gender identity in ‘normative’ individuals. Psychology & Sexuality, 5(4), 291–321.
  32. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory – Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93(2), 136–153.
  33. Labuski, C., & Keo-Meier, C. (2015). The (mis)measure of trans. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 2(1), 13–33.
  34. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318.
  35. Lundberg, T. (2017). Knowing bodies: Making sense of intersex/DSD a decade post-consensus (Doctoral thesis). Department of Psychology, University of Oslo.
  36. Moerman, C. J., & van Mens-verhulst, J. (2004). Gender-sensitive epidemiological research: Suggestions for a gender-sensitive approach towards problem definition, data collection and analysis in epidemiological research. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 9(1), 41–52.
  37. Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychology: How can Butler’s work inform experimental social psychologists’ conceptualization of gender? Frontiers in Psychology, 9:1320. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320(open in a new window) · DOI
  38. Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status – An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 103–122.
  39. Nowakowski, A. C., Sumerau, J., & Mathers, L. A. (2016). None of the above: Strategies for inclusive teaching with “representative” data. Teaching Sociology, 44(2), 96–105.
  40. Nowatzki, N., & Grant, K. R. (2011). Sex is not enough: The need for gender-based analysis in health research. Health Care for Women International, 32(4), 263–277.
  41. Pratto, F., Korchmaros, J. D., & Hegarty, P. (2007). When race and gender go without saying. Social Cognition, 25(2), 221–247.
  42. Reisner, S. L., Conron, K. J., Baker, K., Herman, J. L., Lombardi, E., Greytak, E. A., … GenIUSS Group. (2015). “Counting” transgender and gender-nonconforming adults in health research: Recommendations from the gender identity in US surveillance group. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 2(1), 34–57.
  43. Roen, K. (2019). Intersex or diverse sex development: Critical review of psychosocial health care research and indications for practice. The Journal of Sex Research, 56(4–5), 511–528.
  44. Stryker, S. (2006). The transgender studies reader. New York: Routledge.
  45. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group Behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  46. Tate, C. C., Ledbetter, J. N., & Youssef, C. P. (2013). A two-question method for assessing gender categories in the social and medical sciences. Journal of Sex Research, 50(8), 767–776.
  47. Thanem, T. (2011). Embodying transgender in studies of gender, work and organization. In J. Knights & P. Y. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of gender, work and organization (pp. 191–204). Chichester: Wiley.
  48. van Anders, S. M., Caverly, N. L., & Johns, M. M. (2014). Newborn bio/logics and US legal requirements for changing gender/sex designations on state identity documents. Feminism & Psychology, 24(2), 172–192.
  49. Westbrook, L., & Saperstein, A. (2015). New categories are not enough: Rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social surveys. Gender & Society, 29(4), 534–560.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindqvist, A., Sendén, M. G., & Renström, E. A.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
Corresponding author
Lindqvist, Anna
ORCID
Venue
Psychology & Sexuality
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-02-18
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
332-344
ISSN
  • 1941-9899 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-9902
DOI
10.1080/19419899.2020.1729844
OpenAlex
W3008429199
Cited by
424
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 105 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 9
FWCI
52.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychology and Sexuality (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vetenskapsrådet (2014–1150)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
Keywords
gender, gender identity, gender diversity, non-binary gender, free-text responses

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review