Times are displayed in (UTC-05:00) Central Time (US & Canada) Change
About this paper symposium
| Panel information |
|---|
| Panel 19. Sex, Gender |
| Paper #1 | |
|---|---|
| An inclusive approach to a complex, gender identity select-all-that-apply item on large public health survey | |
| Author information | Role |
| Dr. Kay A. Simon, Ph.D., Department of Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, United States | Presenting author |
| Camille Brown, School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Marla E. Eisenberg, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Jo O’Donnell, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Barbara McMorris, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Amy Gower, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, United States | Non-presenting author |
| G. Nic Rider, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota Medical School, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Research on the experiences with transgender and gender diverse (TGD) communities often reinforces the notion that TGD identities are monolithic (Simon et al., 2024), with survey items typically including limited binary options of gender identity, thereby erasing the experiences of many TGD individuals (Ashley, 2022). This erasure occurs for a number of different reasons such as a) the need to reduce cognitive burden for participants, b) limited resources, c) small sample sizes precluding analyses, and d) a lack of TGD cultural competency. Even for datasets with large samples, expanded options may still be limited and only include transgender boys, girls, and nonbinary youth. However, this fails to account for the wide variety of identities that TGD individuals use (e.g., agender) or when youth identify with multiple identities (e.g., nonbinary and transgender boy; Herman et al., 2017; Schudson et al., 2019). This erasure obscures health disparities among TGD youth. The goal of the current study was to examine prevalence estimates of health indicators across four categorization options based on an expanded select-all-that-apply gender survey item in a large, statewide survey. As part of a 2022 state-wide public health survey of Minnesota 8th, 9th, and 11th grade students (N=96,682), participants received a select-all-that-apply item related to their gender identity with 10 response options (i.e., agender, cisgender boy, transgender boy, genderfluid, cisgender girl, transgender girl, nonbinary, two spirit, questioning/unsure, and identity not listed). Seven content experts systematically reviewed 255 unique response combinations across all participant responses to create fewer categorical analytic groups, which led to the development of 15-, 9-, and two 4-category options (see Table 1 for additional information). Gender-based bullying and suicidal ideation served as health indicators. Students were asked how often they were harassed or bullied in the last 30 days based on their sex or gender and response options were dichotomized as any/never. Suicidal ideation was assessed by asking students if they have “seriously considered attempting suicide” in the past 12 months (dichotomized as yes/no). As noted in Table 2, there is substantial variation in the rates of gender-based bullying and suicidal ideation across gender categories, including significant differences among groups that would otherwise not be found in analyses with fewer category options. For example, in the 15-category option, prevalence of gender-based bullying among genderfluid+ youth was 39.9% and 52.2% for nonbinary youth (p<.05), yet using the 9-category option which combines nonbinary, nonbinary+, genderfluid, and genderfluid+, the prevalence estimate for gender-based bullying was 49.8% which masks this important difference. The findings from the current study highlight the concerning disparities that have often been obscured in research. Researchers should retain as many gender categories as possible to avoid the combination of disparate groups or altogether excluding others. Providing youth with expanded gender response options is critical for authentic and comprehensive developmental science. |
|
| Paper #2 | |
|---|---|
| Gender identity change among youth: results from a nationally probability sample | |
| Author information | Role |
| Andre G. Real, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, United States | Presenting author |
| Stephen T. Russell, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Although research has typically modeled gender identity as a fixed trait, a growing body of studies are showing that for some youth gender identity may evolve or change over time (Katz-Wise et al., 2023; Real et al., 2024). Research on gender identity changes in representative samples is still scarce. This study aims to describe gender identity change in a probability sample of youth. Data come from the youth sample of the Generations study, a three-wave national probability study of LGB people. Participants reported their gender identity at each wave of the study. Changes in gender identity were observed when gender identity in the prior wave did not match the reported gender identity in the following wave. We examined changes in gender identity across different demographic characteristics (i.e., baseline gender and sexual identities, race/ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic status), and gender nonconforming expressions (range 1-7; higher scores represent higher gender nonconformity). From 405 youth included in this study (ages 18-25), 30 (7.4%) reported a different gender identity across three years of follow-up; one youth changed identities twice. Among the youth who changed gender identities, fourteen identified as woman, eight as man, and eight as non-binary at baseline. Most changes were toward a non-binary gender identity (n=20). Nine transitioned from a non-binary gender identity, and two transitioned to a transman identity. At baseline, twelve of those changing gender identities were gay/lesbian, sixteen were bisexual/plurisexual, and two reported other sexual identities. A change in sexual identity was also observed in nine (30.0%) of the 30 youth who reported a gender identity change over time. Gender identity change was most common among White participants (73.3% of the participants who changed identities); none of the participants who identified as Latino/hispanic reported different gender identities over time. Chi-square tests indicated no significant differences in terms of socioeconomic status or educational level between participants who did and did not report a change in gender identities. Although those who reported a change in gender identities also reported more gender nonconforming expression (M=3.17) than those who reported consistent gender identities (M=2.93), this difference was not significant (p=.333). Changes in gender identity are not rare during late adolescence/emerging adulthood. Consistent with prior studies we found that most youth who reported gender identity change identified as non-binary. More studies examining changes in gender identity among youth are needed. |
|
| Paper #3 | |
|---|---|
| Exploring two-step gender identity assessment in a multi-site adolescent student sample | |
| Author information | Role |
| Cayley Bliss, Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Boston College, United States | Presenting author |
| Robert Marx, Department of Child and Adolescent Development, San Jose State University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Jerel P. Calzo, Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Science, San Diego State University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| V. Paul Poteat, Department of Applied Developmental and Educational Psychology, Boston College, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Department of Applied Psychology, New York University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Khushi D. Shah, Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Science, San Diego State University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Em K. Finch, Institute for Human Identity, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Daniel Kellogg, San Diego State University, United States | Non-presenting author |
| Abstract | |
|
Our knowledge of transgender and gender expansive (TGE) people’s experiences is only as robust as our measures of gender identity (GI) (Durso & Gates, 2013; NIH, 2013; UCLA, 2014; Lombardi & Banik, 2016). The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine issued recommendations for measuring GI (ask for sex assigned at birth (SAAB), then ask a ‘forced-choice’ current GI question) and offered suggestions for future research (testing method with youth, in a non-clinical setting, with ‘check-all-that-apply’ GI options; NASEM, 2022). The current study explores these recommendations by examining emergent GI categories that middle and high school student members of Gender and Sexuality Alliances (GSAs) reported, the differences in participants’ responses based on question(s) asked, and a method for condensing GI categories that is both parsimonious and holistic. In the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years, we recruited 631 participants from a diverse range of GSAs in NY, MA, and CA to participate in three self-report surveys across one school year (~2-3mo apart). At all three time points, youth were asked their current GI (‘check-all-that-apply’ question with 7 options and a write-in option). At Time 1, participants were also asked to indicate their SAAB; at Times 2 and 3, participants were asked about their transgender status. Coders iterated and developed a multi-level coding framework to organize GI data as 1) expansive categories that delineate all unique combinations of GIs reported at each time point to 2) condensed categories to be used for quantitative analyses. They then explored differences in response patterns based on the question asked (i.e., ‘SAAB’ vs. ‘transgender status’). Participants reported 135 unique responses to the ‘current GI’ question when coders factored in the presence of write-in responses (Table 1). Coders then condensed these responses into 35 categories. Taking into account participants’ ‘current GI’ response(s) and their response to either ‘SAAB’ (Time 1) or ‘transgender status’ (Times 2 and 3) expanded to 59 unique responses. Finally, we collapsed participants into 14 GI categories by combining meaningfully similar categories (e.g., categorizing those who indicated ‘questioning’ on transgender status and those who indicated ‘questioning’ on current GI as ‘questioning +’) (Table 2). Additionally, coders examined response patterns based on the first question asked (either ‘SAAB’ or ‘transgender status’). At Time 1, 5.7% of respondents either skipped ‘SAAB’ or indicated that they preferred not to answer; at Time 2 and 3, 13.7% and 7.3% of respondents either skipped ‘transgender status’ or indicated that they preferred not to answer, respectively. Further analysis indicated that the majority of respondents who skipped or preferred not to answer either question identified as non-binary. Gender identity is a complex construct to measure and must be both assessed and understood with nuance. Researchers, especially those who aim to reach TGE individuals, should take into consideration the elements of gender identity and question format they want to collect in their research (e.g., transgender identity, sex assigned at birth) based on what will be most feasible for data management and analysis and most meaningful for interpretation. |
|
⇦ Back to session
Advancing Best Practices for Measuring Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth Identities: Insights and Implications
Submission Type
Paper Symposium
Description
| Session Title | Advancing Best Practices for Measuring Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth Identities: Insights and Implications |