Too Many Boxes, or Not Enough? Preferences for How We Ask About Gender in Cisgender, LGB, and Gender-Diverse Samples
Too Many Boxes, or Not Enough? Preferences for How We Ask About Gender in Cisgender, LGB, and Gender-Diverse Samples
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11199-017-0823-2
复制
发表时间：
2018-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Pope, Anna R. D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Broussard, Kristin A.;Warner, Ruth H.;Pope, Anna R. D.
随着美国社会越来越意识到性别认同问题，人们一直在推动更具包容性的人口分类，超越传统的男性/女性性别二元制。在三项研究中，我们评估了美国跨性取向的顺性别男性和女性（研究1），异性恋顺性别男性和女性（研究2），顺性别LGB男性和女性（研究3），跨性取向的跨性别和性别非二元个体（研究3）关于不同格式的性别问卷的态度。研究2和3显示出对非二进制格式的强烈总体偏好。在所有三项研究中，对二进制格式的偏好和对非二进制格式的反对与性别二元信仰，独特性威胁，顺性别和大多数异性恋男性参与者，保守的政治取向和宗教信仰有关。这些研究结果表明，一般反对使用非二进制格式可能会受到制度化的二进制性别规范和heteronormativity。在cisgender和性别多样性样本中，大多数参与者更喜欢非二元性别问题格式，而性别多样性个体绝大多数更喜欢扩展格式。我们建议那些收集性别数据的人使用扩大的格式，以便更具包容性，并允许性别多样的个人在选择这样做时表明自己的身份。
As U.S. society has become more aware of gender identity issues, there has been a push for more inclusive demographic categories that go beyond the traditional gender binary of male/female. In three studies, we assessed the attitudes of U.S. cisgender men and women across sexual orientations (Study 1), heterosexual cisgender men and women (Study 2), cisgender LGB men and women (Study 3), and transgender and gender non-binary individuals across sexual orientations (Study 3) regarding different formats of gender questionnaires. Studies 2 and 3 showed a strong overall preference for the non-binary formats. Across all three studies, preferences for the binary format and objections to the non-binary formats were related to gender-binary beliefs, distinctiveness threat, cisgender and mostly heterosexual male participants, conservative political orientation, and religiosity. These findings suggest that general opposition to utilizing non-binary formats may be influenced by institutionalized binary gender norms and heteronormativity. Across both cisgender and gender-diverse samples, most participants preferred a non-binary gender question format, and gender-diverse individuals overwhelmingly preferred the expanded format. We suggest that those who collect gender data use the expanded format in order to be more inclusive and allow gender-diverse individuals to identify themselves if they choose to do so.