Volume 54 - Article 35 | Pages 1125–1158  

Formatting the two-step gender measure: Experimental insights from the United States

By Tessa Holtzman, Aliya Saperstein

References

Ainsworth, C. (2015). Sex redefined. Nature 518: 288–291.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Alexander, A.C., Bolzendahl, C., and Wängnerud, L. (2021). Beyond the binary: New approaches to measuring gender in political science research. European Journal of Politics and Gender 4(1): 7–9.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Bauer, G.R., Braimoh, J., Scheim, A.I., and Dharma, C. (2017). Transgender-inclusive measures of sex/gender for population surveys: Mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations. PLOS ONE 12(5): e0178043.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Biggs, M. (2026). Comparing transgender identities in the census of Scotland and the census of England and Wales. The British Journal of Sociology 77(1): 163–169.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Bornatici, C., Felder, M., Gianettoni, L., Mordasini, R., and Steinmetz, S. (2025). Measuring assigned sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation in population surveys. FORS Guides 26(1): 1–44.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Bouton, L. and Redfield, E. (2026). Removal of sexual orientation and gender identity from federal data collections: January 2025 to January 2026. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute.

Download reference:

Cowan, S. (2005). 'Gender is no substitute for sex’: A comparative human rights analysis of the legal regulation of sexual identity. Feminist Legal Studies 13(1): 67–96.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Cronin, R.M., Jerome, R.N., Mapes, B., Andrade, R., Johnston, R., Ayala, J., Schlundt, D., Bonnet, K., Kripalani, S., Goggins, K., Wallston, K.A., Couper, M.P., Elliott, M.R., Harris, P., Begale, M., Munoz, F., Lopez-Class, M., Cella, D., Condon, D., AuYoung, M., Mazor, K.M., Mikita, S., Manganiello, M., Borselli, N., Fowler, S., Rutter, J.L., Denny, J.C., Karlson, E.W., Ahmedani, B.K., O’Donnell, C.J., Vanderbilt University Medical Center Pilot Team, and Participant Provided Information Committee (2019). Development of the initial surveys for the All of Us Research Program. Epidemiology 30(4): 597–608.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Firth, D. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80(1): 27–38.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., Couper, M.P., and Conrad, F.G. (2008). Eye-tracking data: New insights on response order effects and other cognitive shortcuts in survey responding. Public Opinion Quarterly 72(5): 892–913.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Guyan, K. (2022). Queer data: Using gender, sex and sexuality data for action. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Hammarström, A. and Annandale, E. (2012). A conceptual muddle: An empirical analysis of the use of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ in ‘gender-specific medicine’ journals. PLOS ONE 7(4): 34193.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Jones, J. (2022). LGBT identification in U.S. ticks up to 7.1%. Gallup.

Korolczuk, E., Graff, A., and Kantola, J. (2025). Gender danger. Mapping a decade of research on anti-gender politics. Journal of Gender Studies 34(5): 621–640.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Lau, J.S., Kline-Simon, A., Sterling, S., Hojilla, J.C., and Hartman, L. (2021). Screening for gender identity in adolescent well visits: Is it feasible and acceptable? Journal of Adolescent Health 68(6).

Weblink:
Download reference:

Lindqvist, A., Sendén, M.G., and Renström, E.A. (2021). What is gender, anyway: A review of the options for operationalising gender. Psychology and Sexuality 12(4): 332–344.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Loveman, M. (2014). National colors: Racial classification and the state in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Manfreda, K.L., Batagelj, Z., and Vehovar, V. (2006). Design of web survey questionnaires: Three basic experiments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7(3): 731.

Weblink:
Download reference:

NASEM (2022). Measuring sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

Weblink:
Download reference:

NASEM (2020). Understanding the well-being of LGBTQI+ populations. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

Weblink:
Download reference:

NORC (2023). TESS 123 Saperstein: Project methods and transparency report. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, NORC.

Office of National Statistics (2021). Sex and gender identity question development for census 2021. UK Office of National Statistics.

Pao, C., Donnelly Moran, K., Compton, D.L., Kaufman, G., and Dowling, J.A. (2025). The case for ‘other’: Measuring gender and sexual identity in survey research. Sociology Compass 19(1): e70031.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Restar, A.J., Lett, E., Menezes, N.P., Molino, A.R., Poteat, T.C., Dean, L.T., Glick, J.L., Baker, K.E., and Cole, S.W. (2024). Getting precise about gender and sex measurement: A primer for epidemiologists. American Journal of Epidemiology 193(12): 1861–1867.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Ridgeway, C.L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York: Oxford Press.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Ridgeway, C.L. and A, Saperstein (2024). Diversifying gender categories and the sex/gender system. Annual Review of Sociology 50: 385–405.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Saperstein, A. (2022). Stability of two-step sex and gender responses in U.S. panel data. Paper presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, April 6–9, 2022.

Download reference:

Saperstein, A. and Sobotka, T. (2025). Gender conformity and wellbeing: An experiment in ordering effects. Paper presented at the 30th International Population Conference, Brisbane, Australia, July 14, 2025.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Saperstein, A. and Westbrook, L. (2019). Alternative gender measures survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Toepoel, V., Das, M., and Van Soest, A. (2009). Design of web questionnaires: The effects of the number of items per screen. Field Methods 21(2): 200–213.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Wells, T., Bailey, J.T., and Link, M.W. (2013). Comparison of smartphone and online computer survey administration. Social Science Computer Review 32(2): 238–255.

Weblink:
Download reference:

West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society 1(2): 125–151.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Westbrook, L. and Saperstein, A. (2015). New categories are not enough: Rethinking the measurement of sex and gender in social surveys. Gender and Society 29(4): 534–560.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Wickes, R. and Emmison, M. (2007). They are all ‘doing gender’ but are they are all passing? A case study of the appropriation of a sociological concept. The Sociological Review 55(2): 311–330.

Weblink:
Download reference:

Wilson, B.D.M., Cooper, K., Kastanis, A., and Choi, S.K. (2016). Surveying LGBTQ youth in foster care: Lessons from Los Angeles. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute.

Download reference:

Back to the article