Sex isn’t Gender: Reforming Concepts and Measurements in the Study of Public Opinion
- 1k Downloads
The importance of sex and gender to political behavior is reflected in the volume of work examining gender gaps in public opinion and partisan choice. Despite their centrality, sex and gender are poorly measured in survey research. The principal problem is the conflation of gender with sex in survey research. Consequently, gender is typically treated as a dichotomy, with no response options for androgynous gender identities, or indeed degrees of identification with masculine or feminine identities. We compare a new measure of genuine gender identification with a conventional measure of biological sex to determine whether the practice of using sex as a proxy for gender is sound. Sex is a fair proxy for gender, but for about a quarter of our sample, it is not. Moreover, greater nuance is gained when analyses incorporate a finer-grained measure of gender than is possible by using biological sex as a substitute. We argue that this is simply the start to an important conversation and that more research is needed to ascertain how we might best measure “gender” in the future.
KeywordsGender Sex Measurement Survey research Gender gap
We gratefully acknowledge the indispensable contribution of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) to this research (Grant #435-2014-0307). The authors wish to thank a number of scholars who have commented on earlier drafts of this paper. In particular, we wish to thank Brenda O’Neill, Elisabeth Gidengil, Joni Lovenduski (for both inspiring this project and for commenting on an earlier draft of the paper), Kathleen Dolan, Kira Sanbonmatsu, Rosie Campbell, Sue Carroll, and Melanee Thomas for their careful read of the paper and for their suggestions for future research in this area. We would also like to thank Scott Matthews, Fred Cutler, Stuart Soroka, and Richard Johnston for their feedback on earlier drafts. Thanks are also due to Rebecca Wallace and Jacob Robbins-Kanter for research assistance. Many thanks to the three anonymous reviewers at Political Behavior, who pushed us on both the theory and data, and resulted in a much stronger paper. This study was supported by Grant 410-2011-0634.
- ANES. (2014). User’s guide and codebook for the ANES 2012 time series study. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan and Stanford University.Google Scholar
- Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 1045–1047.Google Scholar
- Bittner, A., & Goodyear-Grant, E. (2017). Digging deeper into the gender gap: Gender salience as a moderating factor in political attitudes. Canadian Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
- Bocklandt, S., & Vilain, E. (2007). Sex differences in brain and behavior: hormones versus genes. Advances in Genetics, 59, 245–266.Google Scholar
- Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Celis, K., Kantola, J., Waylen, G., & Weldon, S. L. (2013). introduction: Gender and politics: A gendered world, a gendered discipline. In G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola, & S. L. Weldon (Eds.), The oxford handbook of gender and politics (pp. 1–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- CES. (2011). Canadian election study. http://ces-eec.arts.ubc.ca/english.
- Connell, R. W., & Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Coole, D. (2013). The body and politics. In G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola, & S. L. Weldon (Eds.), The oxford handbook of gender and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Devor, H. (1989). Gender blending: Confronting the limits of duality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Gidengil, E., Blais, A., Nadeau, R., & Nevitte, N. (2003). Women to the Left?: Gender differences in political beliefs and policy preferences. In M. Tremblay & L. Trimble (Eds.), Women and electoral politics in Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Harris, A. (1993). Race and essentialism in feminist legal theory. In D. K. Weisberg (Ed.), Feminist legal theory: Foundations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- Hawkesworth, M. (2013). Sex, gender, and sexuality: From naturalized presumption to analytical categories. In G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola, & S. L. Weldon (Eds.), The oxford handbook of gender and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hillygus, D. S. (2016). The practice of survey research: Changes and challenges. In A. J. Berinsky (Ed.), New directions in public opinion (2nd ed., pp. 34–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Jennings, M. K. (1987). The politics of the gender gap. The social construction of political influence. In C. Mueller (Ed.), Women and electoral politics in Canada. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Millett, K. (1977). Sexual politics. London: Virago.Google Scholar
- Murray, R. (2015). Too much presence? Men’s interests and male intersectionality. Paper presented at the European conference on politics and gender, Uppsala, 11–13 June.Google Scholar
- Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. Maurice: Temple Smith.Google Scholar
- Spelman, E. (1988). Inessential woman. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
- Stone, A. (2007). An introduction to feminist philosophy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Turner, C. (2014). The masculine–feminine continuum. The Huffington Post. September 5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/caroline-turner/the-masculinefeminine-con_1_b_5560556.html.
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (2009). Gender identity. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 629–667). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar