A scoping review of good methodological practices in research involving transgender, non-binary, and two-spirit youth

Troubling genderS and consumer well‐being: Going across, between and beyond the binaries to gender/sex/ual and intersectional diversity

“…Emphasizing what has already been stated, using narrowly defined categories risks misrecognizing and harming respondents, and thus researchers need to carefully consider and balance research efforts (e.g., time and resources needed to code open-ended responses) with giving respondents' linguistic power. In line with best practice, (Beischel et al, 2023;Cahill et al, 2014;Fraser, 2018;Lindqvist et al, 2021;Puckett et al, 2020;Reed, 2023;Suen et al, 2020), we advise all surveys, regardless of respondent numbers, give respondents an option to self-define. When two-part questions are included, they should simultaneously be visible to respondents so respondents understand how gender versus sex is being operationalized (Bauer et al, 2017).…”

“…Expanding who is invited to participate recognizes the skewness of data towards White, able‐bodied/minded, middle‐class, cis‐hetero populations (Burton, 2009; Coffin et al, 2019; Kearney et al, 2019; Reed, 2023), despite evidence that shows that gender/sex/uality crosses over with racialization and class to have significant effects on people's access to marketplaces/spaces and their well‐being (binaohan, 2014; Krell, 2017; Taylor et al, 2016). Correcting for this calls for inclusive and meaningful intersectional approaches, and care(ful) recruitment practices, such as working with gatekeepers, taking time to build trust and relationships (Reed, 2023; Steinfield, Holt, et al, 2024; Tebbe & Budge, 2016) or strategically utilizing social media (as Hansman & Drenten, 2024 have done in this special issue).…”

“…We caution in using Tate et al (2013) and others like it (e.g., Bauer et al, 2017; Cahill et al, 2014; GenIUSS Group, 2014). While demonstrated to reduce nonresponses, these two‐part gender‐sex questions may still do harm because of its limiting choices and because asking about sex assigned at birth can be distressing for some (Ansara & Hegarty, 2014; Reed, 2023). Emphasizing what has already been stated, using narrowly defined categories risks misrecognizing and harming respondents, and thus researchers need to carefully consider and balance research efforts (e.g., time and resources needed to code open‐ended responses) with giving respondents' linguistic power.…”

“…There are data invalidities and misrecognitions that can come with not asking the aforementioned ‘other question’ or not disrupting the naturalizations of cis, hetero, binary identities, but questions may also result in discomforts. For example, as aforesaid, asking people to indicate sex assigned at birth or sex desginated on their birth or medical certificates, or their legal names, may be distressing and uncomfortable for some transgender people (Ansara & Hegarty, 2014; Reed, 2023). Thus, although this tends to be the typical approach used to try to ascertain cis versus trans or non‐binary identities (e.g., Cahill et al, 2014; Fraser, 2018; GenIUSS Group, 2014; Tate et al, 2013), this framing can cause harm.…”