Measuring Sexual Identity, Gender Identity, and Biological Sex in Large Social Surveys: Implications for Victimization Research

• Author: Jamie A. Snyder,Jennifer Tabler,Carlos M. Gonzales
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221097034
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 9, September 2022, 1376 –1395.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221097034

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1376

MEASURING SEXUAL IDENTITY, GENDER

IDENTITY, AND BIOLOGICAL SEX IN LARGE

SOCIAL SURVEYS

Implications for Victimization Research

JAMIE A. SNYDER

JENNIFER TABLER

CARLOS M. GONZALES

University of Wyoming

Decades of research suggest certain risk factors, including individual characteristics, increase an individual’s likelihood of

being victimized. Measuring these risk factors then becomes crucial for movement forward in victimology. Recent research

suggests the increasing need to measure the concepts of sex assigned at birth, gender identity, and sexual identity, all of whom

have been linked to risk of victimization. However, it remains to be seen how these concepts are currently being measured,

how their measurement has evolved, and if these concepts are being measured regularly, especially in large-scale national

data efforts. This study seeks to examine the changes, or lack thereof, in measurement of the concepts of sex, gender identity,

and sexual identity in seven major social surveys used in victimology research. Changes to wording, responses, and the

number of questions regarding each of these concepts is discussed along with suggestions for improving measurement and

implications for victimization research.

Keywords: victimization; gender; sexual identity; measurement

INTRODUCTION

Concerns over measurement, operationalization, and methodology have always been a

part of victimization research, and more broadly, research in criminal justice and criminol-

ogy. The ability to collect more individualized and nuanced data has increased over time

due to technological and computational advancements, and so have the calls for more inclu-

sive data collection methodologies (see Magliozzi et al., 2016; Saperstein & Westbrook,

2021; Sullivan, 2020). Data that are representative of multiple populations, especially

underrepresented populations, are crucial to the progress of research in victimology. Studies

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Carlos M. Gonzales is now in the Department of Sociology & Criminology at Pennsylvania

State University. We have no conflicts of interests to disclose.Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Jamie A. Snyder, University of Wyoming, 1000 E University Ave, Laramie, WY 82071, USA; e-mail:

Jsnyde29@uwyo.edu.

1097034CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221097034Criminal Justice and BehaviorSnyder et al. / Measuring Gender, Sex, and Sexual Identity

research-article2022

Snyder et al. / MEASURING GENDER, SEX, AND SEXUAL IDENTITY 1377

have shown that underrepresented populations including sexual and gender minorities

(SGMs) are at an increased risk of experiencing victimization (for examples see; Martin

et al., 2011; Porter & Williams, 2011; Snyder et al., 2018; Walters et al., 2013). A sexual

minority often refers to a person whose sexual identity is something other than heterosexual

or straight, such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual, or asexual, among others

(Aspinall, 2009). A gender minority is commonly defined as someone who identifies as

transgender, gender nonbinary, gender fluid, or some other identity than the gender corre-

sponding with their sex assigned at birth (Wade & Ferree, 2015). Major theories in victim-

ization such as routine activities theory and lifestyles theory both acknowledge the role

of individual characteristics in determining victimization risk (Cohen & Felson, 1979;

Hindelang et al., 1978). Given that 5.6% of adults in the United States identified as a SGM

in a recent survey (Jones, 2021), adequately capturing the diversity within these populations

should be an integral part of measurement, especially among national and longitudinal data

sets seeking to examine risk factors, correlates, and outcomes of victimization.

Although many one-time, cross-sectional, victimization studies have begun to embrace

SGM inclusivity (see DeKeseredy et al., 2021; Edwards et al., 2015; Langenderfer-Magruder

et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2011; Porter & Williams, 2011; Ray et al., 2021; Walters et al.,

2013), it is yet to be examined if larger data efforts, including multiyear national-level data

collection, are following suit and measuring these concepts. A few studies (Aspinall, 2009;

Westbrook et al., 2021; Westbrook & Saperstein, 2015) have examined major surveys to

determine how gender, sex assigned at birth (hereafter referred to as “sex”), and sexuality

have been conceptualized and measured over time. Although none of these studies focused

on victimization, they serve as a guiding framework for how major surveys are measuring

these vital concepts. Thus, this study builds on this research to examine seven major sur-

veys that include measures of victimization to see how the concepts of sex, gender identity,

and sexual identity are currently measured, and how they have evolved over time. These

changes, or lack thereof, are discussed in the context of victimization research and possible

future directions for measurement.

While variation in definitions of the key concepts of (sex, gender identity, and sexual

identity) exist across disciplines, there is a general consensus in how they are broadly

defined. Sex is typically defined as male or female sex that is assigned to a child at birth

and documented on one’s birth certificate, commonly based on the child’s external genita-

lia (American Psychological Association [APA], 2015). “Intersex” is an umbrella term

adopted in the 90’s to include individuals whose sex traits or reproductive anatomy do not

fit into the male/female dichotomy, although it is important to note that many individuals

who are intersex are assigned male or female sex at birth (see InterAct.org, 2021). “Gender

identity” is commonly defined as the internal feeling or self-identification of one’s gender,

such as male, female, or gender nonbinary among others, which may, or may not corre-

spond with sex (Wade & Ferree, 2015). “Transgender” is commonly understood to repre-

sent those whose gender identity does not align with their binary sex category (Wade &

Ferree, 2015). For example, someone assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman,

or a transwoman, would be considered transgender. Related, “cisgender” refers to those

whose gender identity aligns with their sex assigned at birth. Finally, “sexual identity”

generally refers to a person’s self-identification derived from their sexual and/or emotional

attraction to another person, such as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or asexual (APA,

2015; Aspinall, 2009).