Gender Diversity in Peer Relations: Best Research Practices and Marshalling Peer Influence

Abstract

Young people are challenging gender to expand beyond a male/female binary, yet research practices still lag behind these conceptions. This call-to-action paper will review the traditional conceptualizations of gender as prevalent in peer relations research, contrasted with modern approaches from scholars studying gender and sexual orientation diversity, and outline how youth are challenging binary conceptualizations. We provide recommended best practices to sensitively bridge this gap, including: using open responses where possible, and two-step closed-ended question formats where necessary, to measure gender identity; considering the context and role that gender identity and each of its facets might play in the research design; and preserving underrepresented groups even though they may be small. We close by exploring the ways in which the power of peer socialization can be (and likely currently are being) harnessed to support the ever-changing, diverse gender identities emergent in today’s youth, and provide questions for future research.

Back in what we thought of as the free-flowing ‘60s, we assumed we knew a lot about people just by knowing whether they were male or female. If you knew that, we believed, you had a good start on knowing what to expect emotionally, socially, intellectually, sexually. But that all changes when you’re living in a world where gender is not an either/or proposition. And I think the change is for the better. It must be exciting and enlightening to navigate relationships when you can’t make easy assumptions about how the other person is apt to view him/her/their self.

George Liles, Valley News, March 9, 2019

For most of the history of peer relations research, investigators have been working under the assumption that biological sex and the social construction of gender are organized around the binary distinction of male and female (Perry et al., 2019). However, children, adolescents, and emerging adults today clearly acknowledge that gender identity is more complex, and that individuals may identify with a wider spectrum of gender labels than just the traditional binary distinction between male and female. To better understand how gender reciprocally affects peer relations, researchers will need to carefully define and measure gender in a way that is consistent with young people’s identities.

Gender can be understood as multidimensional and multifaceted (Perry et al., 2019; Ruble et al., 2007; Tate et al., 2014). Gender includes not only how one identifies or feels their gender to be internally, but also how one expresses or presents their gender externally (gender expression), what stereotypes one holds about gender, what gender roles and expectations one upholds and performs, and how others perceive one’s gender. Gender relates to but is not synonymous with sex, which can be defined as biologically determined reproductive system characteristics. Gender (and sex) expands beyond just male/female – increasing numbers of young people are identifying with descriptors like trans, genderqueer, non-binary, genderfluid, and hundreds of others (Garrett-Walker & Montagno, 2021; Thorne et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2020).

This call-to-action paper will highlight the current disparity between how traditional peer relations theorists and researchers are conceiving of and measuring gender identity, and what young people believe about the wider range of possible gender identities. This paper will provide a brief overview of traditional and contemporary work on gender identity, then provide a variety of types of evidence that young people conceive of gender identity more broadly and flexibly. Data from recent studies of adolescents’ and young adults’ use of digital communication will be presented to show how young people respond when invited to report flexibly about their gender identities. The paper will suggest best practices for assessing gender identity in peer relations research and will conclude by considering how the power of the peer group could be marshalled to support youth with diverse gender identities.

Approaches to Studying Gender and Gender Identity

Early gender-focused research utilized a developmental stage approach, whereby developmental milestones of gender identity (recognizing whether one is male or female), stability (understanding that gender is fixed and will not change with age), and constancy (understanding that cosmetic and appearance-related changes will not alter sex) are achieved sequentially (Kohlberg, 1966). Gender was conceptualized as an inherently essential characteristic and determined by biology (Kohlberg, 1966). Over time, gender has been recognized as more flexible than being biologically determined and following certain stages (Perry et al., 2019; Tate et al., 2014), though traditional or mainstream conceptualizations of gender tend to still focus on binary and stable differences between boys and girls.

Traditional peer relations research primarily focused on differences between boys and girls (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Pioneering theorists and researchers marshalled evidence that in early and middle childhood, children interact primarily within their same gender groups such that they grow up in separate worlds and socialize each other in distinct ways before coming together for romantic encounters in early adolescence, as outlined in Maccoby’s (1998) seminal volume titled The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. Even modern peer relations research on gender identity and gender typicality treats gender as an identity that is achieved within the male-female binary and barely mentions the possibility that a young person may identify as a different gender than the traditional two categories. For example, in an excellent, recent special issue of the International Journal of Behavioural Development on Gender Typicality and Development (Bukowski et al., 2019), none of seven excellent articles broadens their understanding of gender beyond the identities of male or female to recognize that some young people may identify their gender outside these categories entirely.

Relatedly, much of what we know about the development of gender identity revolves around gender schemas and stereotypes. Theory and research suggest that powerful forces are at work that compel us all to categorize much of the information we encounter in the world as masculine or feminine.

Gender schema theory proposes that the phenomenon of sex typing derives, in part, from gender-based schematic processing, from a generalized readiness to process information on the basis of the sex-linked associations that constitute the gender schema. In particular, the theory proposes that sex typing results from the fact that the self-concept itself gets assimilated to the gender schema. Several studies are described which demonstrate that sex-typed individuals do, in fact, have a greater readiness to process information—including information about the self—in terms of the gender schema. It is speculated that such gender-based schematic processing derives, in part, from the society’s ubiquitous insistence on the functional importance of the gender dichotomy

(emphasis added; Bem, 1981, p. 354).

Gender schemas include both conventional associations, such as trucks are for men because more men drive trunks then women, but also metaphorical associations, such as pink and soft things are for women (Leinbach et al., 1997). Conventional and metaphorical elements of gender schemas often go together; however, the metaphorical associations to the gender schemes are so powerful that they may override conventional associations, especially for young children (Leinbach et al., 1997). Gender schemas appear to persist into adolescence as well, although they may become more flexible throughout development (Ruble et al., 2007; Signorella & Frieze, 2008). These schemas and stereotypes have been understood to inform how youth make sense of gender expression and underlying identity; however, they oversimplify the complexity of gender beyond just male and female.

Modern developmental work on gender identity proposes that “Gender identity may be defined as a set of cognitions encompassing a person’s appraisals of compatibility with, and motivation to fit in with, a gender collective” (Perry et al., 2019, p. 289). This perspective on gender identity addresses eight dimensions: gender self-categorization, felt same-gender typicality, felt other-gender typicality, gender connectedness, felt pressure for gender differentiation, intergroup bias, gender centrality, and gender frustration (Perry et al., 2019). These dimensions reflect the ways that children may understand differences between gender groups (e.g., connectedness, gender differentiation, intergroup bias), within any given gender group (e.g., typicality, centrality, frustration), and how they may view themselves in relation to both these aspects (e.g., self-categorization, felt pressure and typicality for the individual). A limitation of this view, however, is that each of the eight dimensions is usually studied in relation to the male/female binary. For example, gender self-categorization is defined as “labeling the self as either a boy or a girl. For most children, this entails a simple binary decision consistent with their anatomy” (Perry et al., 2019, p. 290). Each of these dimensions is clearly important, but having eight dimensions of even a two category system results in incredible complexity, never mind contemplating that a range of other gender identities are possible.

Contemporary developmental and peer relations research may benefit from referring to emergent work on gender identity by scholars that focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other marginalized sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBTQ+). Indeed, milestone or stage theories of gender development may inadvertently marginalize the unique experiences of heterogenous trans and non-binary individuals (Tatum et al., 2020). Several recent qualitative investigations have sought to understand and form conceptual developmental models for transgender and non-binary gender identity, broadly defined as having a gender identity (internal experience) or expression (external presentation of gender cues) that does not match their sex assigned at birth (American Psychological Association, 2015). These models suggest that instead of developmental stages, diverse gender identities develop fluidly and flexibly, involving a transactional process between interpersonal (social) and intrapersonal influences that can change and evolve over time (Ehrensaft, 2017; Fiani & Han, 2019; Hyde et al., 2019; Katz-Wise et al., 2017; Kuper et al., 2018; Morgenroth & Ryan, 2020; Pullen Sansfaçon et al., 2020).

These gender-expansive models allow for the multidimensional understanding of gender as it relates to sex and other identities, without a strong reliance on the male/masculine versus female/feminine binary. For example, one gender expansive model incorporates dimensions of gender-related sense of self (gender identity, expression, physical self, and presentation) as they interact with intrapersonal developmental processes (awareness, exploration, meaning-making, and integration, Kuper et al., 2018). Similarly, another expansive model of gender incorporates distinct and overlapping personal and social processes that contribute to individuals’ understanding of their gender. In this model, personal processes such as gender dysphoria interact with responses or feedback from families and peers that guides further gender exploration (Pullen Sansfaçon et al., 2020). These models rely much less strongly on psychosocial differences among individuals with distinct gender identities to define the gender identities themselves, instead relying on the ways that gender diverse individuals explore, affirm, and make meaning of their own gendered experiences. In this way, the binary of male and female is de-emphasized and decentered, allowing for a more flexible and fluid understanding of gender identity and expression that more accurately reflects the ways that young people are conceptualizing gender.

Young People View Gender as More than Just a Binary

“There is a generational divide in how we think about gender. In order to bridge this gap, those of us who were raised with a more limited view of gender can take this as an opportunity to explore gender with new eyes, to read and ask questions to better understand gender’s complexity.”

Gender Spectrum Organization (2019)

In contrast to the traditional perspective taken by developmental and peer relations researchers, the young people we are studying seem to be embracing a broader range of possible gender identities. Of children born after 1996, often known as Generation Z, 59% believe that online profiles that ask a person to identify their gender should offer options other than “man” or “woman” (Pew Research Center, 2018). Of this same cohort, 35% say they personally know someone who uses non-binary pronouns and 50% say that society is not sufficiently accepting of those who do not identify as either a woman or man. Even one of the older and more traditional social media platforms, Facebook, offers numerous options for delineating one’s gender identity (see Figure 1, Slate, 2014).

Figure 1.

Here Are All of the Different Genders You Can Be on Facebook (Slate, February, 2014).

The quote above by the Gender Spectrum Organization (https://genderspectrum.org/) represents the perspectives of contemporary institutions, particularly those invested in gender equity, that have begun to recognize the new ways that young people are thinking about gender identity and expression which transcend the gender binary. For instance, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC, 2014) estimated that almost ten percent of LGBTQ+ youth identify outside the gender binary. Further, even if these individuals identify within the binary, their perceptions of themselves on a gender spectrum suggest that 28% of cisgender males and 43% of cisgender females identify as something other than “purely” male or female respectively – this suggests that even cisgender LGBQ+ youth are recognizing gender fluidity. Beyond LGBTQ+ young people, data from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) suggests that 0.7% of US youth aged 13 to 17 identify as transgender, which represents about 150,000 youth (Herman et al., 2017). The results of the LGBTQ National Teen Survey conducted in collaboration with the HRC showed that 24% of adolescents ages 12–17 reported diverse sexual or gender identities in 26 distinct sexual or gender identity categories (Watson et al., 2020). These identities are numerous, overlapping, and flexible, which can be difficult to identify and quantify in systematic research. Given this and other issues in measurement of gender diversity that will be discussed subsequently, this is likely to be an underestimate of the number of young people that identify or express their gender outside the male-female binary.

Not only are young people embracing new gender identities and expressions, but they are also becoming more outspoken, visible, and active in their conceptualizations of gender. Youth are representing diverse gender identities and expressions online, being recognized in news outlets, and taking part in activism toward gender freedom. For example, there are dozens of highly prominent young people on social media platforms such as Instagram that are sharing and representing this new understanding of gender. Transgender youth like 19-year-old Jazz Jennings, with 1.1 million followers on Instagram, are fundamentally changing the way transgender youth are received in society through her presence online and in traditional media on the television show “I Am Jazz”. Likewise, Josie Totah, a former Disney Channel star, transitioned publicly after her career on the Disney Channel; at 18 years old, she continues to speak out and inform people about gender diversity. There are many influential others on platforms like Instagram. For instance, Zoey Luna, a 17-year-old, shared her fight for restroom equity in California; Corey Maison, an 18-year-old, was featured in Katie Couric’s Gender Revolution and continues to share her journey as transgender on Instagram. There are countless young individuals that are shedding light on the ways that gender diversity can be expressed via online platforms.

Further, as young people are demonstrating their own diverse gender identities, news outlets are increasingly promoting their stories. For example, in May 2017, NPR published a story about how “A New Generation Overthrows Gender,” in which teens who identify outside the gender binary (e.g., non-binary, genderqueer, gender-neutral) speak to their experiences and understanding of breaking down the gender binary (Brooks, 2017). Likewise, in April 2019, Pacific Standard published a story exploring teens’ understanding of non-binary gender identity and how the prevalence of this “queerness” seems to have surpassed even binary understandings of sexual orientation (Hammack, 2019). Even Cosmopolitan, a traditionally highly feminine-stereotyped outlet, published “13 Gender-Related Terms You Want To Learn” in December 2019, including terms like genderqueer, gender fluid, and non-binary (Thomas, 2019). This suggests that media sources are beginning to recognize that these terms and concepts are becoming increasingly important to the young people they had likely traditionally conceptualized as statically and binarily feminine.

Beyond their presence in traditional news sources, young people are engaging with gender equity activism in substantive and visible ways as well. For example, several activist organizations like Gender Spectrum (https://genderspectrum.org/), It Gets Better (https://itgetsbetter.org), and the Transgender Law Center (https://transgenderlawcenter.org) have platforms to share youth-submitted stories about their trans and non-binary gender identity experiences with coming out and social relationships. Further, the Human Rights Campaign has a program for youth ambassadors to promote equal rights, many of whom are non-binary. Young people are even leading their own organizations: for instance, Trans Student Educational Resources (https://transstudent.org) is a youth-led organization focused on advocating for gender diverse inclusivity in school systems. The presence and engagement of young people in gender diverse activism spaces suggests that gender diversity (e.g., non-binary identities and expressions) matters greatly to contemporary youth.

Even though young people are publicly expressing gender diverse ideas and identities, most peer relations and developmental research practice has yet to catch up. As discussed above, some LGBTQ+ scholars in particular are beginning to challenge the binary, whereby gender is understood as an outward expression or internal sense of identity that results from an interplay of nature, nurture, culture, and time, that can be renegotiated throughout development (Ehrensaft, 2017; Fiani & Han, 2019; Hyde et al., 2019; Katz-Wise et al., 2017; Kuper et al., 2018; Morgenroth & Ryan, 2020; Pullen Sansfaçon et al., 2020). Others have acknowledged the changing landscape of gender identity development in youth, noting that binary gender intensification (e.g., increased pressure to conform to gender roles; Hill & Lynch, 1983) may no longer become prominent in adolescence and the patterns of gender differentiation and socialization in present-day adolescence appear to be changing (Priess et al., 2009).

Despite these expansions to capture how diversely young people are thinking about and demonstrating gender, most peer relations research still operates from a risk perspective and primarily focuses on the effect of peers who are not accepting of gender diversity (e.g., Bos & Sandfort, 2015; Kosciw et al., 2018). Some investigations are beginning to recognize the impact of community contexts that are more accepting than others: for example, gender norm salience in school contexts moderated the relation between gender typicality and distress such that gender typicality and distress were positively associated in high salience contexts, but unrelated in low salience contexts (Smith et al., 2018). Aside from these few representative studies of gender-diverse thinking and contextualized peer acceptance, research strategies still lag behind youths’ innovation about gender identity – even to its basic measurement.

How Many Adolescents and Young Adults Choose Different Gender Identity Options in Recent Studies of Adolescents and Young Adults?

Peer relations research programs can adapt over time to mirror the changing ways that adolescents and young adults are identifying their gender. We present case examples from several of our studies of peer interactions in digital communication that illustrate how assessing gender identity may change over time, in peer relations studies where gender identity is not the focus. Further, this example shows the increasing number of emerging adults that identify outside the binary.

Table 1 displays the study year, question format, response options and number of participants who endorsed each response for their gender identity. All studies focused on some aspect of peer social relations or processes, adjustment, or digital communication, and primarily recruited university students. Even though none of the studies purposively sampled for gender-diverse populations, there were relatively small but still important numbers of young people who identified their gender outside the binary. In the final waves of a 13-year-long community-sample study about adjustment and social aggression, no respondents endorsed a non-binary gender identity. However, these identities began to emerge in our university samples. In a study about sexting and social comparison, four college students (0.5% of the sample) identified outside the binary; in another study about online social comparison, eight college students (0.8%) identified outside of man or woman; a study about Instagram browsing contained two non-binary individuals (0.4%); and three students (0.4%) identified as transgender or non-binary in a study about narcissism and social media. These responses increased as time progressed: in a study conducted in 2018–2019 about Snapchat, 15 individuals (1.5%) identified outside the binary; in 2019, two studies exploring online victimization and adjustment included 12 (1.2%) and 25 (2.5%) non-binary responses.

Table 1.

Summary of responses to gender identity questionnaire items across studies of adolescents and emerging adults.

Study Focus	Year(s) collected	Item wording	Response type	Response options/summary	Nendorsed	Total N
Adjustment & Social Aggression (penultimate longitudinal wave)	Summer 2013	What is your gender?	Forced Choice	Male	51	108
				Female	57
Adjustment & Social Aggression (final longitudinal wave)	Fall 2016	What is your gender?	Open Response	Female	73	135
				Male	62
Sexting & Social Comparison	Fall 2016 thru Summer 2017	What is your gender?	Open Response	Female	513	744
				Male	152
				Non-binary, Genderfluid, Agender	4
				No Response	75
Online Social Comparison Study	Fall 2017	What is your gender?	Open Response	Female	718	1011
				Male	269
				Non-binary, Genderfluid, Agender, Trans(Gender) Male	8
Instagram Browsing Experiment	Fall 2017 thru Spring 2018	What is your gender?	Forced Choice	Male	88	474
				Female	379
				Non-binary	1
				Other	1	defined: genderfluid
Narcissism and Social Media	Fall 2018 (online)	What is your gender?	Open Response	Female	612	825
				Male	197
				Transgender	1
				Non-binary	2
Snapchat and Self-Perceptions	Fall 2018 thru Summer 2019	What is your gender?	Multiple choice	Male	202	951
				Female	715
				Non-binary/Queer	10
				Transgender	3
				Agender	2
Victimization & Adjustment (Midwestern University Location)	Spring & Fall 2019	What is your current gender identity?	Multiple choice	Man/Male/Masculine	416	1002
				Woman/Female/Feminine	581
				Trans female/Trans woman	2
				Trans male/Trans man	2
				Non-binary	3
				Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming	1
				Different Identity	0
				checked multiple:	4
Victimization & Adjustment (Southwestern University Location)	Spring thru Fall 2019	What is your current gender identity?	Multiple choice	Man/Male/Masculine	265	990
				Woman/Female/Feminine	705
				Trans female/Trans woman	3
				Trans male/Trans man	3
				Non-binary	12
				Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming	4
				Different Identity	3	defined: genderfluid, female/masculine, agender
				Checked multiple:	9
Instagram Exclusion	Fall 2019 - Spring 2020 (ongoing)	What is your gender?	Multiple choice	Male	52	171
				Female	114
				Non-binary/Queer	3
				Transgender	0
				Agender	0

In sum, within almost every study, anywhere from two to 25 individuals identified in a way other than man or woman. In terms of relative proportion across all studies from our lab, these individuals represented from zero percent (in 2013) to three percent (in 2019) of all study participants. These rates of gender-diverse responses further suggest that at least older adolescents are increasing in flexibility with respect to their gender identity and are comfortable identifying as such even when the study does not explicitly focus on gender. Future work should be done to understand how these identities are emerging and expressed in samples of younger adolescents and even children, as it is likely that these identity development processes are beginning much earlier than young adulthood.

Current Best Practices for Studying Gender Identity

The recommendations and practices of some scholars and research-focused organizations are beginning to catch up to how young people have been thinking about gender identity and expression. Some experts propose that perhaps research should investigate gender as a moderator, rather than focusing on mean-level differences across the sex/gender binary (Perry & Pauletti, 2011). This could elucidate the ways that gender may affect developmental processes rather than reinforcing stereotypical overall differences in behaviors or characteristics. Investigating gender as a moderating variable also allows for a flexible understanding of gender dimensions rather than denoting groups (perhaps arbitrarily) so that between-group differences can be investigated. For example, perhaps giving or receiving social support between peers depends upon how strongly an adolescent identifies with a particular gender (masculine, feminine, or non-binary/another gender).

Other suggestions for researchers focus on simply using more inclusive language that reflects the terms that youth actually use to refer to gender (Garrett-Walker & Montagno, 2021; Lenning, 2009; Puckett et al., 2020; Suen et al., 2020; van Anders, 2015). Though terminology to refer to gender identities is constantly evolving and may not have wholly shared definitions, researchers can engage community stakeholders and consult with gender diverse communities to incorporate and define various gender identity labels (Deutsch, 2016; Garrett-Walker & Montagno, 2021; Puckett et al., 2020; Suen et al., 2020). For example, before collecting demographic data from middle school students for a sociometric study, it may be wise to connect with the teachers, guidance counsellors, and students themselves to identify ways that these youth are describing their gender-related experiences. Though this could limit generalizability for an isolated study, as more researchers employ inclusive practices for measuring gender, we will be able to compare across samples and begin to understand language around gender in a systematic and generalizable way.

Researchers can attempt to clear some of the muddiness around gender-related terminology or the dimension(s) of gender being considered by explicitly stating definitions of terms in their research materials and reports (Deutsch, 2016; Garrett-Walker & Montagno, 2021; GenIUSS Group, 2014; Puckett et al., 2020; Suen et al., 2020; van Anders, 2015; Westbrook & Saperstein, 2015). However, perhaps the utility of closed-ended labels for gender should be critically examined altogether, to evaluate their necessity in the given study design and what biases they may introduce to the measurement and sample (Puckett et al., 2020; Schrager et al., 2019; Suen et al., 2020). If the design allows, it may be helpful to allow participants to both select a closed-ended label for self-categorization and define their gender in an open-response format (Beischel et al., in preparation; Puckett et al., 2020; Suen et al., 2020).

To assess how young people are identifying their gender with sensitivity and accuracy, researchers can employ several strategies and techniques. One measurement recommendation informed both by our lab’s own experiences and recommendations from LGBTQ+ scholars (e.g., Puckett et al., 2020; Suen et al., 2020) may be to specifically include response options for “non-binary,” “genderqueer,” “genderfluid,” and “agender” identities. These were some of the most prominent provided responses when participants selected “different identity” and have been suggested directly by gender diverse participants in qualitative research (Puckett et al., 2020; Suen et al., 2020). The appropriateness and utility of these terms warrants further investigation in large representative samples of youth. Perhaps this is an idiosyncrasy of these samples, but more likely, young people may be increasingly embracing these identities outside the binary. Using specific identity labels and terms, though sometimes ambiguous, can be particularly affirming and inclusive for participants, and can further allow scholars to explore and understand the nuances of each identity label.

Several recommendations for gender identity measurement have been proposed by research entities interested in gender diversity and inclusion broadly. If a completely open-response question format is possible (given the sample size and study design), this may be considered to allow for quickly changing and proliferative terminology that young people use to refer to gender (Rubin et al., 2020). Using an open-response question format may be a particularly useful strategy for longitudinal studies, to reflect fluidity in gender identity over time, especially for children and adolescents. However, this method requires researchers to interpret and assign gender categories for participants, which may introduce unconscious or unintended bias on behalf of the investigators that are tasked with labelling or grouping participants post-hoc (Schrager et al., 2019). It is important to cautiously interpret these responses with careful consultation from individuals who identify with a minoritized gender.

Much of the best practice recommendations for measuring gender identity suggests a two-step process, wherein the participant is asked to first disclose their natal sex and then their gender identity (Deutsch et al., 2013; GenIUSS Group, 2014; Lombardi & Banik, 2016; Sausa et al., 2009; Rubin et al., 2020; Temkin et al., 2017). The item assessing natal sex should reference the participant’s assigned sex at birth or sex identified on their birth certificate and provide the response options “male” or “female,” given that other delineations are not yet provided at birth. Then, the item assessing gender should ask either what the participant’s current gender identity is or how they describe themselves, with the response options of “man,” “woman,” “I do not identify as either man or woman,” and “I’m not sure yet” (Deutsch et al., 2013; GenIUSS Group, 2014; Lombardi & Banik, 2016; Sausa et al., 2009; Temkin et al., 2017). If “different identity” or “other” is provided as an option, it should be accompanied by an open-response field so that participants can declare their identity and not feel marginalized (Puckett et al., 2020). Responses can then be combined and coded such that sex assigned at birth is compared with current gender identity to determine whether the participant is reporting a transgender or non-binary experience.

The two-step approach is suggested to work well not only with adults but also with youth and adolescent populations (Reisner et al., 2015). For these younger populations, using the term “boy” and “girl” instead of “man” and “woman,” respectively, is sufficient and developmentally appropriate. The gender identity item could also include options for “trans male,” “trans female,” “genderqueer” (GenIUSS Group, 2014), though some have critiqued this delineation of response options as being othering or signifying that transmen and transwomen are not legitimate men or women (Puckett et al., 2020; Suen et al., 2020).

A different way to phrase or structure the two-step process, informed by qualitative studies with transgender and non-binary individuals, could be to first assess gender identity as described above, then secondly, instead of asking about sex assigned at birth, ask whether a participant is transgender or cisgender (Petrovnia, 2021). Participants in a qualitative study, focused on gathering directly from transgender individuals how they would prefer to be asked about gender, noted that being prompted to think and respond about their sex assigned at birth could trigger gender dysphoria and be painful (Puckett et al., 2020). Using inclusive measurements is not just helpful for research focused on gender-diverse populations. Inclusive measurements could enhance our understanding of not only how gender diverse youth identify, but the likely heterogeneity even within cisgender participants’ identities. Inclusive and expansive measurements may also serve to better describe participants’ genders in any study, regardless of whether the focus of the study itself is on gender.

Beyond measuring just gender identity, other multifaceted aspects of gender should be considered in research on peer relations; these include aspects like expression and role perceptions or stereotypes (Perry & Pauletti, 2011; Ruble et al., 2007). As our understanding of gender identity expands, our understanding of how identity is situated within other aspects of gender should expand as well. It is also critical to have sufficient theoretical understanding of which facets should be implicated in certain processes. For example, in peer relations research, is it always most important to know how the participant personally identifies their gender? Perhaps it is more important to know how participants express and present their gender outwardly (gender expression), or perhaps it is important to know the intersection of these facets. These decisions should inform what aspects of gender are considered for any given study (Schrager et al, 2019; Suen et al., 2020).

One way to measure an aspect such as gender expression is to use an item assessing how the participant is typically perceived by others, with response options similar to those suggested for the gender identity items (Schrager et al., 2019). It may also be useful to incorporate gender expression scales that capture how masculine, how feminine, and how agender or non-binary the participant understands themselves to be perceived by others (Magliozzi et al., 2016). This approach may be appropriate for younger populations as well: a measure of similarity to boys and girls has demonstrated validity and utility for capturing a nuanced understanding of gender identity in a sample of children ages five to ten (Martin et al., 2017). Future research should examine the validity and reliability of assessing perceived non-binary expression as well.

Finally, beyond measurement altogether, analytic decisions should be considered when investigating the role of gender in young people’s lives so that identity groups are appropriately represented, not only in the measures but the conclusions drawn from them. This can get extremely complex and requires careful a priori consideration. Combinations across identity labels should be done with caution: it is a disservice to the those with diverse identities to collect specific sexuality and gender minority identity information and then collapse across these groups in the analyses to form a general “LGBTQ+” group. This removes much of the variability and nuance of both sexuality and gender that young people are increasingly embracing, and research should reflect these nuances in every step. Gender and sexual identities are qualitatively different and are likely to influence adolescents’ lives, health, and peer relationships in very different ways; combining across these identities could conceal their important and differential relations. However, it may be fruitful to combine across identity labels based on whether it is likely that the psychological processes under investigation will operate similarly across these groups. For example, will a given peer process (e.g., friendship development) look similarly for someone who identifies as non-binary femme and someone who identifies as agender? Or would the distinction in identities affect the peer process?

One common, somewhat artificial reason that researchers tend to aggregate and perhaps over-simplify their sample across gender and sexual identities is to increase statistical power, but alternative approaches could be taken. For instance, non-parametric tests or Bayesian analyses could be utilized that are more appropriate for small sample sizes (Hoyle, 1999; van de Schoot & Miočević, 2020). Another approach may even originate in the recruitment step of the research process, whereby easier-to-reach groups are over-sampled to improve the study’s overall statistical power (Hennes, 2019). For example, if researchers are interested in intimacy building processes of feminine non-binary individuals, individuals all along the gender spectrum (including cisgender individuals) could be sampled so that the overall statistical tests are better powered.

To understand gender identity more deeply and in a way that reflects how young people might be conceptualizing it, other considerations are still needed, such as the role of intersecting identities. Intersectionality refers to the meaning and consequences of multiple marginalized categories of social group membership, or the ways that these marginalized identities jointly shape experiences and outcomes for any individual (Cole, 2009; Crenshaw, 1994; Fish, 2008). Little-to-no attention has been paid to how other identities such as race, ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic status, or ability intersect with the broader understanding of gender identity that young people are putting forward (GenIUSS Group, 2014; Michaels et al., 2017). For example, perhaps the terms that young people use to refer to diverse gender identities or expressions may be different depending on their ethno-racial identity or culture of origin (Federal Interagency Working Group…, 2016). Also, the openness with which individuals are discussing gender diversity possibly differs depending on these identity intersections as well. For instance, in a study evaluating gender identity measurement in a sample of English- and Spanish-speaking older adults, the Spanish-speaking adults expressed discomfort and/or confusion regarding the gender identity questions that was not present in the English-speaking adults (Michaels et al., 2017). This discomfort with discussing gender could be changing generationally but is still part of a broader cultural context that needs to be considered. Researchers will need to begin critically examining how gender identity is not only situated within young people’s psychosocial contexts, but also how it is understood as part of a network of interrelated identities and the respective social contexts.

In sum, according to the ideas described above, we offer the following recommended best practices for assessing and understanding diverse gender identities. The list is ordered by what we consider to be priorities, based on previous research and recommendations, such that the top of the list represents the highest priority:

1. When possible, use open-ended response formats for items assessing gender identity. Consult with community stakeholders and LGBTQ+ informants on ways to categorize open-ended responses that limits the influence of researchers’ potential biases.

2. When using a closed item format to assess gender identity, be aware that there is some disagreement about the best strategy. Some recommend a two-step process in which the participant is asked first to disclose their assigned sex and then their gender identity, while others recommend first asking to disclose gender identity and then whether the participant is transgender, so as not to inadvertently trigger gender dysphoria.

   1. Current best practices put forth by research organizations (e.g., Deutsch et al., 2013; GenIUSS Group, 2014; Sausa et al., 2009) recommend including an item to ask about assigned sex at birth, but community stakeholders and research conducted directly with transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming participants suggest that it might be more affirming to simply ask whether someone is transgender. It may be more gender-affirming to replace a question about assigned sex at birth with a question simply asking, “Are you transgender?” (Petrovnia, 2021; Puckett et al., 2020).
   2. In the item assessing gender identity, include specific response options for “non-binary,” “genderqueer,” “genderfluid,” and “agender” identities.
   3. Include a write-in field if including an “other” or “different identity” option for gender identity.

3. Use inclusive terms that are reflective of currently accepted language and carefully consider, research, and provide definitions of gender-related terms in research materials.

4. Keep sexual and gender identity groups separate where possible in statistical analyses, in lieu of forming a heterogenous “LGBTQ+” group.

5. Explore gender as a moderator of developmental and peer-related processes. For example, maybe adolescents across genders build trust with ingroup peers, but the ways they build trust or the strength of trust in relationships differs among cisgender, transgender, and non-binary individuals.

6. Consider the multidimensionality of gender, including expression, role perceptions, or stereotypes, and which dimension(s) is(are) most likely to be implicated in the focal psychological processes. For example, maybe gender stereotypes are more important in the impact of engaging in sexual talk with peers than is the way an adolescent identifies their gender.

7. Consider the intersectionality of gender with other social identities, like sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, ability, socioeconomic status, and others.

This list represents many different, complex ways of engaging in best practices for capturing gender diversity; it is a list of best practices toward which we can strive, not necessarily expect to implement fully for every study. It will take careful consideration and reiteration to be able to incorporate most or all the above recommendations into peer relations research.

Further, we might encounter barriers in implementing these practices that are external to our own research community, such as protests from conservative Institutional Review Boards. It will be important to provide justification for these methodological choices when submitting research plans for review to IRB’s, which could be framed as showing respect for young people with diverse gender identities in addition to being necessary to answer the research questions. More conservative IRB’s might be swayed by citing literature to indicate the harm that could be caused by not implementing inclusive and culturally competent practices in our research, and how much people with diverse gender identities appreciate it when they are not forced to identify with binary categories but can instead answer an open-ended question or choose from a wide range of gender identities (e.g., Deutsch, 2016; Goldberg & Kuvalanka, 2016; Puckett et al., 2020). Investigators may also wish to reference studies that indicate cisgender individuals understand and are not made uncomfortable by asking about sex assigned at birth separately from gender identity (Lombardi & Banik, 2016). Those investigators with more progressive IRB’s who are able to implement these practices could build in additional items to assess whether asking questions to assess a broader range of gender identities cause any confusion or distress (for example, “How much did it bother you that you were asked about both whether you identify with the transgender experience and how you describe your gender?” or “How much did it bother you to see definitions of different types of gender identities?”, thus generating a literature that could be referenced showing that young people may not be perturbed by these questions.

Alternative Inclusive Measurement Approaches

Gender identity can also be measured with alternative inclusive methods if the research design and questions call for this. Several examples of multidimensional, innovative measures of gender exist in the LGBTQ+-focused literature. Some rely on self-report: for example, McGuire and colleagues (2019, 2020) have developed and expanded two measures that capture impressive nuance in gender identification. The Genderqueer Identity (GQI) Scale measures four distinct subscales: non-binary identity, socially constructed versus essentialist gender, theoretical awareness of gender concepts, and gender fluidity (McGuire et al., 2019). Similarly, the Utrecht Gender Dysphoria Scale – Gender Spectrum (UGDS-GS) captures both dissatisfaction with gender identity over the lifespan as well as comfort with currently-affirmed gender identity (McGuire et al., 2020). Both scales, albeit more complex for participants to complete than the two-step gender identity process, can provide much more detailed and nuanced information about how individuals identify and experience their gender without relying on overly broad or catch-all identity categories that may not accurately represent all identities. The scales have also demonstrated reliability and validity in transgender, non-binary/genderqueer, and even cisgender individuals with marginalized sexual orientations (McGuire et al., 2020). These methods could be particularly useful if scholars are interested in not just a person’s labelled identity but their experiences around gender.

It could also be helpful to give participants autonomy in their gender self-categorization and phrase gender identity questions transparently with respect to the research question or process. An example may be, “When we describe who participated in our study: Which of these categories would you like us to include you in?” with options for “a trans/transgender category, a cisgender category, neither cisgender nor transgender, and unsure,” ensuring to allow open responses for why the participant chose neither or unsure. (Beischel et al., in preparation).

More innovatively, some picture-based methods exist for assessing gender identity. The Gender Identity Scale (GIS) was developed based on the Gender Unicorn (Ho & Mussap, 2019). This scale utilizes separate spectra that represent the extent to which an individual identifies with female/woman/girl, male/man/boy, or other gender(s). Similarly, the Perth Gender Picture (PGP) was developed specifically for adolescents to report their gender identity and experience (Moore et al., 2020). This measure visually represents gender identity as a diamond with four points – male/masculine, female/feminine, something else/different, or neither male nor female. The middle of the diagram could be considered androgyny or bigender identity. Participants reflected that gender was easier to describe via picture than words (Moore et al., 2020). This pictorial example could then be coded to reflect strength of identification with each quadrant of the diagram, similar to a spectrum-based identity. Completely removed from labels or categories, these methods could allow researchers to present the diversity and range of gender identities across the three spectra, and use the sums or statistical interactions of the spectra scores to represent continuous, spectrum-based gender identity as opposed to potentially arbitrary, overly generalized group labels.

How Might Peer Groups Support Those with Diverse Gender Identities?

Following these best practices for assessing gender identity has the potential to open our eyes as peer relations researchers to help us understand how youth may be embracing diverse gender identities. Another important step will be using what we know about the power of peer groups to enforce and to support diverse gender identities, even perhaps to understand how parents, teachers, and youth might already be supporting youth with diverse gender identities.

Much of what we know about gender identity and gender schemas and stereotypes suggests that it may be difficult to help youth and all of us move beyond insistence on the gender dichotomy as of thinking about gender identity. This begs the question: Does the power of gender schemas suggest that young people will always be reluctant to accept behavior that runs counter to stereotypes, or conceive that gender identity could be anything but binary? Absolutely not. As noted above, there is every reason to believe that young people are flexible in how they think about gender identity and open to diverse possibilities. In fact, the power of gender schemas with both their conventional and metaphorical associations may underlie some of the freedom and delight that some youth seem to experience when expressing gender identity in unconventional ways or celebrating those who do. For example, “gender vanguards” and “gender troublemakers” are individuals who adopt and present non-conforming gender-typed appearance and/or behavior.

Theoretically, the presence and popularity of “gender vanguards” and “gender troublemakers” should both be a threat to and fundamentally change the ways that gender roles are understood, socialized, and accepted (Rudman & Glick, 2008; Morgenroth & Ryan, 2020). This seems to practically be the case as well: one example is Jonathan Van Ness, the grooming expert from the television series Queer Eye, who came out as non-binary in 2019. He has 4.9 million followers on Instagram, where followers can observe him expressing himself as he describes in his profile, “Parent-Hair and Skincare Expert-Comedian-Host-Activist-Ice Skater-Gymnast-Author-NYT Best Seller- Over the Top out now.” The power and ubiquity of gender schemas may make violating them or pitting conventional against metaphorical associations feel so enticing and even revolutionary for youth.

Once peer relations researchers begin embracing diverse gender identities by assessing them more accurately, many possibilities open for using what we know about peer relationships to provide support for youth with diverse gender identities. Another chapter in this special issue by Poteat et al. (this issue) will address how sexual minority youth are treated by peer groups; what we would like to convey here is how peer relations research might illuminate new ways in which parents, teachers, and peer groups could, or more likely already are, supporting youth with diverse gender identities. As one example, even the presence of a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) in LGBT students’ high schools has been associated with better school functioning and lower psychological distress and problematic alcohol use (Baams & Russell, 2021). As gender-diverse youth are often included in a broad LGBT sample, it is likely that these individuals are also benefitting from the support of a queer-affirming organization in their educational community. Similarly, transgender youth who had publicly transitioned showed similar levels of depression and anxiety to their cisgender matched peers, indicating that social acceptance can mitigate internalizing issues previously found at high rates in transgender youth (Durwood et al., 2017). Accurately measuring gender will allow for researchers to elucidate the processes by which peer acceptance positively contributes to psychosocial wellbeing for gender diverse youth.

Lest you think that what we are proposing here is social engineering, we challenge you to appreciate that social engineering has been going on for centuries to support the power of gender schemas; for example, always referring to young students as “boys and girls”, having different styles of name tags for boys and girls, completely different styles of clothing for girls and separate toy aisles (Bigler, 1995; Fabes et al., 2019). We would like to be so bold as to suggest that we use what we know about children’s peer relations to engage in social engineering strategies that create more possibilities for everyone, including children who may be developing diverse gender identities.

We know that many children prefer to play and associate with “same-gender” peers beginning in toddlerhood (Serbin et al., 1994), which continues through childhood (Martin et al., 2013) and adolescence (Gottman & Mettetal, 1986, Maccoby, 1998; Poulin & Pederson, 2007), and even to a lesser degree in adulthood (Mehta & Strough, 2010). Girls’ preference for “same-gender” play appears to emerge earlier than boys’ (Maccoby, 1998), perhaps due to gender differences in play styles (Fabes, 1994) such that girls withdraw from boys’ more rough, aggressive play (Maccoby, 1998). Perhaps teachers and peers reward children for playing more with “same-gender” peers (Fagot, 1994). Children’s gender cognitions, such as their perceived similarity to their gender category, likely further perpetuate gender segregation in childhood (Martin et al., 2011). Childhood peers enforce the gender dichotomy with each other, as they prefer to play in “same-gender” groups and seem to socialize each other in distinctive ways that ultimately pose challenges when men and women begin to explore and form romantic partnerships (Maccoby, 1998).

Gender segregation persists, although at a declining rate, into adolescence: in one study across ages 12 to 16, adolescents were consistently found to have about three times more “same-gender” than “other-gender” friends (Poulin & Pederson, 2007). Similarly, when asked to nominate peers to socialize with, 72% of the nominations made by adolescents aged 15 to 17 were peers of the “same gender” (Mehta & Strough, 2010). Even in college students, Reeder (2003) found that two-thirds of men’s and four-fifths of women’s friendships were “same gender.” This segregation could persist due to maintained salience of gender dichotomies and continued beliefs about interpersonal differences, for instance that girls and women are more communicative and cooperative than are boys and men (Mehta & Strough, 2010).

If part of gender segregation beginning in early childhood is due to social reinforcement, perhaps teachers and adults might consider engaging in less overt encouragement of “same-gender” play, for example, not having girls and boys line up separately, and constantly encouraging children of the “same” gender to play and work together (Bigler, 1995; Fabes et al., 2019). Ethnographic research shows that in some contexts, girls and boys are likely to engage in interaction with the “other” gender; for example, when the activity is structured and children do not have to choose their partners (Thorne, 1993). Perhaps parents and teachers could provide more of these types of contexts for girls and boys to interact, which might open more possibilities for all children, but perhaps especially those who are developing diverse gender identities.

As long as we are making suggestions for how adults might engage in gentle social engineering to support gender diverse youth, we should not forget what peer relations researchers understand about the power of friends. Just as two examples, we know that having good friends at the start of kindergarten relates to having more favorable perceptions of school in the early months (Ladd, 1990) and that having a reciprocated friendship predicts a more positive transition to middle school (Wentzel et al., 2004). Parents and teachers could support gender diverse youth by thinking strategically about how they might help these youth develop friendships, by seating them or putting them in work groups, or arranging other activities or opportunities to connect with peers who seem prosocial, open-minded, and enjoy similar activities. Using more sensitive assessments that include diverse gender identities would allow us to carefully examine the impact of friendships and social support for these children and could even lead to the development of prevention and intervention programs to foster acceptance and greater social support for children with of diverse gender identities.

If peer relations researchers assess gender identity in a way that moves beyond the binary, we might also be able to understand how youth could and probably already are using the power of peer influence to support youth with diverse gender identities. Peer relations researchers have created a rich body or theory and research on how young people influence one another (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). Assessing a range of different gender identities could open our eyes as to the ways in which gender diverse youth connect with peer networks. Do gender diverse youth form networks with each other, select each other into groups with similar peers, or do gender diverse youth affiliate with those with more traditional gender identities? If gender diverse youth have networks that include gender typical peers, could socialization occur where gender typical youth become more affirming and accepting of gender diverse youth? Further, these assessments could elucidate how youth may be influencing each other either to reject or ostracize youth with diverse gender identities; or better yet, how prosocial, open-minded, high status peers might be able to influence others to be supportive and accepting of peers with diverse gender identities. Clarifying the processes by which peer networks either support or reject gender diverse youth could lead to creating targeted policy and interventions based on these specific processes designed to maximize support for these youth.

Last but not least, if peer relations researchers could move beyond the binary in assessing gender identity, we might be able to see with new eyes how youth with diverse gender identities engage with and experience digital communication and social media. Co-construction theory suggests both that youth construct and curate the content they are exposed to online, but also that youth explore developmental issues, such as identity and sexual exploration, similarly in their online and offline communication (Subrahmanyam et al., 2006). A newer approach, transformation theory, suggests that social media may amplify aspects of friendships and peer relations in ways that offer could offer new opportunities for youth, perhaps especially those with diverse gender identities (Nesi et al., 2018a, 2018b). Preliminary evidence suggests that gender-diverse individuals are finding increased support via online platforms (Craig et al., 2015; Lucero, 2017; Ybarra et al., 2015). Studying how gender diverse youth express themselves and connect with peers via online platforms could illuminate the supports that gender-diverse individuals are gaining online and could open our eyes to how peer support or scorn online may affect the psychological functioning of gender diverse youth.

With these best practices for measurement and research design in mind, we propose four pressing research questions to be considered over the next decade:

1. At what developmental stage do children begin to express diverse gender identities? Simply asking open ended questions of children in different age groups in peer relations research might provide descriptive data that speak to this question.

2. How are all children and adolescents currently supporting gender diverse youth, and how are gender diverse youth supporting themselves and each other?

3. How can peer influence and support mechanisms be harnessed to promote wellbeing for young people of all genders?

4. How can peers resist biases toward gender diversity to foster greatest inclusion and equity for young people of all genders?

If peer relations researchers could follow best practices in studying gender identity, imagine what we could learn. Imagine if we could use what we know about children’s peer processes to help peer groups support youth with diverse gender identities. Imagine if we could study and understand what youth may already be doing to support peers with diverse gender identities. Peer relations researchers need to join with young people in transcending the gender binary.

Highlights.

• Young people are challenging traditional binary conceptions of gender identity

• Conceptualization and measurement in peer relations should reflect youths’ gender flexibility

• Gender is best measured using multifaceted, intersectionally-informed items

• Peer influence can be harnessed to promote acceptance of diverse gender identities

• Parents and teachers can also support positive peer gender socialization