Knowing the gender of our survey respondents is critical to a variety of analyses we do at Pew Research Center. Gender affects how a person sees and is seen by the world. It’s predictive of things like voting behavior, the wage gap and household responsibilities.

了解我们的受访者的性别对于我们在皮尤研究中心进行的各种分析至关重要。 性别影响一个人对世界的看法和看法。 它可以预测投票行为 ， 工资差距和家庭责任等情况 。

On nearly all surveys we conduct in the United States, we ask people, “Are you male or female?” (Or, in Spanish: ¿Es usted hombre o mujer?) While this wording has been the standard question we’ve used for years, we wondered if we could find a new way to ask about gender that would acknowledge changing norms around gender identity and improve data quality and accuracy, while still maintaining the neutrality that defines the Center.

在我们在美国进行的几乎所有调查中，我们都会问人们：“您是男性还是女性？” (或者，西班牙语： “ usted hombre o mujer？” )虽然这个措辞一直是我们多年来使用的标准问题，但我们想知道是否可以找到一种新的方式来询问性别问题，以承认围绕性别认同发生变化的规范并提高数据质量和准确性，同时仍保持定义中心的中立性。

We organized a research team to answer this question and — if the answer turned out to be yes — how we might modify the way we ask about respondents’ gender. Ultimately, we settled on a new version of the question: “Do you describe yourself as a man, a woman, or in some other way?” (Or, in Spanish: ¿Se describe a sí mismo(a) como un hombre, una mujer o de alguna otra manera?)

我们组织了一个研究小组来回答这个问题，如果答案是肯定的，我们将如何修改询问受访者性别的方式。 最终，我们解决了这个问题的新版本：“您将自己描述为男人，女人还是其他人？” (或者用西班牙语： “ Se描述一个混合的，不合法的，不合法的？” )

Here, we detail how and why we came to this decision.

在这里，我们详细说明了我们如何以及为何做出这一决定。

我们考虑了研究中的态度，法律和最佳实践 (We considered attitudes, laws and best practices in research)

Gender is a social construct based on how people see themselves and how others see them. Sex, by contrast, is a biological construct assigned at birth. An estimated 1.4 million U.S. adults are transgender, which is defined in this post as people who identify as neither a man nor a woman (sometimes people in this group use the term “nonbinary”) or those who identify with a gender different from the sex they were assigned at birth. (It is worth noting that some people in this group might use terms other than “transgender” to describe themselves.) Roughly one-in-five U.S. adults know someone who uses a gender neutral pronoun such as “they” instead of “he” or “she,” and 17 states and the District of Columbia have adapted to this evolution in gender identity by adding a nonbinary option to driver’s licenses.

性别是一种基于人们如何看待自己以及他人如何看待自己的社会建构 。 相比之下，性别是出生时分配的生物构造。 估计有140万美国成年人是变性人，在此职位中，定义为既不识别男人也不识别女人的人 (有时该组中的人使用“非二进制”一词)或识别出与性别不同的性别的人他们出生时就被分配了 。 (值得注意的是，该组中的某些人可能会使用“变性”以外的术语来形容自己。)大约五分之一的美国成年人知道有人使用性别中立代词，例如“他们”而不是“他”。或“她”，以及17个州和哥伦比亚特区通过在驾照中添加非二进制选项来适应性别身份的这种变化。

Other survey researchers have also begun adapting their gender questions. Some surveys ask a two-step question to determine both sex assigned at birth and current gender identity. Others ask whether a respondent is male or female and whether they self-identify as transgender. Meanwhile, qualitative research has looked at the best terms to use when asking about gender identity.

其他调查研究人员也已开始适应他们的性别问题。 一些 调查提出两步问题，以确定出生时分配的性别和当前的性别身份。 其他人则 询问受访者是男性还是女性，以及他们是否自我识别为变性者。 同时， 定性研究研究了询问性别认同时使用的最佳术语。

Given that many Americans view gender in a way that is more complex than can be captured in just the two response options of “male” and “female,” adding a third option could improve data accuracy by ensuring the data are representative and inclusive of all types of voices. Proponents of a third gender response option may also perceive the lack of such an option as exclusionary. On the other hand, the Center was concerned that adding a third option could possibly alienate the 56% of U.S. adults who said in a 2018 survey that forms or online profiles should not include an option other than “man” and “woman.” If either group stopped participating in our surveys, it would introduce bias and harm data quality. Another consideration was how a third gender response option would translate into Spanish. The Center’s surveys are almost always conducted in both English and Spanish, and little existing research has addressed how to phrase a revised gender question in Spanish.

鉴于许多美国人对性别的看法比仅在“男性”和“女性”两个回答选项中所能捕捉到的更为复杂，因此添加第三个选项可以通过确保数据具有代表性和包容性来提高数据准确性。声音类型。 支持第三种性别选择方案的人也可能会认为缺少这种选择是排他性的。 在另一方面，该中心关注的是增加了第三个选项可能可能疏远美国成年人的56％，谁在2018年的调查说，表格或网上个人资料不应包括比“人”和其他选项“的女人。” 如果这两个小组中的任何一个停止参与我们的调查，都会引入偏差并损害数据质量。 另一个考虑因素是第三种性别应对方案将如何翻译成西班牙文。 中心的调查几乎总是以英语和西班牙语进行，而现有的研究很少涉及如何用西班牙语表达经修订的性别问题。

先前的研究为我们提出了新的性别认同问题 (Prior research informed our new gender identity question)

In previous studies, researchers have conducted a variety of tests about the best way to ask about gender. Informed by this research, we decided to make our starting point the question wording used in the National Crime Victimization Survey: “Do you currently describe yourself as male, female or transgender?” We then made two changes based on previous research.

在以前的 研究中 ，研究人员就询问性别的最佳方法进行了各种测试。 根据这项研究，我们决定以全国犯罪被害调查中使用的疑问措词为起点：“您目前描述自己是男性，女性还是变性者？” 然后，我们根据之前的研究进行了两项更改。

First, we replaced “transgender” with the phrase “in some other way.” Some people who identify as neither male nor female do not identify with the term “transgender,” instead preferring “nonbinary,” “genderfluid” or other terms. “Transgender” also isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive from “male” and “female.” For example, some people consider themselves both male and transgender. In addition, there is no Spanish equivalent of “transgender,” and around three-in-ten U.S. adults do not have a clear understanding of what “transgender” means.

首先，我们将“变性者”替换为“以其他方式”。 某些既不是男性也不是女性的人并不认同 “变性者”一词，而是更喜欢“非二元”，“性别流体”或其他术语。 “变性人”也不一定与“男性”和“女性”互斥。 例如，有些人认为自己既是男性又是变性者。 此外，没有西班牙语等同于“变性者”，并且大约十分之三的美国成年人对“变性者”的含义没有清晰的了解。

Second, we replaced “male” and “female” with “a man” and “a woman.” The words “male” and “female” refer to a person’s biology or sex, while the words “man” and “woman” are cultural terms that are more consistent with the concept of gender.

其次，我们用“男人”和“女人”代替“男”和“女”。 “男”和“女”这两个词是指一个人的生物学或性别 ，而“男”和“女”这两个词是与性别概念更一致的文化术语。

我们进行了一项实验来解决未解决的问题 (We conducted an experiment to address outstanding concerns)

In June and July 2020, we conducted an online opt-in survey of 5,903 internet panelists to test two alternative gender question options in English and Spanish. A total of 4,931 responded in English and 972 responded in Spanish. The survey took an average of 12 minutes to complete and included questions about the coronavirus outbreak, political approval and other demographics.

2020年6月和2020年7月，我们对5,903名互联网专家进行了在线选择参与调查，以英语和西班牙语测试两种替代性性别问题选项。 共有4,931篇用英语回答，而972篇用西班牙语回答。 该调查平均需要12分钟才能完成，其中包括有关冠状病毒爆发，政治批准和其他人口统计信息的问题。

Respondents were randomly assigned to receive one of three sets of gender questions after receiving other demographic questions. One group of respondents (n=1,654) received the standard Pew Research Center question. Another group (n=2,611) received a question about sex, followed by a question about gender:

在接受其他人口统计学问题后，将受访者随机分配为接受三组性别问题之一。 一组受访者(n = 1654)收到了Pew研究中心的标准问题。 另一组(n = 2,611)收到有关性别的问题，然后收到有关性别的问题：

1. “Were you born male or female?” (¿Su sexo al nacer fue masculino o femenino?)

1.“您是男是女？” ( ¿Su sexo al nacer fue masculino o femenino？ )

2. “Do you describe yourself as a man, a woman, or in some other way?” (¿Se describe a sí mismo(a) como un hombre, una mujer o de alguna otra manera?) The phrase “some other way” also included a text box for respondent specification.

2.“您将自己描述为男人，女人还是其他方式？” ( “ Se描述了一个同名的人，是一个不合法的人吗？” )“其他方式”一词还包括一个用于回应者说明的文本框。

In asking these questions, it was especially important that we minimized the number of adults who might incorrectly be classified as transgender. Since the U.S. transgender population is small, estimates of the size of this population might be artificially inflated even if a small number of respondents accidentally chose the wrong answer. To minimize this error, we asked a third follow-up question of those whose responses to these two questions did not match:

在提出这些问题时，特别重要的是，我们应尽量减少可能被错误地归类为跨性别者的成年人数量。 由于美国的跨性别人口很少，因此即使少数受访者意外选择了错误的答案，也可能人为地夸大了这一人口的规模。 为了最大程度地减少此错误，我们对那些对这两个问题的回答不匹配的人提出了第三个后续问题：

3. “Just to confirm, you were born [male/female] and now describe yourself [as a man/as a woman/in some other way]. Is that correct?” (Solo para confirmar, su sexo al nacer fue [masculino/femenino] y ahora se describe a sí mismo(a) [como hombre/como mujer/de otra manera]. ¿Es eso correcto?)

3.“只需确认一下，您就出生了[男性/女性]，现在[以男性/女性/其他方式]形容自己。 那是对的吗？” ( 独奏性确认书，su sexo al nacer fue [masculino / femenino]和ahora se描述了símismo(a)[como hombre / como mujer / de otra manera]。

If respondents said their answers were not recorded correctly, they were given the opportunity to re-answer both questions.

如果受访者说他们的答案记录不正确，那么他们就有机会重新回答两个问题。

A final group (n=1,638) received the same questions as the second group, but in reverse order; they received the question about gender identity before the question about sex assigned at birth. This group was also asked to confirm if their answers to the two questions didn’t match.

最后一组(n = 1,638)收到的问题与第二组相同，但顺序相反。 他们在出生时分配的性别问题之前就收到了有关性别认同的问题。 还要求该小组确认他们对两个问题的答案是否不匹配。

At the end of the survey, immediately following the gender/sex questions, we asked all respondents whether they thought our questions were biased (and, if so, why), followed by two questions about their views on transgender rights and offering a third gender option on forms and online profiles.

在调查结束时，紧接着性别/性别问题之后，我们询问了所有受访者是否认为我们的问题有偏见(如果是，为什么)，接着是两个问题，关于他们对跨性别权利的看法并提出了第三种性别表格和在线个人资料上的选项。

Unweighted estimates from this experiment are sprinkled throughout the remainder of this post. While opt-in samples are not ideal for creating point estimates, they are useful when comparing experimental wording conditions, as was the purpose here. To further improve comparability and to ensure we had reliable estimates, we also implemented a series of quotas and included an oversample of less-acculturated Hispanics (as determined by a combination of language skills, years living in the U.S., type of media consumption and self-described cultural affiliation).

在本博文的其余部分中，都散布了来自该实验的未加权估计。 虽然选择加入的样本对于创建点估计值并不理想，但它们在比较实验用词条件时很有用，这就是此处的目的。 为了进一步提高可比性并确保我们获得可靠的估算，我们还实施了一系列配额，包括对不那么受教育的西班牙裔进行过采样(这取决于语言技能，在美国的居住年限，媒体消费的类型和自我描述的文化归属)。

新的性别问题改善了数据质量 (Data quality improved with the new gender question)

Regardless of the way in which we asked respondents their sex/gender, we observed consistent distributions among men and women, suggesting little effect of the question wording for most people. However, among English-speaking adults who received the new gender questions, 1.5% selected the third, nonbinary response option or chose a gender inconsistent with their sex, suggesting that the inclusion of the third option had the intended effect on being more inclusive and improving data accuracy.

无论我们以何种方式询问受访者的性别，我们都观察到男女之间的分布一致，这表明问题措词对大多数人影响不大。 但是，在收到新的性别问题的讲英语的成年人中，有1.5％的人选择了第三个非二元回答选项或选择了与他们的性别不符的性别，这表明，包含第三个选项对更具有包容性和改善性具有预期的作用。数据准确性。

There was some concern that people who consider themselves a man or woman may not wish to be defined by their gender and instead opt for the third option and write in a non-gender term to describe themselves, such as “human” or “mother” or “scientist.” A large number of these types of responses would have suggested that the revised question would introduce error and hurt data quality. Luckily, we only observed four of these types of responses among English speakers, affecting the estimate by 0.1 percentage point and suggesting that it was not a problem.

有人担心，认为自己是男人或女人的人可能不希望按性别来定义，而是选择第三种选择，并用非性别来描述自己，例如“人”或“母亲”。或“科学家”。 这些答复中有很多都表明修订后的问题会引入错误并损害数据质量。 幸运的是，我们仅在说英语的人群中观察到了其中四种响应，将估计值降低了0.1个百分点，并表明这不是问题。

提供第三种性别选择并不会疏远人们 (Providing a third gender option didn’t alienate people)

Fewer English-speaking respondents to our 2020 survey said they opposed the inclusion of a third gender response option on forms or online profiles (44%) than in our 2018 survey. However, 44% is still a substantial share of respondents. We were concerned that opponents would find our new, more inclusive question off-putting. This concern did not appear in the data. Fewer than 1% opted not to answer the gender question.

参加我们2020年调查的说英语的受访者人数较少，他们表示反对在表单或在线个人资料中包含第三项性别React选项(44％)，而不是我们2018年的调查。 但是，仍有44％的受访者占很大比例。 我们担心对手会发现我们提出的更具包容性的新问题。 该担忧没有出现在数据中。 不到1％的人选择不回答性别问题。

The revised gender question also didn’t cause more people to stop taking the survey before completing it. No more than 0.5% of English-speaking respondents across all experimental conditions opted to stop participating at or after the sex and gender questions.

修改后的性别问题也没有导致更多的人在完成调查之前就停止参加调查。 在所有实验条件下，不超过0.5％的讲英语的受访者选择在性别和性别问题发生时或之后停止参与。

The revised questions also did not appear to be affecting the Center’s credibility as a nonpartisan research organization. When asked whether respondents thought the survey was politically neutral, about three-in-four English speakers said the survey was not at all or not very biased, regardless of which gender questions they received.

修订后的问题似乎也没有影响该中心作为无党派研究组织的信誉。 当被问及受访者是否认为该调查在政治上是中立的时，大约四分之三的说英语的人说，该调查根本没有或没有很大的偏见，无论他们收到了哪些性别问题。

新的性别问题也适用于西班牙语 (The new gender question worked in Spanish, too)

A small proportion of Spanish-speaking respondents (3.6%) opted for the third gender choice or chose a gender inconsistent with their sex. While this was significantly higher than the estimate among English speakers (1.5%), both English and Spanish speakers were asked to confirm their choice if sex and gender responses did not match. Spanish speakers consistently confirmed their answers to both sex and gender. Moreover, when asked if they found any questions confusing, only six Spanish speakers mentioned the gender question wording, and none of the six were coded as transgender.

一小部分讲西班牙语的受访者(3.6％)选择了第三种性别选择或选择了与自己的性别不符的性别。 尽管这明显高于英语国家(1.5％)的估计，但英语和西班牙语国家都被要求确认性别和性别React不匹配时的选择。 讲西班牙语的人一贯证实了他们对性别的回答。 此外，当被问及是否发现任何令人困惑的问题时，只有六位西班牙语发言者提到了性别问题的用词，而六位中没有一位被编码为跨性别者。

Similar to English-speaking respondents, Spanish speakers did not seem to be affected by the various question wordings. And the addition of a third option had no perceivable alienation effect. Some 40% of Spanish speakers said they disapproved of the addition of a third gender choice on forms, but the addition of a third response category to the gender question did not cause more people to stop participating in the survey prematurely, nor did it affect the proportion of Spanish-speakers who perceived the survey as somewhat or very biased.

与说英语的受访者相似，说西班牙语的人似乎不受各种问题措辞的影响。 而且，添加第三种选择没有明显的疏远作用。 大约40％的西班牙讲者说，他们不赞成在表格中添加第三种性别选择，但是在性别问题中添加第三种回答类别并不会导致更多的人停止过早参加调查，也不会影响到认为调查有些偏颇的西班牙语使用者的比例。

除了性别之外，也不需要询问性别 (Asking about sex in addition to gender wasn’t necessary)

While our experiment used a two-step question to deduce both a respondent’s sex and gender, moving forward, we will limit most of the Center’s U.S. surveys to the single gender question referenced at the top of this post.

尽管我们的实验使用两步问题来推断受访者的性别，但向前迈进的同时，我们会将中心在美国的大部分调查限于本文顶部引用的单个性别问题。

Based on comments collected at the end of our experiment, fewer than 1% of respondents mentioned the sex and gender questions in any way. Among those who did, 30% expressed frustration over the presence of multiple questions or concern about the use of the term “born” in the question on sex. Also, the inclusion of a question about respondent’s sex isn’t necessary for most of the Center’s research, which focuses predominantly on gender. And while we do construct weights based on population estimates by sex, the correlation between gender and sex suggests that gender can reliably be used as a proxy for sex for this purpose. Another important consideration is respondents’ time: If we don’t need to ask a question, we won’t.

根据我们实验结束时收集的评论，只有不到1％的受访者以任何方式提及性别和性别问题。 在那些做过的人中，有30％的人对存在多个问题感到沮丧，或者对性别问题中使用“出生”一词表示担忧。 此外，对于该中心的大部分研究(主要关注性别)，也不必包含有关受访者性别的问题。 虽然我们确实根据性别估算出人口的权重，但性别与性别之间的相关性表明，为此目的，性别可以可靠地用作性别的代表。 另一个重要的考虑因素是受访者的时间：如果我们不需要问问题，我们就不会。

In conclusion, this change in how we ask about gender was not taken lightly, as we were driven to ensure inclusivity and accuracy while maintaining the rigorousness and neutrality that characterizes the Center.

总而言之，我们对性别的询问方式的变化并非轻描淡写，因为我们被迫确保包容性和准确性，同时保持中心所代表的严谨和中立。

This post was written by Ashley Amaya, Emily A. Vogels and Anna Brown of Pew Research Center. Ashley Amaya is a senior survey research methodologist. Emily A. Vogels is a research associate focusing on internet and technology. Anna Brown is a research associate focusing on social and demographic trends.

这篇文章是由皮尤研究中心的Ashley Amaya，Emily A. Vogels和Anna Brown撰写的。 Ashley Amaya是高级调查研究方法学家。 Emily A. Vogels是专注于互联网和技术的研究助理。 安娜·布朗(Anna Brown)是致力于社会和人口趋势的研究助理。