Predictive validity of the genderqueer identity scale (GQI)

differences between genderqueer, transgender and cisgender sexual minority individuals

Jory M. Catalpa, Jenifer K McGuire, Dianne R Berg, G. Nic Rider, Nic Rider, Dianne Berg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: The Genderqueer Identity Scale (GQI; McGuire et al., this issue)–a newly developed and validated measure–assesses genderqueer identity via four subscales: challenging the gender binary, the extent to which participants actively work to dismantle gender binaries in identity and expression); social construction of gender, or the degree to which participants interpret their gender identity as something that develops versus an innate essentialist phenomenon; theoretical awareness of gender, the degree of social and political intention attached to gender identity; and gender fluidity, or repeated shifting of gender expression across periods of time. Aim: This descriptive study examined the predictive validity of the GQI and group differences in genderqueer identity with a sample of transgender, genderqueer and nonbinary spectrum, and cisgender sexual minority adults (N = 510). Methods: We hypothesized that Genderqueer Non-binary (GQNB) participants would score higher on GQI subscale scores compared to transgender participants who identify within the gender binary. Results: Results from ANOVA models indicated a statistically significant difference in intrapersonal subscales across sexual minority and transgender binary or genderqueer groups. For the interpersonal subscales there were differences across all three groups. Cisgender sexual minority participants reported the lowest levels on all scales, while genderqueer participants reported the highest, and transgender binary were in-between. Discussion: The GQI demonstrates strong predictive validity in distinguishing binary transpersons from GQNB and cisgender sexual minority persons. Findings reveal that these three subgroups who might otherwise be similarly categorized (i.e., LGBTQ) show significant differences on challenging the binary, social construction, theoretical awareness, and gender fluidity constructs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)305-314
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Transgenderism
Volume20
Issue number2-3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

minority
gender
social construction
Group
human being

Keywords

  • Gender fluidity
  • genderqueer identity scale
  • nonbinary
  • transgender

Cite this

@article{7ce618cae8c84032abf2145bc79c7b64,
title = "Predictive validity of the genderqueer identity scale (GQI): differences between genderqueer, transgender and cisgender sexual minority individuals",
abstract = "Introduction: The Genderqueer Identity Scale (GQI; McGuire et al., this issue)–a newly developed and validated measure–assesses genderqueer identity via four subscales: challenging the gender binary, the extent to which participants actively work to dismantle gender binaries in identity and expression); social construction of gender, or the degree to which participants interpret their gender identity as something that develops versus an innate essentialist phenomenon; theoretical awareness of gender, the degree of social and political intention attached to gender identity; and gender fluidity, or repeated shifting of gender expression across periods of time. Aim: This descriptive study examined the predictive validity of the GQI and group differences in genderqueer identity with a sample of transgender, genderqueer and nonbinary spectrum, and cisgender sexual minority adults (N = 510). Methods: We hypothesized that Genderqueer Non-binary (GQNB) participants would score higher on GQI subscale scores compared to transgender participants who identify within the gender binary. Results: Results from ANOVA models indicated a statistically significant difference in intrapersonal subscales across sexual minority and transgender binary or genderqueer groups. For the interpersonal subscales there were differences across all three groups. Cisgender sexual minority participants reported the lowest levels on all scales, while genderqueer participants reported the highest, and transgender binary were in-between. Discussion: The GQI demonstrates strong predictive validity in distinguishing binary transpersons from GQNB and cisgender sexual minority persons. Findings reveal that these three subgroups who might otherwise be similarly categorized (i.e., LGBTQ) show significant differences on challenging the binary, social construction, theoretical awareness, and gender fluidity constructs.",
keywords = "Gender fluidity, genderqueer identity scale, nonbinary, transgender",
author = "Catalpa, {Jory M.} and McGuire, {Jenifer K} and Berg, {Dianne R} and {Nic Rider}, G. and Nic Rider and Dianne Berg",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/15532739.2018.1528196",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "305--314",
journal = "International Journal of Transgenderism",
issn = "1434-4599",
publisher = "Haworth Press Inc.",
number = "2-3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Predictive validity of the genderqueer identity scale (GQI)

T2 - differences between genderqueer, transgender and cisgender sexual minority individuals

AU - Catalpa, Jory M.

AU - McGuire, Jenifer K

AU - Berg, Dianne R

AU - Nic Rider, G.

AU - Rider, Nic

AU - Berg, Dianne

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Introduction: The Genderqueer Identity Scale (GQI; McGuire et al., this issue)–a newly developed and validated measure–assesses genderqueer identity via four subscales: challenging the gender binary, the extent to which participants actively work to dismantle gender binaries in identity and expression); social construction of gender, or the degree to which participants interpret their gender identity as something that develops versus an innate essentialist phenomenon; theoretical awareness of gender, the degree of social and political intention attached to gender identity; and gender fluidity, or repeated shifting of gender expression across periods of time. Aim: This descriptive study examined the predictive validity of the GQI and group differences in genderqueer identity with a sample of transgender, genderqueer and nonbinary spectrum, and cisgender sexual minority adults (N = 510). Methods: We hypothesized that Genderqueer Non-binary (GQNB) participants would score higher on GQI subscale scores compared to transgender participants who identify within the gender binary. Results: Results from ANOVA models indicated a statistically significant difference in intrapersonal subscales across sexual minority and transgender binary or genderqueer groups. For the interpersonal subscales there were differences across all three groups. Cisgender sexual minority participants reported the lowest levels on all scales, while genderqueer participants reported the highest, and transgender binary were in-between. Discussion: The GQI demonstrates strong predictive validity in distinguishing binary transpersons from GQNB and cisgender sexual minority persons. Findings reveal that these three subgroups who might otherwise be similarly categorized (i.e., LGBTQ) show significant differences on challenging the binary, social construction, theoretical awareness, and gender fluidity constructs.

AB - Introduction: The Genderqueer Identity Scale (GQI; McGuire et al., this issue)–a newly developed and validated measure–assesses genderqueer identity via four subscales: challenging the gender binary, the extent to which participants actively work to dismantle gender binaries in identity and expression); social construction of gender, or the degree to which participants interpret their gender identity as something that develops versus an innate essentialist phenomenon; theoretical awareness of gender, the degree of social and political intention attached to gender identity; and gender fluidity, or repeated shifting of gender expression across periods of time. Aim: This descriptive study examined the predictive validity of the GQI and group differences in genderqueer identity with a sample of transgender, genderqueer and nonbinary spectrum, and cisgender sexual minority adults (N = 510). Methods: We hypothesized that Genderqueer Non-binary (GQNB) participants would score higher on GQI subscale scores compared to transgender participants who identify within the gender binary. Results: Results from ANOVA models indicated a statistically significant difference in intrapersonal subscales across sexual minority and transgender binary or genderqueer groups. For the interpersonal subscales there were differences across all three groups. Cisgender sexual minority participants reported the lowest levels on all scales, while genderqueer participants reported the highest, and transgender binary were in-between. Discussion: The GQI demonstrates strong predictive validity in distinguishing binary transpersons from GQNB and cisgender sexual minority persons. Findings reveal that these three subgroups who might otherwise be similarly categorized (i.e., LGBTQ) show significant differences on challenging the binary, social construction, theoretical awareness, and gender fluidity constructs.

KW - Gender fluidity

KW - genderqueer identity scale

KW - nonbinary

KW - transgender

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058499552&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85058499552&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/15532739.2018.1528196

DO - 10.1080/15532739.2018.1528196

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 305

EP - 314

JO - International Journal of Transgenderism

JF - International Journal of Transgenderism

SN - 1434-4599

IS - 2-3

ER -