Update on this section

Hi all, definitely some good suggestions here. Most of these areas haven't looked at previously Gender Diagnositicity. To take this discussion to the next level, why would looking at how Gender Diagnosticity relates to these things be an improvement on what's already been done. Like the study which found that Gender Diagnosticity was a stronger predictor than gender on bullying, we might also find the gender diagnosticity trait we're measuring a stronger predictor of these mental health concerns.

As I mentioned in the previous section, it would be good to sort these into suggestions that go together as well and format these as paragraphs.

For the MBA Income Attainment study, GD (masculinity defined as a preference for an organizational culture high on aggressiveness and low on supportivness, and femininity was vice versa) was found to only be correlated with initial occupational success, while a third factor, effort, was responsible for long-term success.

For the Gender-Related Traits of Heterosexual and Homosexual Men and Women study, it was found that a heterosexual-homosexual diagnosticity was just was good as GD in determining occupational preferences.

The MBA study stated that gender gaps in income were attributable to more hours worked (effort) by men than women in the long-run. However, all of the participants were in a commerce program and worked in commerce. Comparing this to the second study, women and gay men are more likely to prefer more female-typical occupations in fields, the majority of which are lower-paying than the male-typical occupations preferred by men and lesbian women. What I'm getting at is that in terms of occupational success, GD can be a strong predictor of income, but only when you compare genders within the same field.

With our Gender Diagnosticity, we may be able to similarly predict how successful an individual, say, a student, may be compared to his or her peers in his or her first years of work in the field better than GPA. Granted, this would be limited to a short-term prediction. I think this could have some implications on future research; to compare GD to GPA, teamwork/interpersonal skills, SES/background, or even educational attainment itself. Thoughts?

In (Lippa and Connelly, 1990) they mention that gender diagnosticity is not tied to normative samples - and that "most fundamentally, the metric of individual differences yielded by the method of gender diagnosticity is quite different from those operationally defined by traditional scales," and that "they have rich interpretations as probabilities and may possess psychometric properties different from conventional personality measures." They go on to say that studying the psychometric properties of gender diagnosticity measures is "a fruitful direction for further investigation." Should we discuss this in this section?

Could you explain the psychometric properties of GD measures? I'm still not entirely sure what that means in terms of that study/our future research. Thanks!

Hello all, I have added some info to this page regarding reliability and the need for further assessment to properly confirm/disprove reliability. If anyone has the chance to read through it or make edits if necessary I would really appreciate it. Thanks!

I have amended the passage in order to make it more direct and concise. I have taken what I understood to be the root idea of the original passage and then added what I see as a key element, namely the opportunity to separate factors related to mental and physical health into distinct “gender” and “biological sex” categories. My reasoning is that there is often a logical error that occurs when research points to the propensity of women or men to develop certain diseases or disorders. The error is that a statistical difference between men and women is usually assumed as the result of inherent genetic differences, while the broad category of socially constructed gender differences is ignored.

This is the reliability and validity of the measures and that is a big part of what this article has been about. Nevertheless, future research on this topic would be advantageous.