Update on this section

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.