Morgenroth Thekla
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
Br J Psychol. 2025 May;116(2):499-502. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12769. Epub 2025 Jan 15.
In their paper, 'Conceptualizing transgender experiences in psychology: Do we have a 'true' gender?' Jackson and Bussey (British Journal of Psychology, 115, 723) critique the idea of having a 'true' gender and propose that the term 'transgender experience' may be more appropriate than 'transgender identity'. In this commentary, I reflect on the usefulness of the terms transgender identity and transgender experience and argue that both hold value and can contribute to a more nuanced discussion of gender/sex. I use the discussion of these two terms as a springboard to make a broader point: As researchers, we should use language about gender/sex flexibly and intentionally. As psychologists, we are trained to use clear operationalizations for the constructs we study, yet it is often unclear whether authors refer to biological sex, gender identity, social perception, or socialization when they speak of 'women' and 'men'. I encourage researchers to be more mindful in their language use and to engage with the nuanced terms that gender scholars (including Jackson and Bussey) have put forward when discussing gender/sex - both in the context of transgender identities and experiences and when discussing cisgender identities and experiences.
在其论文《心理学中对跨性别经历的概念化：我们有“真实”的性别吗？》中，杰克逊和巴斯西（《英国心理学杂志》，第115卷，第723页）批判了存在“真实”性别的观点，并提出“跨性别经历”这一术语可能比“跨性别身份”更合适。在这篇评论中，我思考了跨性别身份和跨性别经历这两个术语的有用性，并认为它们都有价值，且有助于对性别/性进行更细致入微的讨论。我以对这两个术语的讨论为跳板，提出一个更广泛的观点：作为研究人员，我们应该灵活且有意识地使用关于性别/性的语言。作为心理学家，我们接受过培训，要对所研究的构念使用清晰的操作化定义，但当作者提及“女性”和“男性”时，他们所指的是生物性别、性别认同、社会认知还是社会化，往往并不明确。我鼓励研究人员在语言使用上更加谨慎，并在讨论性别/性时，无论是在跨性别身份和经历的背景下，还是在讨论顺性别身份和经历时，采用性别学者（包括杰克逊和巴斯西）提出的细致入微的术语。
