Revisiting Gendered Web Forms: An Evaluation of Gender Inputs with (Non-)Binary People

The impact of mental health care provider website transgender and nonbinary affirmation on site user experience for transgender/nonbinary and cisgender people.

“…Further, this finding was very similar to the finding for negative emotional UX (with the exception that Condition 4 was not different from 1 to 2 to 3 or 5). The results are consistent with prior research on TGNB UX of websites (Scheuerman et al, 2021) and suggest that TGNB individuals perceived the sites that reflect disaffirmation (e.g., gender binary language) and total lack of attention to TGNB UX (e.g., no pronouns or antidiscrimination statement) negatively to about the same degree. Also, TGNB participants viewed the three more affirming sites as nonsignificantly different and better than the other two sites, suggesting that the presence of some markers of affirmation was sufficient without the need for all to be present.…”

“…This forced explanation then exposes the TGNB individual to the potential for discrimination or microaggressions (Morris et al, 2020). In the above study of website UX with regard to pronoun options (Scheuerman et al, 2021), 79% of nonbinary participants indicated that they would enter information into a binary choice gender option in a health care context in contrast to a social media site (51% refusal) or a dating site (78% refusal). This result demonstrates the unique social compliance that can be active in a health context (Werhane et al, 2013), even online, that can result in forcing potential patients to misgender themselves.…”

“…The field of UX is nascent, and applications to specific aspects of diversity are still more new. However, Scheuerman et al (2021) conducted an innovative study on perceptions of gender options in online forms. They recruited binary and nonbinary individuals from multiple countries around the world.…”

“…Use of forced-choice options risks providing inaccurate data, which can then lead to problems in assessment. This inaccurate information then transfers burden onto the TGNB person, forcing them to explain their gender to the provider (Scheuerman et al, 2021). This forced explanation then exposes the TGNB individual to the potential for discrimination or microaggressions (Morris et al, 2020).…”

Clinical Decision Support for Precision Dosing: Opportunities for Enhanced Equity and Inclusion in Health Care

“…Scheuerman and colleagues presented several options for gender input fields in a survey, and found that most participants considered a free-text field to be the most inclusive option in healthcare settings. 86 Though it was not an option within the survey, many participants preferred medical forms that asked for pronouns and anatomical details, rather than asking for the patient's gender identity. This latter option could provide information that is both more structured and useful for modeling as well as more informative than free-text gender or sex fields.…”