Ohh a survey – and what do we have here? 

A little checkbox revolution?

In 2018, a single tweak to the General Social Survey (GSS) cracked open a door that’s been shut on trans visibility for far too long. For the first time, respondents weren’t just labeled by a surveyor’s assumptions. 

Instead, they were asked two key questions: their sex assigned at birth and their current gender identity. Radical, we know.

What Happens When You Actually Ask People?

Think about a time you needed to modify something or make a change. Did you respond better with orders or when you were asked?

When you stop assuming and start asking, people finally get counted and that changes everything.

According to the study by Danya Lagos and D’Lane Compton, published in Demography, the implementation of this two-step gender identity measure revealed that approximately 0.85% of respondents identified as transgender or gender non-conforming—a figure strikingly consistent with national estimates from prior research 

Data is more than numbers, it is recognition.

For decades, trans people were invisible in national data sets—not because they didn’t exist, but because the questions didn’t allow them to be seen. Surveys that relied solely on interviewer-coded gender failed to capture the reality of gender diversity. 

In fact, the study found that 0.93% of people were misclassified by surveyors when compared to their self-reported gender identity and sex assigned at birth. That’s nearly 1 in 100 respondents.

You can feel that margin of error breathing down your neck, can’t you?

The Two-Step Method: Small Shift, Massive Impact

Instead of a one-size-fits-all gender question, the two-step method asks:

1. What sex were you assigned at birth?
2. What is your current gender identity?

This approach is already widely endorsed by experts like Lombardi and Banik (2016), and groups like the Gender Identity in U.S. Surveillance (GenIUSS) group. It’s also been shown to be cognitively accessible to respondents across identities, with over 99% response rates for both questions in the GSS.

So yes, people understand the question. And they’re answering it.

Still not convinced this matters? Let’s talk policy.

If you’re invisible in the data, you’re invisible in the decisions. Social services, healthcare access, anti-discrimination laws—all hinge on evidence. And right now, federal data on trans people is patchy at best.

Adding a reliable gender identity measure to national surveys means lawmakers, researchers, and public health agencies can track disparities more accurately. Think healthcare access, employment gaps, mental health trends—the works.

From Misclassification to Misrepresentation

In 2018, the GSS still used interviewer-coded gender alongside the new self-reported questions. The results? Messy. Misclassification occurred in nearly 1% of cases, highlighting how even well-trained interviewers can’t reliably assign gender. As the authors point out, similar misclassification has been found in race data too .

If your identity is being overwritten by someone else’s perception, are you really being counted?

You Can’t Fix What You Don’t Measure

There’s a reason trans folks are left out of health research, poverty studies, and employment metrics: traditional survey methods literally erase them.

But with the two-step measure, that starts to change. Lagos and Compton recommend that future GSS cycles not only keep this question but make it part of the core survey, not just the self-administered sensitive questions module.

Because let’s face it: gender identity isn’t a side note.

Data Is Power, and Power Is Political

The inclusion of these questions didn’t just come from nowhere. It was the result of years of advocacy from sociologists like Kristen Schilt, and groups pushing for gender-inclusive data.

And let’s not pretend there’s no resistance. Adding trans-inclusive questions to federal surveys has faced political pushback for years. But the benefits of inclusion are clear—not just for trans people, but for understanding the full scope of social inequality in the U.S.

Think of it like this: for years, religious minorities like Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus were barely a blip in survey data. But sustained inclusion in the GSS grew their visibility over time, leading to richer, more nuanced social insights.

The same can—and should—be true for gender minorities.

What’s Next?

Lagos and Compton’s study doesn’t just stop at praise. It offers critical suggestions:

• Add an intersex question separate from sex assigned at birth.
• Confirm responses to reduce errors (as per federal survey guidelines).
• Ask everyone, not just those who “look” different, to normalize gender identity diversity.

This is about reframing the conversation from “How many trans people are there?” to “What do trans people need, and how do we make sure they get it?”

So, What’s the Takeaway?

One survey question isn’t going to fix centuries of erasure. But it’s a start. A meaningful one.

Data isn’t just numbers—it’s the infrastructure for equity. If you can’t measure a population, you can’t serve it. You can’t understand it. You can’t protect it.

So next time someone says they’ve never met a trans person, you can say:

“Funny. The data begs to differ.”