A study published in Politics and the Life Sciences argues that continuous gender identity—the way people perceive their own masculinity or femininity—can predict political engagement and ideological leanings more reliably than traditional male and female categories. The research is led by Claire Gothreau of Lebanon Valley College and Amanda Friesen of the University of Western Ontario, who advocate measuring gender as a continuum rather than a binary label.
Gothreau and Friesen contend that treating gender as a layered, subjective identity reveals substantial variation within men and within women, which in turn shapes political attitudes and participation. They describe a shift away from focusing on fixed traits or cultural norms toward directly asking individuals to rate how masculine or feminine they feel.
In their first analysis, the researchers examined survey data from 1,017 US adults collected in 2022. Participants reported their binary gender alongside continuous ratings of masculinity and femininity, and answered questions about political participation such as petitions, protests, and campaign donations. The study controlled for age, race, education, income and party identification to isolate the effect of gender identity on participation.
The results indicated that binary gender was not a statistically significant predictor of political participation once continuous gender identity was accounted for. Instead, higher reported levels of either masculinity or femininity were associated with greater political engagement. The authors note that identifying in ways that diverge from traditional gender expectations—such as men reporting high femininity or women reporting high masculinity—might be particularly linked to civic participation, though these differences did not reach statistical significance in this initial sample.
A second analysis used survey data from 1,043 US adults in 2020, with the same demographic and gender identity measures and added questions about attitudes toward force, specifically gun rights and the death penalty. The participation findings replicated, with non-conforming gender identities associated with higher involvement in politics. On policy attitudes, results varied by issue and gender. Among men, higher masculinity predicted stronger support for gun rights, while higher femininity predicted lower support for the death penalty. Among women, higher masculinity was linked to lower death-penalty support, and the link between continuous gender identity and gun rights was less clear.
In a third analysis, the authors explored how continuous gender identity relates to broader worldviews, using a 2022 sample of 1,200 participants. They measured Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation, which gauge deference to traditional authority and a preference for social hierarchies, respectively. The study found no strong relationship between continuous gender identity and Social Dominance Orientation. By contrast, correlations with Right-Wing Authoritarianism varied by sex: among men, higher masculinity correlated with higher authoritarian attitudes, while higher femininity correlated with lower authoritarianism. Among women, the pattern reversed, with higher masculinity predicting lower authoritarianism.
The researchers emphasise that these findings are correlational. They caution that the data cannot determine whether a particular gender identity causes certain political beliefs, or whether holding specific political views makes people more comfortable reporting a non-traditional gender identity. They also recognise that self-reported masculinity and femininity can be influenced by social desirability bias.
Looking ahead, Gothreau and Friesen propose longitudinal studies or samples with genetic information to clarify causal directions. They also suggest examining aspirational masculinity—the gap between how masculine people feel and how masculine they think they ought to be—and its possible link to more assertive political behaviour.
The study, “Rethinking masculinity in politics: Measuring what matters,” is authored by Claire Gothreau and Amanda Friesen.
