literature review on gender discrimination at workplace

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Multidimensional gender discrimination in workplace and depressive symptoms

1 Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Su-Kyoung Lee

2 Research affairs of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea

Yangwook Kim

3 The Institute for Occupational Health, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Byung-Yoon Yun

4 Department of Preventive Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Jin-Ha Yoon

Associated data.

The data underlying this study have been uploaded to figshare and are accessible using the following links: https://figshare.com/s/bab36d61326b81f7407c and https://figshare.com/s/fa94d08a85b9f9500e54 .

Discrimination is associated with depressive symptoms and other negative health effects, but little is known about the mental health risks of workplace gender discrimination. We aimed to investigate the association of workplace gender discrimination and depressive symptoms among employed women in South Korea.

The 6 th wave (2016) survey datasets of the Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Family (KLoWF) were analyzed for 2,339 respondents who are identified as wage workers. Depressive symptoms were evaluated by the short-form (10-item) Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale. Association of workplace gender discrimination and depressive symptoms was assessed using multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for potential confounding variables including age, income satisfaction, education level, marital status, and currently diagnosed disease. We then measured the age effect using age stratification multivariate logistic regression model.

Women who experienced gender discrimination at workplace had higher odds of depressive symptoms regardless of the type of the discrimination including hiring, promotion, work assignments, paid wages, and firing. These associations were consistent in younger women below 40 years of age in regard to hiring, promotion, paid wages and firing, whereas inconsistent among older women above 40 years of age.

Limitations

We did not investigate the effect of workplace gender discrimination on depressive symptoms in a longitudinal manner.

Conclusions

Workplace gender discrimination was found to be significantly associated with depressive symptoms after adjustment for socio-demographic factors. Further, women under 40 years of age were especially vulnerable to workplace gender discrimination.

Introduction

The prevalence of depression is high throughout the world, thus posing huge economic burdens for nearly all developed and developing countries [ 1 ]. The 12-month prevalence estimate of major depressive episodes averaged 3.2% in healthy participants and 9.3% to 23.0% in participants with comorbid physical disease in the WHO World Health Survey across 60 countries[ 2 ]. Depression is associated with an increased risk of morbidity, including both cardiovascular [ 3 ] and Parkinson’s disease[ 4 ]. Further, depression itself is related to diminished social functioning that results in decreased work productivity [ 5 ] and declined cognitive performance in the areas of memory, executive function, and processing speed [ 6 ].

Major depression is more likely to occur in patients with specific biological and sociopsychological risk factors. From the biological aspect, it is known that age and sex are associated with increased depression risks. For instance, the prevalence of depression is approximately two times higher in females when compared to males [ 7 ] and significantly increases with age [ 8 ]. General medical disorders, such as the neurologic [ 9 ] and metabolic [ 10 ], also increase the risk of depression. Indeed, it is more common in older adults who are living under primary care supervision and/or suffering from a wide range of medical disorders [ 11 , 12 ]. Genetic factors [ 13 ], low birth weights [ 14 ], and immune related therapy involving the interferon and glucocorticoid systems [ 15 , 16 ] are also associated with depression.

Regarding the sociopsychological factors, research has found that marital problems [ 17 ], low education levels, and lower incomes [ 18 ] are well-known risk factors for depression. Several studies have also reported that stressful life events increase the risk of depression [ 19 , 20 ], including the loss of loved ones, sustained medical disability, and business failure. The risk of depression dramatically increases due to life events entailing long-term contextual threats. For instance, experiences of humiliation, entrapment [ 21 ], targeted rejection, and social exclusion [ 22 ] are likely to have enduring negative impacts related to depression. Although “stressfulness” can be highly subjective, perceived discrimination is also understood as a significant life stressor [ 23 ].

Discrimination is defined as being treated unfairly in any field of public life based on one’s personal characteristics, such as race, gender, or religion [ 24 ]. When a group of people is stigmatized based on their characteristic, since stigma is linked to social difference, they could easily face the difficulties of discrimination. The population can be minority immigrant, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ), people who are overweight, people with health problems (e.g. AIDS or mental illness), or female gender. Discrimination is found in wide situations, such as social isolation of minority immigrant youth[ 25 ], experience of being bullied in adolescents with obesity[ 26 ], housing discrimination based on sexual orientation[ 27 ], or employment discrimination against people with AIDS[ 28 ].

Researchers have generally found that experiences of discrimination are harmful to health in several ways. For instance, previous studies have shown that perceived discrimination is strongly associated with poor indicators of both mental and physical health, including anxiety [ 29 ], hypertension, heightened stress responses [ 23 ], and self-reported health status [ 30 ]. Among people who had experienced discrimination due to their HIV status, internalized stigma significantly predicted cognitive-affective depression[ 31 ]. Weight-related perceived stigma as well as self-stigma is shown to be associated with psychological distress[ 32 ]. Recent studies have also shown that gender-based discrimination also produce deleterious health impacts such as cardiovascular disease [ 33 ], may increase drinking and smoking behaviors [ 34 ], and can aggravate depressive symptoms [ 35 ].

To date, most related studies have emphasized the negative health effects of discrimination based on race or ethnicity in the Western context [ 36 – 38 ]. However, few studies have focused on workplace gender discrimination. As such, more research is needed to determine the health effects of gender discrimination in Asian countries, especially considering that a relatively high proportion of women are unfairly treated in regard to paid wages and during the hiring process in these areas [ 30 ]. There is specifically a growing rate of depression and higher prevalence of such discrimination at workplaces throughout South Korea [ 39 ]. As such, this study investigated the association between depressive symptoms and workplace gender discrimination among women in South Korea in terms of hiring, promotion, paid wages, work assignments, training opportunities, and firing. We also examined the effects of age on workplace gender discrimination in regard to the odds of developing depression.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The data lacks individual information; therefore, informed consent was not needed for the current study. The data used in this study lacks personal information. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Yonsei University Health System approved the current study design (Y-2019-0176).

Data collection and participants

In this study, we used a sample derived from the 6 th wave (2016) survey datasets of the Korean Longitudinal Survey of Women and Family (KLoWF), which was conducted by the Korean Women’s Development Institute (Seoul). The original KLoWF study population was randomly selected using a stratified multistage sampling design. It included a total of 9,997 adult women between 19 and 64 years of age who resided in urban and rural areas across South Korea. This study used data from the 6 th wave ( N = 7,355) because it was the most recent. The survey comprised of three major areas: family, work, and daily life. The panel questionnaire focused on sociodemographic variables, health issues, wage, and work discrimination.

Computer-assisted face-to-face interviews were also conducted. All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Further, the KLoWF is part of a national public database that includes an identification number for each participant (available at: https://klowf.kwdi.re.kr/portal/mainPage.do ). However, these identification numbers are not associated with any personal information, thus providing confidentiality. The following inclusion/exclusion criteria were implemented: (1) only wage workers ( n = 2,498) were included from the total sample ( N = 7,355), while (2) 159 participants were excluded due to missing values for gender discrimination at work, marital status, and/or education level. As such, data from a total of 2,339 participants were used for analysis.

Study variables and measurements

Workplace gender discrimination was assessed according to questionnaire responses on the six following discrimination types: Hiring, promotion, paid wages, work assignments, training opportunities, and firing. The questionnaires were as follows: (1) Hiring: If candidates have similar qualifications for appointment, men are preferred to women. (2) Promotion: Even with identical or similar careers, male workers are promoted faster than female counterparts. (3) Paid wages: Even in identical or similar positions, male workers receive higher wages and bonuses than female workers. (4) Work assignments: Duties are fixed or customarily divided between men and women. (5) Training opportunities: Even with similar duties, men have more opportunities of receiving education and training than women. (6) Firing: In case of restructuring, female workers are more likely to be forced to quit. Participants were specifically asked whether they had experienced any of these types according to a response scale for each item ranging from “never,” “rarely,” “almost,” to “always.” These responses were used to place participants into one of two categories; those who selected “never” or “rarely” were placed into the non-gender discrimination group, while those who answered “almost” or “always” were placed into the gender discrimination group.

We used the short-form (10-item) Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D 10) scale to assess depressive symptoms as a dependent variable. The CES-D 10 is a screening tool used to determine whether respondents experienced depressive symptoms during the week immediately prior to answering. CES-D 10 has been proven as a reliable alternative to the original CES-D 20(Kappa = 0.82, P<0.001) in classifying participants with depressive symptoms (sensitivity 91%, specificity 92%, positive predictive values 92%)[ 40 ]. Among the 10 total items, two (items 5 and 8) assess positive symptoms, while the rest focus on negative symptoms related to depression. All items are answered by selecting one of four response categories indicating the frequency of depressive moods or symptoms. A score of zero indicates that these were experienced less than once during the previous week, while a score of 1 indicates 1–2 days, 2 signifies 3–4 days, and 3 signifies more than 5 days. After reverse-scoring items 5 and 8, a total score based on all 10 items then serves as the outcome variable. Here, scores may range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating greater symptoms; a cut-off score of 10 is indicative of significant depressive symptoms. As such, this study used the standard cut-off score of 10 to categorize participants as having depression [ 40 ].

Age (i.e., in brackets of 19–30, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and 60–64), income satisfaction, education level, marital status, and health were included as covariates. Participants were asked to assess their subjective economic status, which was used to reflect their level of satisfaction with paid wages. This was answered on a 5-point scale consisting of “highly dissatisfied,” “dissatisfied,” “neither dissatisfied nor satisfied,” “satisfied,” and “highly satisfied.” Answers were trichotomized for income satisfaction (i.e., “dissatisfied,” “neither dissatisfied nor satisfied,” and “satisfied”). Educational attainment was classified as either having completed “elementary school or less,” “middle school,” “high school,” or “college or more.” Marital status was categorized into one of four groups (i.e., “single,” “never married,” “married,” “divorced or legally separated,” or “widowed”). Currently diagnosed diseases were considered representative of individual health. Here, participants were asked whether they were currently diagnosed with heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, musculoskeletal disease, respiratory disease, gastrointestinal disease, neurologic problems, traumatic injury, or any other disease. Responses were dichotomized as “Yes” for current diagnoses (one or more diseases) and “No” for those without current diagnoses at the time of the survey.

Statistical analyses

We first calculated the frequencies and percentages of participant characteristics and compared them to each categorized variable. We then descriptively examined the different percentage distributions of the variables of interest between the gender-discrimination and non-gender discrimination groups. In the next step, we calculated the differences in depressive symptoms according to each variable (i.e., age, income satisfaction, education level, marital status, and currently diagnosed disease) using chi-square tests. We also checked for differences in the risk of depressive symptoms based on each type of workplace gender discrimination.

Multivariate logistic regression models revealed an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for depressive symptoms. We specifically employed the two following models: Model 1 (crude) and Model 2 (adjusted for age, income satisfaction, education level, marital status, and currently diagnosed disease). Further, age stratification multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted for the below 40, 40–49, and 50 and over age groups.

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the study population according to gender-discrimination group. Mean participant age (and corresponding standard deviation/SD) was 45.0 (±11.76) years. A total of 45.7% of all participants held bachelor’s degrees or higher, while 28.4% said they were satisfied with their income levels (19.04% were dissatisfied), more than half (66.65%) were married, and 13.5% had current disease diagnoses.

Nearly 30% of participants in all age groups (i.e., 33.7% in < 30, 29.4% in 30–39, 30.9% in 40–49, 29.6% in 50–59, and 26.1% in ≥ 60) responded that gender discrimination existed at their workplace. Further, there were no significant differences for this issue in regard to income satisfaction (31.3% of satisfied, 30.0% of dissatisfied), education level (30.3% of ≤ Elementary school, 27.6% of ≥ College), marital status (30.0% of married, 31.5% of divorced or legally separated), or currently diagnosed diseases (26.9% of Yes, 30.6% of No).

Fig 1 shows a breakdown of participants who responded that gender discrimination existed at their workplace. Among the six types of workplace gender discrimination asked about on the survey, the most common type was related to work assignments (19.6%), followed by paid wages (16.2%), promotion (15.2%), hiring (14.7%), and training opportunities (12.18%). Finally, 14.0% responded that there was gender discrimination based on firing practices.

Table 2 shows the prevalence of depression based on demographic characteristics and the type of workplace gender discrimination. Older employees were more likely to be depressed than younger employees (9.8% vs. 27.2% for the < 30 vs. ≥ 60 groups, respectively; p < 0.001). Participants who were less satisfied with their income levels were also more depressed (p < 0.001). On the other hand, the prevalence of depression was lower for the highly educated (p < 0.001). Marital status was also strongly associated with depressive symptoms. For instance, participants who were divorced, legally separated, or widowed more frequently expressed depressed than the single or married participants (p < 0.001). Finally, the prevalence of depression increased for those with current disease diagnoses (p < 0.001).

Except for gender discrimination related to training opportunities (p = 0.06), all types were associated with increased depressive symptoms (p < 0.05). Specifically, the prevalence rates were 23.5% vs 15.7% for hiring, 21.6% vs 16.0% for promotion, 20.6% vs. 16.1% for paid wages, 20.5% vs. 16.3 for work assignments, and 23.2% vs 15.8% for firing.

The results of the logistic regression analysis (as OR and 95% CIs) on the association between depressive symptoms and the existence of workplace gender discrimination are shown in Table 3 . Crude model (a univariate logistic regression model) only considered depressive symptoms and the existence of workplace gender discrimination and was used as a baseline. For the gender-discrimination group, the ORs (95% CIs) for depressive symptoms were 1.66 (1.25–2.18) for hiring, 1.45 (1.09–1.92) for promotion, 1.35 (1.03–1.78) for paid wages, 1.34 (0.98–1.83) for training opportunities, and 1.61 (1.21–2.14) for firing. After adjusting for age, income satisfaction, education level, marital status, and current diseases, the ORs (95% CIs) were 1.88 (1.41–2.51), 1.68 (1.25–2.25), 1.40 (1.04–1.87), 1.39 (1.06–1.82), 1.48 (1.07–2.05), and 1.85 (1.38–2.49), respectively.

Adjusted odds ratio: adjusted for age, income satisfaction, education level, marital status, currently diagnosed disease

We then examined the age effects of workplace gender discrimination on the odds of developing depression ( Fig 2 ). More than half of all workplace discrimination areas showed increased ORs (95% CIs) for depressive symptoms in the < 40 age group. Specifically, the ORs (95% CIs) for this group were 4.46 (2.58–7.68) for hiring, 3.01 (1.7–5.25) for promotion, 2.12 (1.34–3.69) for paid wages, and 3.2 (1.8–5.59) for firing. There was no statistically significant increase for the 40–49 age group. Nonetheless, the age-based effects of workplace gender discrimination and depressive symptoms increased for the ≥ 50 age group for two types of discrimination (i.e., the ORs [95% CIs] 1.63 [1.02–2.56] for hiring and 1.61 [1.01–2.58] for firing).

All models were adjusted for age, income satisfaction, education level, marital status, currently diagnosed disease by multivariate logistic regression model.

This cross-sectional study of employed women in South Korea found a statistically significant association between workplace gender discrimination and depressive symptoms. Here, the gender-discrimination group (i.e., those that answered positively for gender discrimination in their workplace) showed increased odds of depressive symptoms regardless of the type of the discrimination in five areas, including hiring, promotion, work assignments, paid wages, and firing. These associations maintained their effects even after adjusting for depression-based vulnerability controls, including age, income satisfaction, education level, marital status, and disease. Discrimination related to training opportunities was also associated with depressive symptoms after these adjustments. This study also found that younger women (those below 40 years of age) who experienced workplace gender discrimination had greater odds of developing depressive symptoms than older women (those above 40) who had experienced workplace gender discrimination. Among the younger workers, those who experienced gender discrimination in regard to hiring, promotion, paid wages, and firing had the greatest odds of developing depressive symptoms. However, these relationships were inconsistent among older workers (those above 40 years of age).

The above findings are consistent with previous studies linking experiences of discrimination to poor mental health status in a worldwide context. For instance, a cross-sectional study of 644 hospital workers found that workplace discrimination occurrences, types, and frequencies were associated with depressive symptoms [ 41 ]. Schulz et al. found a positive relationship between discrimination and changes in mental health among African-American women using longitudinal models [ 42 ], while another study on low-socioeconomic status among African-American women found that gender discrimination increased the risk for poor health and low well-being by increasing one’s vulnerability to individual stressors [ 43 ].

To our knowledge, this was the first large epidemiological study to show a relationship between workplace gender discrimination and depressive symptoms among adult female workers in South Korea. These findings are especially significant because the associations persisted regardless of sociodemographic factors. Further, no other studies have stratified the association between workplace gender discrimination and depressive symptoms according to age. While some previous studies have focused on the health effects of racial discrimination in Western countries and/or general workplace discrimination, we specifically found that workplace gender discrimination was especially associated with an increased risk of depressive symptoms among younger women (those under 40 years of age).

This study’s findings are also important for their political implications. That is, it is crucial to eradicate workplace gender discrimination considering its associations with increased risks for depressive symptomatology and the fact that depression increases the risks of both physical and mental problems while decreasing overall work productivity. The evidence ultimately indicates the importance of ensuring workplace gender equity, especially among younger female workers.

The South Korean government established the Sex Discrimination Act in 2005. This prohibited gender discrimination in areas of education, employment, and law enforcement. However, workplace gender inequity remains a serious problem in South Korea. Such discrimination has been academically documented in a variety of forms, including hiring [ 44 ], promotions [ 45 ], paid wages [ 46 ], and expulsion (i.e., being pushed out of employment or directly fired) [ 47 ]. Further, women are more likely to experience gender discrimination than men [ 48 ]. For instance, a nationally representative study revealed that 79.3% of women reported experiencing discrimination in regard to promotional opportunities, while only 3.9% of men reported the same; further, 58.2% vs 5.2% experienced this in terms of income, while 36.9% vs 3.2% experienced it in relation to hiring, and 43.3% vs 1.1% were discriminated against in firing, respectively. The South Korean gender-based wage gap is also highest among all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (South Korea’s gender wage gap in 2016 was 36.7% compared to the OECD-35 average of 13.5%) [ 48 ]. This difference may exist due to traditional attitudes regarding fatherhood/motherhood [ 49 ] and the Confucian ideology promoting male superiority [ 50 ], which has aided the establishment of a male-oriented work culture. Various policies are thus needed to completely prohibit gender discrimination while providing favorable working environments for women. Such measures may help eradicate the deep-seated workplace gender discrimination problem that currently affects the South Korean nation.

This study also had several limitations. First, it used cross-sectional association data, which cannot be used to clarify whether workplace gender discrimination precedes the depressive symptomatology or occurs as a result of certain behaviors by women who are already depressed. It is also possible that depressive symptoms may have led some individuals to report more discrimination. This makes it important to investigate all findings in a longitudinal manner. Second, there may be unrecognized confounding factors related to depressive symptoms other than workplace gender discrimination. For instance, study participants may have experienced several life events that affected their mental health status; this issue should have been considered when adjusting our data results. Lastly, we assessed workplace gender discrimination through self-reported survey data. It is thus likely that some participants were reticent to disclose experiences of gender discrimination while working at their current jobs. Further, survey responses tend to reflect personal lifelong experiences and perceptions. It should therefore be noted that one’s level of perceived discrimination may differ from those of others. It is also possible that there were report and recall biases. Also, the questionnaires of current study are not validated or standardized instrument, so they did not measure objective levels of discrimination such as frequency, thereby current study results are not free from systemic error.

In conclusion, this study found that workplace gender discrimination increased the odds of depressive symptoms according to data from a nationally representative sample of employed women in South Korea. Many kinds of workplace gender discrimination were assessed, including those related to hiring, promotion, paid wages, work assignments, and firing; each of these were specifically associated with increased odds of developing depressive symptoms. Moreover, this relationship was statistically significant even after adjusting for age, income satisfaction, education level, marital status, and disease. Our findings also demonstrate that younger women (those below 40 years of age) are more vulnerable in regard to the association between workplace gender discrimination and depressive symptoms. Further study is needed to investigate the time effects of workplace gender discrimination and depressive symptoms.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Korea Health Industry Development Institute through “Social and Environmental Risk Research” funded by Ministry of Health & Welfare (HI19C0052). JHY had been awarded that grant. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2020; 15(7): e0234415.

Decision Letter 0

22 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-08368

Multidimensional Gender Discrimination in Workplace and Depressive Symptoms

Dear Dr. Yoon,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 06 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amir H. Pakpour, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1.    Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately.  These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors investigate an important topic on gender discrimination. Additionally, the large sample size with a good sampling method increase the external validity of the study findings. However, some revisions are needed before I recommend publication. Please see my comments below.

1. For the Introduction, please describe more thoroughly in the concept of discrimination and stigma. Specifically, I would like to see the authors mention that different populations (e.g., people with mental illness, people with overweight, people who are transgender, people who have same-sex marriage) all face the difficulties of discrimination. Then, the authors can narrow down the discrimination problem from different populations to their study topic; that is, female.

There is an ongoing special issue in the IJERPH, which collect essential information for the authors to consider and cite: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph/special_issues/stigma

The authors may also consider the following reference if relevant:

Ahorsu, D. K., Lin, C.-Y., Imani, V., Griffiths, M. D., Su, J.-A., Latner, J. D., Marshall, R. D., Pakpour, A. H. (2020). A prospective study on the link between weight-related self-stigma and binge eating: Role of food addiction and psychological distress. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 53(3), 442-450.

Alimoradi, Z., Golboni, F., Griffiths, M. D., Broström, A., Lin, C.-Y., & Pakpour, A. H. (in press). Weight-related stigma and psychological distress: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.10.016

Lin, C.-Y., Imani, V., Broström, A., Huus, K., Björk, M., Hodges, E. A., Pakpour, A. H. (in press). Psychological distress and quality of life in Iranian adolescents with overweight/obesity: Mediating role of weight bias internalization and insomnia. Eating and Weight Disorders. doi: 10.1007/s40519-019-00795-5

2. For the first sentence in the Introduction, the authors mentioned the high prevalence of depression worldwide. Please directly provide the prevalence for readers to have a better idea here.

3. A major problem in the present study is that it is unclear how the gender discrimination was assessed. The authors mentioned "Participants were specifically asked whether they had experienced any of these types [hiring, promotion, paid wages, work assignments, training opportunities, and firing] according to a response scale for each item ranging from “never,” “rarely,” “almost,” to “always.”" The problem here is that only reading the descriptions, I cannot observe any "discrimination" concept here. For example, if the question is "Do you have any problems in hiring?" Then, this example question is not at all "discrimination". Therefore, the authors should give detailed information on the discrimination measure, especially this is their study's core concept.

4. Please provide psychometric properties of the short version CES-D, especially how the sensitivity and specificity of the cutoff 10 in the CES-D.

5. It is unclear whether all the discrimination items (hiring, promotion, paid wages, work assignments, training opportunities, and firing) were included in the same Model 2 of logistic regression model.

6. Following my comment #5, please use AOR instead of OR for Model 2; and COR instead of OR for the Crude Model. Also, add the footnotes to explain AOR (adjusted odds ratio) and COR (crude odds ratio).

7. Page 14, "The government established the Sex Discrimination Act in 2005....." should be explicitly indicate that it is South Korean government.

8. Apart from the limitation of self-report, I think that the questionnaire on gender discrimination is not a standardized instrument. Therefore, this should also be acknowledged as a limitation.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

23 May 2020

Comment 1). For the Introduction, please describe more thoroughly in the concept of discrimination and stigma. Specifically, I would like to see the authors mention that different populations (e.g., people with mental illness, people with overweight, people who are transgender, people who have same-sex marriage) all face the difficulties of discrimination. Then, the authors can narrow down the discrimination problem from different populations to their study topic; that is, female.

(Response) Thank you for your constructive comments. We have added the concept of stigma and examples of discrimination in different populations.

In introduction section,

“When a group of people is stigmatized based on their characteristic, since stigma is linked to social difference, they could easily face the difficulties of discrimination. The population can be minority immigrant, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ), people who are overweight, people with health problems (e.g. AIDS or mental illness), or female gender. Discrimination is found in wide situations, such as social isolation of minority immigrant youth, experience of being bullied in adolescents with obesity, housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, or employment discrimination against people with AIDS.”, and

“. Among people who had experienced discrimination due to their HIV status, internalized stigma significantly predicted cognitive-affective depression. Weight-related perceived stigma as well as self-stigma is shown to be associated with psychological distress. Recent studies have also shown that gender-based discrimination also produce deleterious health impacts such as cardiovascular disease , may increase drinking and smoking behaviors , and can aggravate depressive symptoms .”

Please read our revised manuscript, too.

Comments 2). For the first sentence in the Introduction, the authors mentioned the high prevalence of depression worldwide. Please directly provide the prevalence for readers to have a better idea here.

(Response) We added sentence regarding prevalence of depression, as your comment.

“The 12-month prevalence estimate of major depressive episodes averaged 3.2% in healthy participants and 9.3% to 23.0% in participants with comorbid physical disease in the WHO World Health Survey across 60 countries[11].”

Comment 3). A major problem in the present study is that it is unclear how the gender discrimination was assessed. The authors mentioned "Participants were specifically asked whether they had experienced any of these types [hiring, promotion, paid wages, work assignments, training opportunities, and firing] according to a response scale for each item ranging from “never,” “rarely,” “almost,” to “always.”" The problem here is that only reading the descriptions, I cannot observe any "discrimination" concept here. For example, if the question is "Do you have any problems in hiring?" Then, this example question is not at all "discrimination". Therefore, the authors should give detailed information on the discrimination measure, especially this is their study's core concept.

(Response) The exact questionnaires were as follows. And we added the sentence below in methods section. Please read our revised manuscript, too.

In method section,

(1) Hiring: If candidates have similar qualifications for appointment, men are preferred to women.

(2) Promotion: Even with identical or similar careers, male workers are promoted faster than female counterparts.

(3) Paid wages: Even in identical or similar positions, male workers receive higher wages and bonuses than female workers.

(4) Work assignments: Duties are fixed or customarily divided between men and women.

(5) Training opportunities: Even with similar duties, men have more opportunities of receiving education and training than women.

(6) Firing: In case of restructuring, female workers are more likely to be forced to quit.

(Response) Thank you for your comments. The CES-D is wide used psychological questionnaires. And we reviewed the article about psychometric properties of CESD, and summarized it into method section, as below. Furthermore, we added validation (such as Kappa value, sensitivity, specificity) in method section.

“CES-D 10 has been proven as a reliable alternative to the original CES-D 20(Kappa=0.82, P<0.001) in classifying participants with depressive symptoms (sensitivity 91%, specificity 92%, positive predictive values 92%)”

(Response) One of discrimination item was included in each logistic regression model (Crude). So we repeated 6 times to make Crude OR column of Table 3. Then, we adjusted variables for each logistic regression model.

(Response 6) Thank you for your detailed comment. we used full name of each OR as “crude odds ratio” and “adjusted odds ratio” in row of Table as your comment.

(Response 7) We added the ‘South Korean government’, in that sentence.

(Response 8) We agree that the questionnaire was not validate or standardized for study. So, we added sentences in limitation section as below.

“Also, the questionnaires of current study are not validated or standardized instrument, so they did not measure objective levels of discrimination such as frequency, thereby current study results are not free from systemic error.”

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

27 May 2020

PONE-D-20-08368R1

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

With kind regards,

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Acceptance letter

Dear Dr. Yoon:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Amir H. Pakpour

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How Bias Against Women Persists in Female-Dominated Workplaces

• Amber L. Stephenson,
• Leanne M. Dzubinski

A look inside the ongoing barriers women face in law, health care, faith-based nonprofits, and higher education.

New research examines gender bias within four industries with more female than male workers — law, higher education, faith-based nonprofits, and health care. Having balanced or even greater numbers of women in an organization is not, by itself, changing women’s experiences of bias. Bias is built into the system and continues to operate even when more women than men are present. Leaders can use these findings to create gender-equitable practices and environments which reduce bias. First, replace competition with cooperation. Second, measure success by goals, not by time spent in the office or online. Third, implement equitable reward structures, and provide remote and flexible work with autonomy. Finally, increase transparency in decision making.

It’s been thought that once industries achieve gender balance, bias will decrease and gender gaps will close. Sometimes called the “ add women and stir ” approach, people tend to think that having more women present is all that’s needed to promote change. But simply adding women into a workplace does not change the organizational structures and systems that benefit men more than women . Our new research (to be published in a forthcoming issue of Personnel Review ) shows gender bias is still prevalent in gender-balanced and female-dominated industries.

• Amy Diehl , PhD is chief information officer at Wilson College and a gender equity researcher and speaker. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield). Find her on LinkedIn at Amy-Diehl , Twitter @amydiehl , and visit her website at amy-diehl.com
• AS Amber L. Stephenson , PhD is an associate professor of management and director of healthcare management programs in the David D. Reh School of Business at Clarkson University. Her research focuses on the healthcare workforce, how professional identity influences attitudes and behaviors, and how women leaders experience gender bias.
• LD Leanne M. Dzubinski , PhD is acting dean of the Cook School of Intercultural Studies and associate professor of intercultural education at Biola University, and a prominent researcher on women in leadership. She is coauthor of Glass Walls: Shattering the Six Gender Bias Barriers Still Holding Women Back at Work (Rowman & Littlefield).

Partner Center

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Exploring the stability of the gender gap in faculty perceptions of gender climate at a rural regional university

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Psychology, Murray State University, Murray, KY, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, KY, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Murray State University, Murray, KY, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Biological Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, KY, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Global Languages and Theatre Arts, Murray State University, Murray, KY, United States of America

• Michael J. Bordieri, 
• Paula J. Waddill, 
• Qiaofeng Zhang, 
• Maeve L. McCarthy, 
• Claire Fuller, 
• David Balthrop

• Published: April 2, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285
• Reader Comments

Increasing awareness of gender barriers and biases in academic institutions is an essential component of institutional change strategies to promote equity and inclusion. There is an established perception gap in recognizing gender inequities in the workplace, whereby men faculty under acknowledge the stressors, barriers, and biases faced by their women faculty colleagues. This study explored the gender gap in faculty perceptions of institutional diversity climate at a rural comprehensive regional university in the United States. In addition to gender, differences across academic discipline and time were explored using 2 (men and women) x 2 (STEM and other) x 2 (2017 and 2022) between-groups ANOVAs. Results revealed a gender gap that persisted across time and perceptions of stressors, diversity climate, student behavior, leadership, and fairness in promotion/tenure procedures, with marginalized (women) faculty consistently reporting greater barriers/concern for women faculty relative to the perceptions of their men faculty colleagues. These findings are largely consistent with the extant literature and are discussed both with regard to future research directions and recommendations for reducing the perception gap and addressing institutional barriers to gender equity.

Citation: Bordieri MJ, Waddill PJ, Zhang Q, McCarthy ML, Fuller C, Balthrop D (2024) Exploring the stability of the gender gap in faculty perceptions of gender climate at a rural regional university. PLoS ONE 19(4): e0301285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285

Editor: Dan-Cristian Dabija, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, ROMANIA

Received: October 20, 2023; Accepted: March 13, 2024; Published: April 2, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Bordieri et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data cannot be shared publicly because of the sensitive nature of the questions and the possible risks to participants if responses were identified. Further, informed consent from study participants did not cover public deposition of data. The data are available from Murray State University (contact [email protected] ) to researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data and who are approved for access by the Institutional Review Board ( [email protected] ).

Funding: This research was supported by National Science Foundation ADVANCE awards #1608576 (MM, PW, & QZ) and #1935939 (MM, CF, Q., PW, DB, & MB). The sponsor did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/advance/ .

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Gender is a social construct that consists of characteristic norms, roles, and behaviors associated with gender categories, such as women and men [ 1 ]. Gender is also hierarchical [ 1 ], and there is well-documented historical and contemporary evidence of gender inequity in professional occupational contexts, whereby women are both underrepresented and underpaid relative to men, both generally [ 2 – 5 ] and within academia, specifically [ 6 – 8 ]. Gender differences in the perception of these and other gender biases are also well established in both the early [ 9 , 10 ] and contemporary literature [11, 12, as reviewed by 13]. This perception gap appears to persist across professional contexts and workplaces including medical residents [ 14 ], otolaryngologists [ 15 ], and corporate managers [ 16 ]. Of primary relevance to the current investigation, García-González et al. [ 17 ] recently explored perceptions of gender bias in academic research institutions across Spain and found that men were less likely than women to perceive gender bias in their academic workplace; this difference persisted across country, research area, position, and type of institution.

The gender perception gap presents a significant obstacle to addressing systemic inequities and fostering institutional change. In addition to perpetuating misunderstanding and minimizing of the experiences of underrepresented faculty, the perception gap might also undermine the development and implementation of effective policies that address these disparities. Privilege has long been theorized to be invisible to those who possess it [ 18 ], and the impact of privilege in shaping diversity in higher education has been subject to detailed review [ 19 , 20 ]. Upper-level university administrators remain disproportionately men [ 21 ] and thus may be more likely to downplay or fail to recognize the barriers faced by women faculty, including subtle discrimination. Likewise, underrepresented faculty may feel discouraged from voicing experiences and concerns that do not align with the “rosy” climate perceptions held by their majority-identified colleagues and leaders, thereby further minimizing their experiences and limiting the identification of climate barriers. A better understanding of the gender perception gap among faculty in higher education could increase awareness of climate barriers faced by women faculty and help inform efforts to close the gap.

Over the past 20 years campus climate surveys have become a valuable tool for both institutional leaders and equity researchers interested in better understanding the structural and cultural climate barriers faced by underrepresented faculty members in higher education [ 22 – 24 ]. Broadly defined, campus diversity climate surveys aim to elicit feedback from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; S1 Table ) faculty and often non-STEM faculty regarding their perceptions of opportunities, barriers, stressors, and other indicators of workplace climate that impact career satisfaction, advancement, and retention. Work-life balance/conflicts [ 25 , 26 ] are often a core focus of climate surveys although institutions often customize surveys to focus on a range of phenomena, including microaggressions [ 25 ], faculty workloads [ 27 ], and fit/inclusion [ 28 ]. Many of these climate surveys are conducted as part of larger institutional change efforts funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE program, which is designed to increase the representation and career success of women in STEM disciplines [ 29 ].

The purpose of the current study was to explore gaps in the perception of campus diversity climate among faculty at a rural comprehensive regional university in Kentucky. Faculty were surveyed on their perceptions of stressors, general department climate for women, students’ behavior towards women faculty, gender equity in leadership/influence, and gender equity in promotion/tenure policies across two time points (2017 and 2022). The addition of a second time point five years after the initial climate survey allowed for the direct exploration of the stability of gaps in perception over time, which to our knowledge has yet to be directly explored in the literature. We hypothesized that the well-established gap between majority identified (i.e., men) and underrepresented (i.e., women) faculty would be present across both climate domain and time point. We also explored whether our hypothesized gender perception gap interacted with academic discipline (STEM vs. non-STEM).

Our variables of interest were drawn from a climate survey we developed by adapting (with permission) items from climate surveys administered under the auspices of ADVANCE programs at Oakland University [ 30 ], University of California—San Diego [ 31 ], University of North Texas [ 32 ], Washington University in St. Louis [ 33 ], and Western Washington University [ 34 ] as well as additional items that we created ourselves. This study was reviewed and approved by the Murray State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the protection of human subjects ( S1 File ; IRB# 16–098; S2 File ; &IRB# 20–001; S3 File ). After viewing an initial page with informed consent information that included a description of the participant’s role in the study and notification of approval of the research by the Murray State University IRB, participants provided informed consent by clicking “Continue.” The survey asked questions on a variety of themes including university and department climate, workload, work/family balance, mentoring and networking, and tenure and promotion as well as demographic items. The initial edition of the survey consisted of 71 items and was administered electronically in the spring of 2017 (February 15 th to March 15 th ) by the Survey Research Institute (SRI) at Cornell University. The second edition of the survey consisted of 64 items that included many of the same items from the first edition as well as some new ones; it was administered electronically in the spring of 2022 (February 28 th to March 18 th ) by SRI. Participants responded to items by rating their perceptions on 4- or 5-point Likert scales.

Sample and data.

In both 2017 and 2022, participants were recruited via an invitation email with a link to the survey that was sent by SRI to all full-time faculty. The 2017 survey was sent to 519 faculty, and 373 faculty provided survey responses (a response rate of 72%). The 2022 survey was sent to 484 faculty, and 264 faculty responded (a response rate of 55%). Chi-square goodness of fit tests indicated that the distribution of category frequencies for gender, rank, and race/ethnicity of the survey respondent samples did not differ significantly from those of the original population of all faculty to whom the survey was sent (for 2017, smallest p = .906; for 2022, smallest p = .17). Table 1 presents participant demographics for both surveys.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285.t001

Independent variables.

The independent variables in the current analysis were gender and discipline (STEM, non-STEM). The determination of a participant’s discipline as STEM was based upon Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has designated as STEM disciplines [ 35 ] as well as disciplines related to the programs in the National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences [ 36 ]. As a result, faculty were categorized as STEM if their primary responsibility lay in one of the following programs/departments: agricultural science, animal and equine science, biological sciences, chemistry, computer science and information systems, economics, earth and environmental sciences, engineering and physics, mathematics and statistics, occupational safety and health, political science and sociology, psychology, veterinary technology and pre-veterinary medicine.

Dependent variables.

The dependent variables in the current analysis focused on a subset of items from the larger survey. These items assessed participants’ perceptions of several aspects of the workplace Table 2 presents the items constituting each variable.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285.t002

Overall stress was evaluated as an average score across 15 items for which participants rated the amount of stress they felt about each item using a 4-point scale (where 1 = none , 2 = very little , 3 = some , 4 = a great deal ). Perceived general department/unit climate for women was evaluated with six items for which participants rated their agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = S trongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree . Perceptions of students’ behavior toward women faculty was assessed with two items for which participants rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 4 = Strongly agree . Respondents also had the option to indicate “Do not know” for each student behavior item; however, do not know responses were not included in subsequent analyses of the student behavior variable. Perceived leadership/influence was measured with four statements for which participants rated their agreement with each on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly disagree . Perceived equity in tenure and promotion was assessed with two items that were each rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree .

Principal components analyses of each set of items in each of the previously described dependent variables supported our conceptually derived grouping of survey items. Cronbach’s alpha was used to examine the internal reliability of the items for each aspect. Cronbach alpha values ranged from .75 to .94 and confirmed that the items within each aspect were closely related. To assess the role of gender and STEM discipline as well as any differences between 2017 and 2022 response patterns, separate 2 x 2 x 2 between-groups ANOVAs were performed for the items in each aspect with a family-wise significance level set at .05. Table 3 presents the means for the individual items in each group and the pattern of results is summarized in Table 4 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285.t003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285.t004

Overall stress

There were no significant main effects of year or STEM discipline nor were there any interactions of these factors with each other or with gender (all F s < 1). The only significant effect was the main effect of gender, F (1, 296) = 6.64, MSE = 82.50, p = .01. Women’s overall stress average across the 15 items ( M = 2.78, SD = 0.58) was greater than men’s overall stress, M = 2.62 ( SD = 0.62). The effect size (Cohen’s d) for this difference was .28.

General climate

To control error rate across multiple testing across multiple items, a Bonferroni correction was applied based on the six ANOVAs (one for each item in this aspect), yielding a per-item significance threshold of .008. There was no significant main effect of year for any of the items nor did year interact with any other factor. Furthermore, with the exception of perceptions regarding difficulty in retaining women faculty, there were no significant main effects or interactions of STEM discipline. For that retention item, faculty in STEM disciplines perceived a significantly greater difficulty by their department in retaining women faculty ( M = 2.46, SD = 1.16) than faculty in non-STEM disciplines ( M = 2.13, SD = 1.02), F (1, 576) = 11.76, MSE = 1.4, p = .0006, Cohen’s d = .30. Although women in general had a greater tendency to perceive that their department had a difficult time retaining women faculty ( M = 2.32, SD = 1.07) than did men faculty ( M = 2.20, SD = 1.11), the main effect for gender did not reach the Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold ( p = .015). On the other hand, there was a significant main effect of gender in perceptions of the department climate for women, F (1, 578) = 21.67, MSE = 0.89, p < .0001, how serious colleagues are about treated women and men faculty equally, F (1, 593) = 13.67, MSE = 1.10, p = .0002, the extent to which women faculty have to work harder to be seen as competent, F (1, 606) = 66.92, MSE = 1.63, p < .0001, and the commitment of women faculty with young children, F (1, 605) = 59.31, MSE = 1.45, p < .0001.

Overall, women faculty were less likely than men to perceive the climate in their department as good for women (women: M = 3.88, SD = 1.04; men: M = 4.20, SD = 0.85; Cohen’s d = -.33). Women were also less likely than men to perceive that their department was serious about treating women and men faculty equally (women: M = 3.83, SD = 1.06; men: M = 4.11, SD = 1.04; Cohen’s d = -.27). They were more likely to feel that women had to work harder than men to convince colleagues of their competence (women: M = 2.72, SD = 1.42; men: M = 1.90, SD = 1.15; Cohen’s d = .64) and that women faculty with young children were seen as less committed to their careers than men with young children (women: M = 2.57, SD = 1.31; men: M = 1.85, SD = 1.09; Cohen’s d = .60). In contrast, was no significant main effect of gender ( F < 1) or of any other factor nor were there significant interactions of any factors in regard to perceptions about the commitment of men faculty with young children (smallest p = .18).

Student behavior

To control error rate, a Bonferroni correction was applied based on the two ANOVAs (one for each item in this aspect), yielding a per-item significance threshold of .025. There was no significant main effect of year nor did year interact with any other factor in the ratings of perceived student behavior toward women faculty. However, there was a significant main effect of gender that was modified by a significant interaction of gender with discipline for the perception that students treat women faculty differently than men faculty, F (1, 411) = 7.45, MSE = 0.95, p = .0066. Tests of simple effects indicated that a significant gender difference for STEM faculty, F (1, 411) = 21.73, p < .0001, but no difference for non-STEM faculty, F (1, 411) = 1.75, p = .1862. STEM women ( M = 2,86, SD = 1.02) had a stronger perception than STEM men ( M = 2.15, SD = 1.07) that students treat women faculty differently, but the difference between perception of non-STEM women ( M = 2.79, SD = 0.90) and non-STEM men ( M = 2.60, SD = 0.99) was not significant.

The same pattern of a significant interaction of gender and discipline held for the perception that students do not respect women faculty as much as men, F (1, 413) = 5.65, MSE = 0.98, p = .0178. Tests of simple effects indicated a significant gender difference for STEM faculty, F (1, 413) = 19.47, p < .0001, but no difference for non-STEM faculty, F (1, 413) = 2.60, p = .1073. STEM women ( M = 2.74, SD = 1.01) had a stronger perception of less student respect of women than did STEM men ( M = 2.07, SD = 1.04) whereas the difference between non-STEM women ( M = 2.70, SD = 0.93) and non-STEM men ( M = 2.47, SD = 1.01) was not significant.

Leadership/Influence

To control error rate across multiple testing across multiple items, a Bonferroni correction was applied based on the four ANOVAs (one for each item in this aspect), yielding a per-item significance threshold of .0125. There was no significant main effect of year for any of the items nor did year interact with any other factor. Furthermore, with the exception of perceptions regarding efforts made to promote women to leadership positions, there were no significant main effects or interactions of STEM discipline. There was, however, a significant main effect of gender for all items. Overall, women faculty ( M = 3.90, SD = 1.14) were significantly less confident than men faculty ( M = 4.28, SD = 0.97) that most of the faculty in their department would be as comfortable with a woman being department chair as with a man, F (1, 592) = 29.99, MSE = 1.10, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = -.36. Compared to men ( M = 1.84, SD = 1.03), women had a stronger perception ( M = 2.36, SD = 1.17) that women faculty were less likely than men to have influence in their department, F (1, 589) = 36.33, MSE = 1.19, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = .47. Women ( M = 2.66, SD = 1.09) had a stronger perception than men ( M = 2.16, SD = 1.08) that faculty men were more likely than faculty women to be involved with informal department networks, F (1, 587) = 33.84, MSE = 1.18, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = .46, In terms of departmental efforts to promote women to leadership positions, although both women and men faculty agreed such efforts were being made, women overall had a lower perception ( M = 3.68, SD = 1.03) than men ( M = 3.77, SD = 1.00), F (1, 577) = 6.93, MSE = 0.99, p = .0087, Cohen’s d = -.10. In addition, STEM faculty in general ( M = 3.52, SD = 1.05) perceived less effort to promote women into leadership in their departments than did non-STEM faculty ( M = 3.86, SD = 0.97), F (1, 577) = 15.89, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = -.34.

Tenure/Promotion equity

To control error rate, a Bonferroni correction was applied based on the two ANOVAs (one for each item in this aspect), yielding a per-item significance threshold of .025. Ratings for the tenure perception item were collected only from faculty who were tenured or on the tenure track. Ratings for the promotion perception item were collected only from faculty who had been promoted.

There was no significant main effect of year nor did year interact with any other factor in the ratings of either item. However, there was a significant main effect of gender that was modified by a significant interaction of gender with discipline for the perception that tenure criteria are applied equally to men and women, F (1, 502) = 12.15, MSE = 1.05, p = .0005. Tests of simple effects indicated a significant gender difference for STEM faculty F (1, 502) = 38.29, p < .0001, but the difference for non-STEM faculty did not reach the significance threshold, F (1, 502) = 4.44, p = .0356. STEM women ( M = 3.61, SD = 1.18) were less confident than STEM men ( M = 4.48, SD = 0.79) that tenure decision criteria were applied to women and men faculty in their department in the same way; however, non-STEM women ( M = 4.07, SD = 1.14) and non-STEM men ( M = 4.34, SD = 0.95) held more similar perceptions.

In terms of promotion criteria, there was no significant main effect of discipline nor did it interact with any other factor. However, there was a significant gender difference, F (1, 260) = 17.91, MSE = 1.32, p < .0001, Cohen’s d = -.47. Women ( M = 3.96, SD = 1.36) were significantly less confident than men ( M = 4.50, SD = 0.94) that promotion decision criteria were applied to women and men in their department in the same way.

This paper presents the results of two climate studies administered in 2017 and 2022 by the Murray State University ADVANCE team. The studies assessed the perception of gender equality at a regional comprehensive university in rural Kentucky, USA. Overall, there was strong evidence that men and women faculty in STEM and non-STEM disciplines experienced and perceived gender inequities differently, with men faculty consistently perceiving a stronger gender diversity climate than women faculty. This pattern of findings is consistent with the established literature on the perception gap in gender equity in the workplace [ 13 – 16 ]. Further, these findings extend the work of García-González and colleagues [ 17 ] by replicating the gender gap among faculty in a non-research-intensive institution in the United States.

Overall, women faculty were less likely than men to perceive the climate in their department as good for women. Furthermore, the extent to which women faculty have to work harder to be seen as competent and the commitment of women faculty with young children were greater issues of concern for women faculty. Women were also less likely than men to perceive that their department was serious about treating women and men faculty equally. Women were more likely to feel that women had to work harder than men to convince colleagues of their competence and women were more concerned that women faculty with young children were seen as less committed to their careers than men with young children. These findings provide further evidence of the gap between men and women faculty perceptions of gender diversity climate and highlight the “invisible” nature of privilege [ 18 ], with men faculty consistently perceiving a rosier climate for their women faculty colleagues than what their colleagues actually perceived.

Women faculty also reported greater perceived stress than men. The impact of this stress and broader climate concerns may have a cumulative negative effect that is overwhelming for women faculty [ 37 , 38 ]. Further, the impact of stressors and climate may at least partially account for the lack of progress in the representation of women in STEM departments and leadership roles [ 39 , 40 ]. The leaky pipeline continues to be impacted by these issues, and it may be a case of “injury by hundreds of little cuts.” Our findings support this possibility, as we observed relatively small but significant gaps for women faculty that could cumulatively have a significant negative effect on climate, retention, and advancement. Administrators may mistakenly view these concerns in isolation as small and insignificant. Further, administrators might also ignore these concerns because of the gap in perception observed in our findings. For example, they could adopt the faulty view that since the majority of faculty are content with the institutional climate, the overall climate is fine. Institutional change strategies that involve increased awareness and allyship among men faculty and administrators may be especially well-suited to target this perception gap [ 41 , 42 ].

Faculty in STEM disciplines perceived greater difficulties in retaining women faculty. The lack of representation of women in STEM disciplines may be a contributing factor to this issue [ 43 , 44 ]. STEM women were less confident than STEM men that tenure decision criteria were applied to women and men faculty in their department in the same way. Our analysis also indicated that STEM women perceived that students treat women faculty differently than men faculty, and that students do not respect women faculty as much as men faculty. These findings are consistent with well-established bodies of literature documenting gender biases in student evaluations of teaching [ 45 , 46 ] and the promotion and tenure process [ 47 , 48 ]. Women faculty were also less confident that faculty in their department would be as comfortable with a woman department chair as with a man. Additionally, women perceived that they were less likely to have influence in the department and that men were part of informal networks and STEM faculty perceived less effort being made to promote women to leadership positions than non-STEM faculty. These findings are consistent with broader literature regarding challenges faced by women in academic leadership roles [ 39 , 40 ].

Our results show no significant effect of year, indicating that problems with perceptions have not substantially changed in the five years between surveys. This provides direct evidence of the stability of the gender perception gap within an institution. This finding is consistent with indirect evidence from literature that suggested stability in the effect over time across studies and samples [ 9 – 12 ]. While the stability of the effect is not surprising, it is important to consider the broader institutional context during this time frame, as we implemented an ADVANCE Adaptation grant between 2017 and 2022 with the goal of increasing awareness of gender equity and increasing instructional support for women faculty [ 49 ]. In this regard, the observed invariance across time could be seen as an indication that the gender climate did not improve as a result of the ADVANCE initiatives. However, it is important to note that the COVID-19 pandemic also occurred between our survey timepoints, and the pandemic has been linked to a clear increase in barriers and stressors for women faculty [ 50 , 51 ]. Thus, the observed stability in climate could be seen as an indicator of the success of ADVANCE initiatives in protecting against the unequal impacts of the pandemic. Future research is needed to explore the unique impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender diversity climate as well as the potential for equity interventions to narrow the gender perception gap.

The obtained findings are not without limitations. While survey items were based on previous climate surveys and assessed for construct fit using principal components analysis and internal consistency, they lack formal psychometric validation. As this research area matures, future studies should seek to more rigorously validate climate measures by establishing more robust evidence of reliability and validity, including establishing predictive validity with faculty retention and advancement outcomes. Surveying faculty across two time points is a strength of the current study, as we found that the observed gender perception gap was largely invariant across time. However, due to confidentiality concerns during data collection, it was not possible for us to match faculty responses across time points. Thus, this study is not able to speak to how each participant’s perceptions may have changed over time, and future studies should consider collecting data in a way that allows for robust within-subject comparisons. Another limitation is that this study operationalized gender as a binary and did not assess the intersection of gender with other marginalized identities. In particular, this study measured gender identity using binary gender self-reported by faculty to human resources. Gender identity is fluid, especially among nonbinary individuals [ 52 ]. Future research should assess gender identity concurrent with other survey measures and use a more inclusive measure of identity, including non-binary, transgender, cis-gender, and self-description response options. In addition, research has established that women faculty of color [ 53 ], women faculty who identify as lesbian/bisexual and gender non-binary faculty [ 54 ], and women faculty with disabilities [ 55 ] face additional barriers and challenges. Future climate survey research should employ an intersectional lens to better contextualize the experiences of marginalized faculty.

While the obtained results provide clear evidence of a gender perception gap, they do not identify the cause(s). A recent review by Lee et al. [ 13 ] proposed social dominance theory [ 56 ] as a potential motivation for privileged groups (e.g., men) to downplay the discrimination experiences of members of minority groups. Additionally, Wu and Dunning [ 57 , 58 ] have observed that members of majority groups (including men) display cognitive performance deficits in recognizing discrimination in the first place, so defensive motivations might only partially explain gender differences in the perception of bias. These recent studies highlight possible psychological mechanisms that maintain the gap in gender perceptions in academic environments, and they also support the need for interventions to specifically target and close this perception gap. Meaningful and lasting institutional change to support women and other unrepresented faculty in STEM and non-STEM disciplines requires a focus on transforming both institutional policies and climate [ 29 , 59 ].

The US is projected to become more racially and ethnically diverse in the next decades, continuing the trajectory that started over half a century ago [ 60 ]. Higher education institutions are responsible for advancing the economic and social well-being of all [ 61 ], and they play a critical role in a functional pluralistic society [ 62 ]. The diversity of college campuses in which faculty, staff, and students come together to learn, teach, and grow amid varying viewpoints and perspectives is key to students’ academic and social growth [ 63 ]. This growth and the concomitant institutional satisfaction of all students leads to increased recruitment and retention of members of underrepresented groups [ 64 ]. In addition, a diverse faculty positively impacts graduation rates of not only underrepresented minority students but also students of all races/ethnicities [ 65 ].

Broadening participation in STEM is an important avenue toward meeting the needs of a more diverse and capable workforce [ 43 , 44 ]. Low-income, first-generation, and under-represented minority students face significant barriers to attending and graduating from college, particularly in STEM fields [ 66 – 68 ]. The underrepresentation of women in STEM is well documented in the literature [ 69 , 70 ]. This phenomenon has been attributed to factors like gender stereotypes, lack of social support networks, unwelcoming and sometimes hostile academic climate, and gender biases [ 7 ]. Furthermore, perceptions of sexism within the immediate academic environment are not only detrimental for women but are also associated with a higher sense of academic impostorism and lower self-efficacy and feeling of belonging, all of which could lead women doctoral students in STEM fields to drop out [ 71 ] and thus further reduce the diversity of the pool of future faculty. On the other hand, less bias can be related to better performance. Smeding [ 72 ] found that women engineering students held weaker implicit gender-STEM stereotypes compared to other groups and that those weaker biases were less negatively related to math grades.

Based on findings from 177 institutions that received NSF ADVANCE grants between 2001 and 2018, Casad [ 7 ] identified policies, interventions, and a positive organizational climate as effective approaches to increase the representation of women faculty in STEM fields. The current results add to this growing body of literature that is focused on a more comprehensive consideration of the experiences of women and other underrepresented faculty in STEM (see [ 73 ] for a review). Systemic efforts, including efforts funded by NSF ADVANCE programs [ 29 ], that target the improvement of campus climate and the gender perception gap highlighted in this study have the potential to further improve diversity in the STEM workforce.

In summary, findings from two climate surveys five years apart revealed a persistent perception gap between men and women faculty, particularly in STEM disciplines. Men faculty underestimated the challenges and stressors faced by their women faculty colleagues and overestimated positive indicators of gender diversity climate. These findings are broadly consistent with the existing literature on the gender perception gap, and this study replicated previous research in academic settings by extending the findings to faculty at a rural comprehensive regional institution. Further, this study provided direct evidence of the stability of the perception gap over a five-year interval. Future research is needed to explore the gender perception gap using more psychometrically sound measures that also include a broader intersectional focus on marginalized faculty identities beyond binary gender. Targeted interventions, such as programs that enhance awareness and allyship among men faculty, may help bridge this perception gap and foster increased support for broader institutional change strategies designed to enhance gender equity.

Supporting information

S1 table. list of abbreviations..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285.s001

S1 File. PLOSOne human subjects research checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285.s002

S2 File. Human subjects protocol I.D.–IRB # 16–098 approval letter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285.s003

S3 File. Human subjects protocol I.D.–IRB # 20‐001 approval letter.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301285.s004

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 18. Mc Intosh P. White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack [Internet]. Peace and Freedom. [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://psychology.umbc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2016/10/White-Privilege_McIntosh-1989.pdf
• 20. Maher FA, Tetreault MKT. Privilege and diversity in the academy. London, England: Routledge; 2013.
• 28. Sheridan J, Pribbenow C, Fine E, Handelsman J, Carnes M. Climate change at the University of Wisconsin-Madison: What changed, and did ADVANCE have an impact? [Internet]. Women in Engineering ProActive Network. [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://journals.psu.edu/wepan/article/download/58488/58176
• 30. Oakland University 2017 climate survey [Internet]. Oakland.edu. [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://www.oakland.edu/Assets/Oakland/diversity/files-and-documents/2017%20OU%20Climate%20Survey_Executive%20summary.pdf
• 32. Climate survey results [Internet]. Unt.edu. [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://idea.unt.edu/climate-survey-results
• 33. Equity, Diversity & Inclusion [Internet]. Wustl.edu [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://equity.wustl.edu/
• 34. 2017 HERI Faculty Survey Data [Internet]. Wwu.edu [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://crtc.wwu.edu/files/2019-11/2017HERIFacultyData.pdf
• 35. STEM OPT hub [Internet]. Dhs.gov. [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/stem-opt-hub
• 36. Programs: Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Science [Internet]. Nsf.gov. [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/programs.jsp?org=SBE
• 44. National Science Foundation. 2022–2026 strategic plan. NSF 22–068. [Internet]. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 2022 [cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2022/nsf22068/nsf22068.pdf
• 49. McCarthy M, Fuller C, Zhang R, Waddill P, Balthrop D. ADVANCE Adaptation: Leveling the playing field, strategic equity initiatives at Murray State University [Internet]. National Science Foundation Award 1935939. [cited 2023 Sep 15]. Available from: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/simpleSearchResult?queryText=1935939&ActiveAwards=true
• 56. Sidanius J, Pratto F. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2012. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139175043
• 60. Vespa J, Medina, L, Armstrong DM. Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 15 p. Report no.: P25-1144. Available from: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.pdf
• 62. Smith DG. Diversity’s promise for higher education: making it work. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2009.
• 66. McGee EO, Robinson WH, editors. Diversifying STEM: Multidisciplinary perspectives on race and gender. Rutgers University Press; 2020.
• 69. Kahn S, Ginther D. Women and STEM. Working Paper 23525. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2017. Available from: https://www.nber.org/papers/w23525

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus convallis sem tellus, vitae egestas felis vestibule ut.

Error message details.

Reuse Permissions

Request permission to republish or redistribute SHRM content and materials.

Here’s How Bad Workplace Gender Bias Has Become

Gender bias continues to sprout in the workplace—both in explicit and covert ways.

A new survey of over 1,000 women by The Muse job board revealed that 41 percent of women have felt discriminated against based on their gender during a job interview, and 42 percent said they have encountered gender-biased or inappropriate questions during a job interview.

The report also showed that:

• Over 1 in 3 (38 percent) of women have hesitated to apply for a job due to perceived gender bias.
• 2 out of 3 think women in their industry have a hard time getting promoted.
• 55 percent do not feel there’s enough female representation in the leadership at their organization.
• 79 percent of women said they are more likely to seek out companies that have equal representation of women in managerial/leadership positions when looking for a new job.

While the findings are troubling, 63 percent of respondents did say they felt supported as a woman at work.

“We have made incredible progress over the past few years toward increasing gender equity in the workplace, but as the results of this survey reveal, there’s still so much more progress needed—particularly in the hiring and job interview process,” said Heather Tenuto, CEO of The Muse.

SHRM Online collected additional news on gender bias in the workplace.

New Report Finds 30 Different Biases Impact Women at Work

Gender bias and discrimination have held women back in the workplace for generations, but new research indicates gender-based judgments barely scratch the surface of ways professional women are criticized throughout their careers. Researchers identified 30 characteristics that women say were used against them in the workplace, including age, attractiveness and body size.

Gender Discrimination in Tech Industry Worsening

A 2023 report by tech career marketplace Dice revealed the percentage of tech professionals who said they experienced gender discrimination rose from 21 percent in 2021 to 26 percent in 2022.

To reduce discrimination, HR professionals should consider incorporating procedures to assess hiring processes and salaries, asking for feedback from the workforce via surveys and enlisting a third-party consultant to further identify opportunities for improvement.

( SHRM Online )

The Groups Hit Hardest by the Gender Pay Gap

While progress has been made toward eliminating the gender pay gap, some groups of women fare worse than others, according to an annual report. Overall, women in the U.S. earn 83 cents for every dollar a man earns. But women of color, mothers, women working remotely and women leaders are earning less than that. Here’s how employers can contribute to a more equitable workplace and keep their top female talent.

5 Ways to Reduce Gender Inequality at Work

​Research has shown that societal biases toward women have contributed to gender salary disparities in the U.S. Generation Z women have lower pay expectations than men have when entering the workforce, according to a recent report by career app Handshake. Handshake researchers explained that the difference in pay expectations “highlights the long-standing issue of gender pay disparity: Women's salary expectations are lower from the start, potentially reflecting historical pay gaps.”

Related Content

Rising Demand for Workforce AI Skills Leads to Calls for Upskilling

As artificial intelligence technology continues to develop, the demand for workers with the ability to work alongside and manage AI systems will increase. This means that workers who are not able to adapt and learn these new skills will be left behind in the job market.

Employers Want New Grads with AI Experience, Knowledge

A vast majority of U.S. professionals say students entering the workforce should have experience using AI and be prepared to use it in the workplace, and they expect higher education to play a critical role in that preparation.

Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace

​An organization run by AI is not a futuristic concept. Such technology is already a part of many workplaces and will continue to shape the labor market and HR. Here's how employers and employees can successfully manage generative AI and other AI-powered systems.

HR Daily Newsletter

New, trends and analysis, as well as breaking news alerts, to help HR professionals do their jobs better each business day.

Success title

Success caption

Advertisement

Gender-Affirming Nutrition: An Overview of Eating Disorders in the Transgender Population

• Published: 21 October 2023
• Volume 12 , pages 877–892, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ozge Yesildemir   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2680-7147 1 &
• Gamze Akbulut   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0197-1573 2  

543 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Purpose of Review

Transgender individuals are vulnerable to many nutrition-related conditions, especially eating disorders due to gender dysphoria. This review aims to summarize the current literature on eating disorders in transgender individuals. The issues that should be considered in nutrition care for the transgender population are discussed regarding public health.

Recent Findings

Transgender individuals can exhibit disordered eating behaviors to overcome the stress they experience due to stigma, discrimination, social exclusion, and abuse. Recent studies showed that disordered eating and clinical eating disorders are more prevalent among transgender than cisgender people. It is very important for a multidisciplinary team working in the clinic to understand the epidemiology, etiology, diagnostic criteria, and treatment of eating disorders in the transgender population. However, multidisciplinary nutritional care is limited due to the lack of transgender-specific nutrition guidelines. It is safe to say that adhering to a generally healthy nutritional pattern and using standardized nutrition guidelines. We recommend that health professionals working with patients/clients with eating disorders receive continuing education in transgender health, be empowering and inclusive, address patients/clients with their gender identity nouns and pronouns, and develop nutritional treatment plans that are not gender-specific.

Eating disorders are a significant public health problem in the transgender population. Therefore, clinical screening and early intervention are necessary to identify and treat eating disorders in transgender people. Eating disorders in the transgender population should be monitored routinely, and gender-affirming care should be provided as well as treatment of eating disorders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Towards gender-affirming nutrition assessment: a case series of adult transgender men with distinct nutrition considerations

Whitney Linsenmeyer, Theresa Drallmeier & Michael Thomure

Eating disorder symptomatology among transgender individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sofie M. Rasmussen, Martin K. Dalgaard, … Gry Kjaersdam Telléus

Eating Disorders Among Transgender and Gender Non-binary People

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:     • of importance      •• of major importance.

Ferrucci KA, Lapane KL, Jesdale BM. Prevalence of diagnosed eating disorders in US transgender adults and youth in insurance claims. Int J Eat Disord. 2022;55(6):801–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23729 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Flores AR, Herman J, Gates GJ, Brown TN. How many adults identify as transgender in the United States? 2016. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Adults-US-Aug-2016.pdf . Accessed 08 May 2023.

•• Coleman E, Radix AE, Bouman WP, et al. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people, version 8. Int J Transgend Health. 2022;23(1):1–259.  https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644 . It is the most current international clinical protocol by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. It is widely used by health care professionals working with transgender people.

Reisner SL, Poteat T, Keatley J, et al. Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: a review. Lancet. 2016;388(10042):412–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00684-X .

Meerwijk EL, Sevelius JM. Transgender population size in the United States: a meta-regression of population-based probability samples. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303578 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Planned Parenthood. Transgender terms and labels. 2019. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/transgender/transgender-identity-terms-and-labels . Accessed 08 May 2023.

• Waters J, Linsenmeyer W: Nutrition for transgender people. In: Raymond JL, Morrow K, editors. Krause and Mahan’s food and the nutrition care process. 16th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020. pp. 365–380. Transgender nutrition chapter was added to this book, which offers the latest guidelines for evidence-based practice. This chapter provides dietitians with a broad perspective on transgender nutrition.

Parker LL, Harriger JA. Eating disorders and disordered eating behaviors in the LGBT population: a review of the literature. J Eat Disord. 2020;8(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-020-00327-y .

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). 5th ed. Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hanlan ME, Griffith J, Patel N, Jaser SS. Eating disorders and disordered eating in type 1 diabetes: prevalence, screening, and treatment options. Curr Diab Rep. 2013;13:909–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-013-0418-4 .

Veale JF, Peter T, Travers R, Saewyc EM. Enacted stigma, mental health, and protective factors among transgender youth in Canada. Transgend Health. 2017;2(1):207–16. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2017.0031 .

Gomes SM, Jacob MC, Rocha C, Medeiros MF, Lyra CO, Noro LR. Expanding the limits of sex: a systematic review concerning food and nutrition in transgender populations. Public Health Nutr. 2021;24(18):6436–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021001671 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Obarzanek L, Munyan K. Eating disorder behaviors among transgender individuals: exploring the literature. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2021;27(3):203–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390320921948 .

Riddle MC, Safer JD. Medical considerations in the care of transgender and gender diverse patients with eating disorders. J Eat Disord. 2022;10(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-022-00699-3 .

Diemer EW, White-Hughto JM, Gordon AR, Guss C, Bryn-Austin S, Reisner SL. Beyond the binary: differences in eating disorder prevalence by gender identity in a transgender sample. Transgend Health. 2018;3(1):17–23. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2017.0043 .

Watson RJ, Veale JF, Saewyc EM. Disordered eating behaviors among transgender youth: probability profiles from risk and protective factors. Int J Eat Disord. 2017;50(5):515–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22627 .

Diemer EW, Grant JD, Munn-Chernoff MA, Patterson DA, Duncan AE. Gender identity, sexual orientation, and eating-related pathology in a national sample of college students. J Adolesc Health. 2015;57(2):144–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.03.003 .

Guss CE, Williams DN, Reisner SL, Bryn-Austin S, Katz-Wise SL. Disordered weight management behaviors, nonprescription steroid use, and weight perception in transgender youth. J Adolesc Health. 2017;60(1):17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.08.027 .

Jones BA, Haycraft E, Murjan S, Arcelus J. Body dissatisfaction and disordered eating in trans people: a systematic review of the literature. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2016;28(1):81–94. https://doi.org/10.3109/09540261.2015.1089217 .

Coelho JS, Suen J, Clark BA, Marshall SK, Geller J, Lam PY. Eating disorder diagnoses and symptom presentation in transgender youth: a scoping review. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2019;21(11):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1097-x .

Delozier AM, Kamody RC, Rodgers S, Chen D. Health disparities in transgender and gender expansive adolescents: a topical review from a minority stress framework. J Pediatr Psychol. 2020;45(8):842–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsaa040 .

Fergusson P, Greenspan N, Maitland L, Huberdeau R. Towards providing culturally aware nutritional care for transgender people: key issues and considerations. Can J Diet Pract Res. 2018;79(2):74–9. https://doi.org/10.3148/cjdpr-2018-001 .

Coleman E, Bockting W, Botzer M, et al. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people, version 7. Int J Transgend. 2012;13(4):165–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2011.700873 .

Bishop A, Overcash F, McGuire J, Reicks M. Diet and physical activity behaviors among adolescent transgender students: school survey results. J Adolesc Health. 2020;66(4):484–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.10.026 .

Hembree WC, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren L, et al. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(11):3869–903. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01658 .

Rozga M, Linsenmeyer W, Wood JC, Darst V, Gradwell EK. Hormone therapy, health outcomes and the role of nutrition in transgender individuals: a scoping review. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2020;40:42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.08.011 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Russomanno J, Jabson-Tree JM. Food insecurity and food pantry use among transgender and gender non-conforming people in the Southeast United States. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08684-8 .

Kirby SR, Linde JA. Understanding the nutritional needs of transgender and gender-nonconforming students at a large public Midwestern university. Transgend Health. 2020;5(1):33–41. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2019.0071 .

Wilson M. Clinical care programs for transgender populations in the United States: nutrition-related assessment tools. (Doctoral dissertation). Madrid: Saint Louis University; 2019.

Klaver M, Dekker MJHJ, de Mutsert R, Twisk JWR, den Heijer M. Cross-sex hormone therapy in transgender persons affects total body weight, body fat and lean body mass: a meta-analysis. Andrologia. 2017;49(5):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.12660 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Velho I, Fighera TM, Ziegelmann PK, Spritzer PM. Effects of testosterone therapy on BMI, blood pressure, and laboratory profile of transgender men: a systematic review. Andrology. 2017;5(5):881–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12382 .

Safer JD, Tangpricha V. Care of transgender persons. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(25):2451–60. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1903650 .

Fernandez J, Tannock L. Metabolic effects of hormone therapy in transgender patients. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(4):383–8. https://doi.org/10.4158/EP15950.OR .

Prince JCJ, Safer JD. Endocrine treatment of transgender individuals: current guidelines and strategies. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab. 2020;15(6):395–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/17446651.2020.1825075 .

Maraka S, Singh-Ospina N, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, et al. Sex steroids and cardiovascular outcomes in transgender individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(11):3914–23. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01643 .

Shatzel JJ, Connelly KJ, DeLoughery TG. Thrombotic issues in transgender medicine: a review. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.24593 .

Auer MK, Ebert T, Pietzner M, et al. Effects of sex hormone treatment on the metabolic syndrome in transgender individuals: focus on metabolic cytokines. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(2):790–802. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01559 .

Spanos C, Bretherton I, Zajac JD, Cheung AS. Effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on insulin resistance and body composition in transgender individuals: a systematic review. World J Diabetes. 2020;11(3):66–77. https://doi.org/10.4239/wjd.v11.i3.66 .

Singh-Ospina N, Maraka S, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, et al. Effect of sex steroids on the bone health of transgender individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102(11):3904–13. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01642 .

Fighera TM, Ziegelmann PK, Rasia da Silva T, Spritzer PM. Bone mass effects of cross-sex hormone therapy in transgender people: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endocr Soc. 2019;3(5):943–64.  https://doi.org/10.1210/js.2018-00413 .

Verroken C, Collet S, Lapauw B, T’Sjoen G. Osteoporosis and bone health in transgender individuals. Calcif Tissue Int. 2022;110(5):615–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-022-00972-2 .

Rosen HN, Hamnvik OPR, Jaisamrarn U, et al. Bone densitometry in transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals: 2019 ISCD official position. J Clin Densitom. 2019;22(4):544–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocd.2019.07.004 .

SoRelle JA, Jiao R, Gao E, et al. Impact of hormone therapy on laboratory values in transgender patients. Clin Chem. 2019;65(1):170–9. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2018.292730 .

Avila JT, Golden NH, Aye T. Eating disorder screening in transgender youth. J Adolesc Health. 2019;65(6):815–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.06.011 .

Becerra-Culqui TA, Liu Y, Nash R, et al. Mental health of transgender and gender nonconforming youth compared with their peers. Pediatrics. 2018;141(5):20173845. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-3845 .

Bankoff SM, Richards LK, Bartlett B, Wolf EJ, Mitchell KS. Examining weight and eating behavior by sexual orientation in a sample of male veterans. Compr Psychiatry. 2016;68:134–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.03.007 .

Calzo JP, Blashill AJ, Brown TA, Argenal RL. Eating disorders and disordered weight and shape control behaviors in sexual minority populations. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2017;19(8):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-017-0801-y .

Hadland SE, Austin SB, Goodenow CS, Calzo JP. Weight misperception and unhealthy weight control behaviors among sexual minorities in the general adolescent population. J Adolesc Health. 2014;54(3):296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.08.021 .

Austin SB, Nelson LA, Birkett MA, Calzo JP, Everett B. Eating disorder symptoms and obesity at the intersections of gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation in US high school students. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(2):16–22. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301150 .

Duffy ME, Henkel KE, Joiner TE. Prevalence of self-injurious thoughts and behaviors in transgender individuals with eating disorders: a national study. J Adolesc Health. 2019;64(4):461–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.07.016 .

Smink FR, Van Hoeken D, Hoek HW. Epidemiology of eating disorders: incidence, prevalence and mortality rates. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012;14(4):406–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-012-0282-y .

Himmelstein MS, Puhl RM, Watson RJ. Weight-based victimization, eating behaviors, and weight-related health in sexual and gender minority adolescents. Appetite. 2019;141:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104321 .

Ristori J, Fisher AD, Castellini G, et al. Gender dysphoria and anorexia nervosa symptoms in two adolescents. Arch Sex Behav. 2019;48:1625–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1396-7 .

Jaworski M, Panczyk M, Śliwczyński A, et al. Eating disorders in males: an 8-year population-based observational study. Am J Mens Health. 2019;13(4):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988319860970 .

Ålgars M, Santtila P, Sandnabba NK. Conflicted gender identity, body dissatisfaction, and disordered eating in adult men and women. Sex Roles. 2010;63:118–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9758-6 .

Nagata JM, Murray SB, Compte EJ, et al. Community norms for the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) among transgender men and women. Eat Behav. 2020;37:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2020.101381 .

Bell K, Rieger E, Hirsch JK. Eating disorder symptoms and proneness in gay men, lesbian women, and transgender and gender non-conforming adults: Comparative levels and a proposed mediational model. Front Psychol. 2019;9:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02692 .

Hagan KE, Forbush KT, Chen PY. Is dietary restraint a unitary or multi-faceted construct? Psychol Assess. 2017;29(10):1249–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000429 .

Luk JW, Miller JM, Lipsky LM, Gilman SE, Haynie DL, Simons-Morton BG. A longitudinal investigation of perceived weight status as a mediator of sexual orientation disparities in maladaptive eating behaviors. Eat Behav. 2019;33:85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2019.04.003 .

Calzo JP, Austin SB, Micali N. Sexual orientation disparities in eating disorder symptoms among adolescent boys and girls in the UK. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2018;27(11):1483–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-018-1145-9 .

Davids CM, Green MA. A preliminary investigation of body dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptomatology with bisexual individuals. Sex Roles. 2011;65(7):533–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9963-y .

Hazzard VM, Simone M, Borg SL, et al. Disparities in eating disorder risk and diagnosis among sexual minority college students: findings from the national Healthy Minds Study. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(9):1563–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23304 .

Simone M, Askew A, Lust K, Eisenberg ME, Pisetsky EM. Disparities in self-reported eating disorders and academic impairment in sexual and gender minority college students relative to their heterosexual and cisgender peers. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(4):513–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23226 .

Steele SM, Belvy L, Veldhuis CB, Martin K, Nisi R, Hughes TL. Femininity, masculinity, and body image in a community-based sample of lesbian and bisexual women. Women Health. 2019;59(8):829–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2019.1567645 .

Kashubeck-West S, Zeilman M, Deitz C. Objectification, relationship satisfaction, and self-consciousness during physical intimacy in bisexual women. Sex Relat Therapy. 2018;33(1–2):97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1419569 .

Mensinger JL, Granche JL, Cox SA, Henretty JR. Sexual and gender minority individuals report higher rates of abuse and more severe eating disorder symptoms than cisgender heterosexual individuals at admission to eating disorder treatment. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(4):541–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23257 .

Burton CM, Marshal MP, Chisolm DJ, Sucato GS. Friedman MS Sexual minority-related victimization as a mediator of mental health disparities in sexual minority youth: a longitudinal analysis. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(3):394–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9901-5 .

Gordon AR, Austin SB, Pantalone DW, Baker AM, Eiduson R, Rodgers R. Appearance ideals and eating disorders risk among LGBTQ college students: the being ourselves living in diverse bodies (BOLD) study. J Adolesc Health. 2019;64(2):43–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JADOHEALTH.2018.10.096 .

Bayer V, Robert-McComb JJ, Clopton JR, Reich DA. Investigating the influence of shame, depression, and distress tolerance on the relationship between internalized homophobia and binge eating in lesbian and bisexual women. Eat Behav. 2017;24:39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.12.001 .

Mason TB, Lewis RJ, Heron KE. Indirect pathways connecting sexual orientation and weight discrimination to disordered eating among young adult lesbians. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2017;4(2):193–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000220 .

Pinna F, Paribello P, Somaini G, et al. Mental health in transgender individuals: a systematic review. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2022;34(3–4):292–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2022.2093629 .

Mason TB, Lewis RJ. Minority stress and binge eating among lesbian and bisexual women. J Homosex. 2015;62(7):971–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1008285 .

Kimmel SB, Mahalik JR. Body image concerns of gay men: the roles of minority stress and conformity to masculine norms. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73(6):1185–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1185 .

Mason TB, Lewis RJ. Minority stress, body shame, and binge eating among lesbian women: Social anxiety as a linking mechanism. Psychol Women Q. 2016;40(3):428–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316635529 .

Puhl RM, Himmelstein MS, Watson RJ. Weight-based victimization among sexual and gender minority adolescents: findings from a diverse national sample. Pediatr Obes. 2019;14(7):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpo.12514 .

Huxley CJ, Clarke V, Halliwell E. A qualitative exploration of whether lesbian and bisexual women are ‘protected’from sociocultural pressure to be thin. J Health Psychol Res. 2014;19(2):273–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105312468496 .

Donaldson AA, Hall A, Neukirch J, et al. Multidisciplinary care considerations for gender nonconforming adolescents with eating disorders: a case series. Int J Eat Disord. 2018;51(5):475–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22868 .

Murray SB, Boon E, Touyz SW. Diverging eating psychopathology in transgendered eating disorder patients: a report of two cases. Eat Disord. 2013;21(1):70–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2013.741989 .

Jones BA, Haycraft E, Bouman WP, Brewin N, Claes L, Arcelus J. Risk factors for eating disorder psychopathology within the treatment seeking transgender population: the role of cross-sex hormone treatment. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2018;26(2):120–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2576 .

Ålgars M, Alanko K, Santtila P, Sandnabba NK. Disordered eating and gender identity disorder: a qualitative study. Eat Disord. 2012;20(4):300–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2012.668482 .

Becker I, Nieder TO, Cerwenka S, et al. Body image in young gender dysphoric adults: a European multi-center study. Arch Sex Behav. 2016;45(3):559–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0527-z .

Poteat T, German D, Kerrigan D. Managing uncertainty: a grounded theory of stigma in transgender health care encounters. Soc Sci Med. 2013;84:22–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.019 .

Reisner SL, White JM, Bradford JB, Mimiaga MJ. Transgender health disparities: comparing full cohort and nested matched-pair study designs in a community health center. LGBT Health. 2014;1(3):177–84. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2014.0009 .

Bauer GR, Zong X, Scheim AI. Hammond R, Thind A. Factors impacting transgender patients’ discomfort with their family physicians: a respondent-driven sampling survey. PloS One, 2015;10(12): 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145046 .

Kosenko K, Rintamaki L, Raney S, Maness K. Transgender patient perceptions of stigma in health care contexts. Med Care. 2013;51(9):819–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31829fa90d .

De Vries AL, McGuire JK, Steensma TD, Wagenaar EC, Doreleijers TA, Cohen-Kettenis PT. Young adult psychological outcome after puberty suppression and gender reassignment. Pediatrics. 2014;134(4):696–704. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2958 .

Wright H. ‘Emotional turbulence’: the development of symbolic thinking in the psychotherapeutic treatment of an adolescent girl. J Child Psychother. 2018;44(1):55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0075417X.2018.1440617 .

Nowaskie DZ, Filipowicz AT, Choi Y, Fogel JM. Eating disorder symptomatology in transgender patients: differences across gender identity and gender affirmation. Int J Eat Disord. 2021;54(8):1493–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23539 .

Tordoff DM, Wanta JW, Collin A, Stepney C, Inwards-Breland DJ, Ahrens K. Mental health outcomes in transgender and nonbinary youths receiving gender-affirming care. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0978 .

Testa RJ, Rider GN, Haug NA, Balsam KF. Gender confirming medical interventions and eating disorder symptoms among transgender individuals. Health Psychol. 2017;36(10):927–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000497 .

Cibich M, Wade TD. Treating bulimia nervosa in the context of gender dysphoria using 10-session cognitive behavior therapy. Int J Eat Disord. 2019;52(5):602–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23068 .

Brownstone LM, DeRieux J, Kelly DA, Sumlin LJ, Gaudiani JL. Body mass index requirements for gender-affirming surgeries are not empirically based. Transgend Health. 2021;6(3):121–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2020.0068 .

Dotan I, Shochat T, Shimon I, Akirov A. The association between bmi and mortality in surgical patients. World J Surg. 2021;45:1390–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-05961-4 .

Ashley F. Gatekeeping hormone replacement therapy for transgender patients is dehumanising. J Med Ethics. 2019;45(7):480–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105293 .

McClain Z, Peebles R. Body image and eating disorders among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016;63(6):1079–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.07.008 .

Goldhammer HB, Maston ED, Keuroghlian AS. Addressing eating disorders and body dissatisfaction in sexual and gender minority youth. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56(2):318–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.09.011 .

Duffy ME, Calzo JP, Lopez E, et al. Measurement and construct validity of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire Short Form in a transgender and gender diverse community sample. Psychol Assess. 2021;33(5):459–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000996 .

Zickgraf HF, Garwood SK, Lewis CB, Giedinghagen AM, Reed JL, Linsenmeyer WR. Validation of the nine-item avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder screen among transgender and nonbinary youth and young adults. Transgend Health. 2023;8(2):159–67. https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2021.0021 .

Gordon AR, Moore LB, Guss C. eating disorders among transgender and gender non-binary people. In: Nagata JM, Brown TA, Murray SB, Lavender JM, editors. Eating disorders in boys and men. Springer; 2021. p. 265–81.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Arikawa AY, Ross J, Wright L, Elmore M, Gonzalez AM, Wallace TC. Results of an online survey about food insecurity and eating disorder behaviors administered to a volunteer sample of self-described LGBTQ+ young adults aged 18 to 35 years. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2021;121(7):1231–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2020.09.032 .

Linsenmeyer WR, Katz IM, Reed JL, Giedinghagen AM, Lewis CB, Garwood SK. Disordered eating, food insecurity, and weight status among transgender and gender nonbinary youth and young adults: a cross-sectional study using a nutrition screening protocol. LGBT Health. 2021;8(5):359–66. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2020.0308 .

Lerner JE, Martin JI, Gorsky GS. To go or not to go: factors that influence health care use among trans adults in a non-representative US sample. Arch Sex Behav. 2022;51(4):1913–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02302-x .

Hartman-Munick SM, Silverstein S, Guss CE, Lopez E, Calzo JP, Gordon AR. Eating disorder screening and treatment experiences in transgender and gender diverse young adults. Eat Behav. 2021;41:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2021.101517 .

Duffy ME, Henkel KE, Earnshaw VA. Transgender clients’ experiences of eating disorder treatment. J LGBT Issues Couns. 2016;10(3):136–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2016.1177806 .

Lim FA, Brown DV Jr, Kim SMJ. Addressing health care disparities in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender population: a review of best practices. Am J Nurs Sci. 2014;114(6):24–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000450423.89759.36 .

Rafferty J, Yogman M, Baum R, et al. Ensuring comprehensive care and support for transgender and gender-diverse children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2018;142(4):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2162 .

Rafferty JR, Donaldson AA, Forcier M. Primary care considerations for transgender and gender-diverse youth. Pediatr Rev. 2020;41(9):437–54. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.2018-0194 .

Potter J, Peitzmeier SM, Bernstein I, et al. Cervical cancer screening for patients on the female-to-male spectrum: a narrative review and guide for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(12):1857–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3462-8 .

Fadus M, Hung K, Casoy F. Care considerations for LGBTQ patients in acute psychiatric settings. Focus. 2020;18(3):285–8. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.focus.20200002 .

Klein DA, Paradise SL, Goodwin ET. Caring for transgender and gender-diverse persons: what clinicians should know. Am Fam Physician. 2018;98(11):645–53.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Loo S, Almazan AN, Vedilago V, Stott B, Reisner SL, Keuroghlian AS. Understanding community member and health care professional perspectives on gender-affirming care—a qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(8):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255568 .

Rahman R, Linsenmeyer WR. Caring for transgender patients and clients: nutrition-related clinical and psychosocial considerations. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018;119(5):727–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2018.03.006 .

Linsenmeyer W, Drallmeier T, Thomure M. Towards gender-affirming nutrition assessment: a case series of adult transgender men with distinct nutrition considerations. Nutr J. 2020;19(74):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-020-00590-4 .

Academy for Eating Disorders. Eating disorders: critical points for early recognition and medical riskmanagement in the care of individuals with eating disorders. 2016. https://www.massgeneral.org/assets/mgh/pdf/psychiatry/eating-disorders-medical-guide-aed-report.pdf . Accessed 08 May 2023.

American Dietetic Association. Position of the American Dietetic Association: nutrition intervention in the treatment of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and other eating disorders. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(12):2073–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2006.09.007 .

Wakefield A, Williams H. Practice recommendations for the nutritional management of anorexia nervosa in adults. 2009.  https://insideoutinstitute.org.au/assets/practice%20recommendations%20for%20the%20nutritional%20management%20of%20anorexia%20nervosa%20in%20adults.pdf . Accessed 08 May 2023.

National Guideline Alliance. Eating disorders: recognition and treatment. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2017.

Google Scholar  

Hay P, Chinn D, Forbes D, et al. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of eating disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014;48(11):977–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867414555814 .

• McMaster CM, Wade T, Franklin J, Hart S. A review of treatment manuals for adults with an eating disorder: nutrition content and consistency with current dietetic evidence. Eat Weight Disord. 2021;26:47–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-020-00850-6 . Although there is insufficient evidence to guide the treatment of eating disorders in the trans population, it is one of the most important reviews summarising the nutrition content of treatment manuals designed for adults with an eating disorder.

Hart S, Russell J, Abraham S. Nutrition and dietetic practice in eating disorder management. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2011;24(2):144–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-277X.2010.01140.x .

Linsenmeyer W, Garwood S, Waters J. An examination of the sex-specific nature of nutrition assessment within the nutrition care process: considerations for nutrition and dietetics practitioners working with transgender and gender diverse clients. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2022;122(6):1081–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2022.02.014 .

Geilhufe B, Tripp O, Silverstein S, Birchfield L, Raimondo M. Gender-affirmative eating disorder care: clinical considerations for transgender and gender expansive children and youth. Pediatr Ann. 2021;50(9):371–8. https://doi.org/10.3928/19382359-20210820-01 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Bursa Uludag University, Bursa, 16059, Turkey

Ozge Yesildemir

Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul Kent University, Istanbul, 34433, Turkey

Gamze Akbulut

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Yesildemir O. and Akbulut G. contributed to the conception and design of the research. Yesildemir O. drafted the manuscript. Akbulut G. critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ozge Yesildemir .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yesildemir, O., Akbulut, G. Gender-Affirming Nutrition: An Overview of Eating Disorders in the Transgender Population. Curr Nutr Rep 12 , 877–892 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-023-00504-w

Download citation

Accepted : 03 October 2023

Published : 21 October 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-023-00504-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Transgender
• Gender dysphoria
• Eating disorder
• Disordered eating
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Stanford names Jonathan Levin, business school dean, new president after leadership crisis

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Stanford University on Thursday named business school dean Jonathan Levin its new president, seven months after its former top leader resigned amid allegations of research misconduct.

Levin, a 51-year-old economist and Stanford alumnus who has led the business school for eight years, will take the helm at the Palo Alto campus Aug. 1.

He replaces Richard Saller, a professor of European studies who became interim president after Marc Tessier-Lavigne resigned in August amid research misconduct accusations.

Stanford president stepping down amid scrutiny over his research

After a review of allegations found flaws in his scientific articles, Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne said he will resign.

July 19, 2023

Levin will lead the university, one of the nation’s top-rated and wealthiest with a $36-billion endowment, at a turbulent time in higher education.

Nationwide, enrollment is declining , costs continue to skyrocket and many are questioning the value of a high-priced college degree. Public and private universities have been on the defense as conservative activists and politicians attack degree programs, classes and campus culture on race, gender and sexuality. Amid controversy over antisemitism, the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania recently resigned.

In 2022, Stanford was roiled by a Stanford Daily report questioning Tessier-Lavigne’s neurobiology research. , An independent panel later concluded that Tessier-Lavigne “did not personally engage in research misconduct” but failed multiple times to correct errors in published research and oversaw labs that had manipulated data. Announcing his resignation last summer, he said he was stepping down “for the good of the University.”

Last year, the university said it would return $5.5 million in donations from FTX, the bankrupt crypto exchange whose founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced last week to 25 years in prison for fraud. Bankman-Fried is the son of two Stanford law professors.

Since the fall, campus conflicts have erupted over the Israel-Hamas war. In December, the U.S. Department of Education said it was investigating allegations of discrimination on the campus, such as antisemitism, after accusations that it violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The act bans discrimination based on race, national origin, shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics. The investigation is one of several the federal government is conducting into U.S. universities in the wake of divisive campus protests since Oct. 7, as the line between freedom of speech and hate speech has become a hot-button debate.

Stanford faced intense pressure in the fall over its statements on the Israel-Hamas war. Two days after the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas in southern Israel, leaders said they were “deeply saddened and horrified by the death and human suffering” in the Middle East but did not name Hamas. By Oct. 11, a new statement condemned all “terror and mass atrocities” including the “deliberate attack on civilians this weekend by Hamas.”

In a Faculty Senate meeting in January, Levin suggested the university shouldn’t quickly wade into global issues. “I think it models the wrong thing for our students, and it actually undermines our basic educational mission … ,” he said. “We want them to think slowly, to hear from different people, to weigh things carefully, and we should model that and have the focus after an event in the world to be around listening and learning.”

In a statement Thursday, Levin said he would “strengthen our commitment to academic excellence and freedom; to foster the principles of openness, curiosity, and mutual respect; and to lead our faculty and students as they advance knowledge and seek to contribute in meaningful ways to the world.”

Levin earned undergraduate degrees in English and math from Stanford before studying at Oxford University and MIT. He joined the Stanford faculty in 2000. A former economics department chair, his research has focused on industrial organization and market design. In 2016, he became the dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Business after its leader resigned. In 2021, Levin was appointed to President Biden’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Levin will be the university’s 13th president.

“When I was an undergraduate, Stanford opened my mind, nurtured my love for math and literature, and inspired me to pursue an academic career,” Levin said. “In the years since, it has given me opportunities to pursue ideas in collaboration with brilliant colleagues, teach exceptional students, and bring people together to achieve ambitious collective goals around the university.”

Science & Medicine

Q&A: How this Stanford freshman brought down the president of the university

Meet Theo Baker, the freshman reporter whose stories about suspect research kicked off a chain of events that led the president of Stanford to resign.

July 21, 2023

University administration also runs in his family. Levin is the son of former Yale University President Richard Levin.

Levin was selected by a 20-member committee that included professors, students, staff and trustees.

Jerry Yang, the chair of Stanford’s Board of Trustees who announced the search committee in September, said in a statement that Levin brings “a rare combination of qualities: a deep understanding and love of Stanford, an impressive track record of academic and leadership success, the analytical prowess to tackle complex strategic issues, and a collaborative and optimistic working style.”

“He is consistently described by those who know him as principled, humble, authentic, thoughtful, and inspiring,” Yang said. “We are excited about Stanford’s future under Jon’s leadership.”

More to Read

New Occidental College president bullish on liberal arts, champion of equity and inclusion

March 26, 2024

Pac-12 parts ways with Commissioner George Kliavkoff, new leadership coming

Feb. 16, 2024

Harvard president resigns amid plagiarism claims, backlash from antisemitism testimony

Jan. 2, 2024

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Jaweed Kaleem is a national correspondent at the Los Angeles Times. Based in L.A. with a focus on issues outside of California, he has traveled to dozens of states to cover news and deeply reported features on the complexity of the American experience. His articles frequently explore race, religion, politics, social debates and polarized society. Kaleem was previously based in London, where he was a lead news writer on Russia’s war on Ukraine and spearheaded European coverage for the Times, including the Global California initiative. Before joining The Times in 2016, he reported on religion for HuffPost and the Miami Herald, where he was a member of a Pulitzer Prize finalist team recognized for coverage of Haiti. His reporting has also received awards from the Society of Professional Journalists, the Society for Features Journalism, the Asian American Journalists Assn., the South Asian Journalists Assn. and the National Headliner Awards.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Opinion: Struggling to get help with college through the FAFSA? Here’s why you shouldn’t give up

April 3, 2024

Abcarian: I wanted to hate what UC Berkeley parents are doing in the name of safety, but I can’t

LAUSD banned charter schools from many of its campuses. Now charters will fight it in court

Laguna Beach High School investigates ‘inappropriate’ AI-generated images of students

April 2, 2024