arXiv:1907.04893v1 [astro-ph.IM] 10 Jul 2019 ntttoa oiisbsdo oecmlxapoc og to approach complex recomm more by a on in be based equity must policies gender paradigm institutional of new future a the decade, next address the to into move community we astronomy as the margi members for of order axes In multiple of status. o intersections socioeconomic people the to at harmful live are who phenomena those gendered of a indicator gender an of frameworks as Reductive gen entirely. whose research nor astronomers such a leaving of adopt ‘female’, they or result, ‘male’ a of As choice sociology. and u studies relatively gender are as who astronomers a professional of by astronom field within performed the disparities facing gender issues addressing biggest in the interest of one is equity Gender Abstract: ([email protected]) Corresponding ** Principal * 8 USA 7 6 5 4 USA 3 USA 48824, MI Lansing, 2 1 Zamloot ati .Rasmussen C. Kaitlin Consideration Profession the of State Astronomy A in Equity Gender the of Towards Future Looking Fraction: Nonbinary The eeihDurbin Meredith eateto srnm,SihClee otapo,M 01 MA Northampton, College, Smith Astronomy, of Department rl n ael rdaeSho fBooia cecs T Sciences, Biological of School Graduate Manella and Irell pc oiyIsiue ereWsigo nvriy Was University, Washington George Institute, Policy Space eateto srnm,Uiest fWsigo,Seattl Washington, of University Astronomy, of Department researcher Independent eateto srnm n twr bevtr,Universi Observatory, Steward and Astronomy of Department on nttt o ula srpyisadCne o the for Center and Astrophysics Nuclear for Institute Joint eateto hsc,Uiest fNteDm,NteDame Notre Dame, Notre of University Physics, of Department 7 te/hm,AlsnErena Allison (they/them), 5 te/hm,LcRiesbeck Luc (they/them), 1,2,* sete) rnMaier Erin (she/they), 8 (they/them) 6 te/hm,AsynWallach Aislynn (they/them), 3 1 te/hm,Bc .Strauss E. Beck (they/them), .Mn tde fteetpc aebeen have topics these of studies Many y. aiainsc src,dsblt,and disability, race, as such nalization such fields in research with nfamiliar vlto fteEeet,East Elements, the of Evolution da vrmhsso quantification on overemphasis an nd igo,DC 05,USA 20052, D.C. hington, ender. esd o twti htmdlout model that within fit not do ders aieve fgne sabinary a as gender of view mative ,W 89,USA 98195, WA e, eCt fHp,Dat,C 91010, CA Duarte, Hope, of City he tohsc,adteei broad is there and strophysics, obs ev t marginalized its serve best to yo rzn,Tco,A 85719, AZ Tucson, Arizona, of ty nigbte uvypatcsand practices survey better ending agnlzdgnes especially genders, marginalized f N456 USA 46556, IN , 6,USA 063, eeoe.Ti ae aims paper This developed. 5 te/hm,Vic (they/them), 4,** (they/them), Co-signers Rachael Amaro (she/her), Steward Observatory, University of Arizona Claudia Antolini (she/her), Independent researcher Rachael L. Beaton (she/her), and Carnegie Institution for Science Hayley Beltz (she/her), University of Michigan Ali M. Bramson (she/her), University of Arizona Jonathan Brande (he/him), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/University of Maryland Kaley Brauer (she/her), Massachusetts Institute of Technology Harriet Brown (she/her), Science and Technology Facilities Council Katie Chamberlain (she/her), Steward Observatory, University of Arizona Jonathan Crass (he/him), University of Notre Dame Marion Cromb (they/them), University of Glasgow Mia de los Reyes (she/her), California Institute of Technology Adeene Denton (she/her), Purdue University Jeremy Dietrich (he/him), University of Arizona Serina Diniega (she/her), NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Ewan Douglas (he/him), Steward Observatory, University of Arizona Courtney Dressing (she/her), University of California, Berkeley Tasha Dunn (she/her), Colby College Hannah Earnshaw (they/them), California Institute of Technology J.J. Eldridge (she/they), University of Auckland Rana Ezzedine (she/her), Massachusetts Institute of Technology and JINA Center for Evolution of the Elements Justin Filiberto (he/him), Lunar and Planetary Institute, Universities Space Research Association Anna Frebel (she/her) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Rachel L.S. Frisbie (she/her), Michigan State University Peter Garnavich (he/him), University of Notre Dame Juliane Gross (she/her), Rutgers University Hannah Holmberg (she/they), Smith College Deanna C. Hooper (she/her), RWTH Aachen University Macy Huston (she/they), Pennsylvania State University Raphael Erik Hviding (he/him), Steward Observatory, University of Arizona Alexander P. Ji (he/him), Carnegie Observatories James T. Keane (he/him), California Institute of Technology Zahra Khan (she/her), Independent researcher Stanimir Letchev (he/him), University of Notre Dame Dan Marrone (he/him), Steward Observatory, University of Arizona Tia Martineau (she/her), University of New Hampshire Amelia Mangian (she/her), University of Illinois Rhiannon Mayne (she/her), Texas Christian University Bradley Meyers (he/him), Curtin University Moses Milazzo (he/him), Other Orb LLC Andrew Mizener (he/him), Macalester College Sarah E. Moran (she/her), Henry Ngo (he/him), National Research Council of Canada

2 Christine O’Donnell (she/her), University of Arizona Locke Patton (he/him), Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Cynthia Phillips (she/her), NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Chanda Prescod-Weinstein (she/they), University of New Hampshire Ragadeepika Pucha (she/her), University of Arizona Julie Rathbun (she/her), Planetary Science Institute Christina Richey (they/them), NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Jane Rigby (she/her), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Edgard G. Rivera-Valent´ın (they/them), Lunar and Planetary Institute, Universities Space Research Association Andy Rivkin (he/him), Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University C.W. Robertson III (he/him), Purdue University Ian U. Roederer (he/him), University of Michigan Gregory Rudnick (he/him), University of Kansas Catheryn Ryan (they/them), York University Julia E. Stawarz (she/her), Imperial College London H. F. Stevance (she/her), University of Auckland Kate Storey-Fisher (she/her), New York University Coleman A. Thomas (he/him), University of Notre Dame Meagan Thompson (she/her), University of Texas at Austin Sarah Tuttle (she/her), , Seattle Aparna Venkatesa (she/her), University of San Francisco Monica Vidaurri (she/her), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Lucianne Walkowicz (they/she), The Adler Planetarium MacKenzie Warren (he/him), North Carolina State University and Michigan State University Christopher Waters (he/him), Princeton University Henry Zovaro (he/him), Australian National University

3 1 Introduction

In the three decades since the first Women in Astronomy meeting in 1992 and the subsequent release of the Baltimore Charter for Women in Astronomy (Urry et al., 1993), there have been numerous studies, community efforts, and institutional initiatives addressing the status of women1 within astronomy. More recently, transgender and nonbinary identities have also gained recognition and inclusion in astronomy equity efforts. For instance, the American Astronomical Society (AAS) Committee for Sexual-Orientation and Gender Minorities in Astronomy (SGMA)2 was established in 2012 and subsequently published the first and second editions of the LGBT+ Inclusivity Best Practices Guide (Ackerman et al., 2018). The American Physical Society (APS) report “LGBT Climate in Physics: Building an Inclusive Community” (Atherton et al., 2016) was released in 2016. Pronouns3 are now optional to display on badges at many conferences, including meetings of the American Astronomical Society.

However, many gender-related studies and equity initiatives have been led by professional astronomers with little to no background or training in gender studies or social sciences. As a result, they often treat gender using concepts and methods that range from reductive to actively harmful. In this white paper, we first summarize recent work on gender equity in the field of astronomy. We then discuss common pitfalls of such work, with a focus on its detrimental effects on the inclusion of nonbinary genders. Finally, we offer recommendations for studying gender dynamics and promoting gender inclusion in astronomy going forward.4

Throughout this work, we use ‘nonbinary’ as an umbrella term for all genders not represented by the categories of ‘male’ or ‘female.’ While this is the way most of our author list identifies, we would like to make clear that not everyone whose gender falls under this definition uses the term ‘nonbinary’ to describe themselves, and that language surrounding gender identity is continually evolving and rarely universally agreed upon by those it purports to describe.

N.B.: The authors wish to make our own positionality clear: although we all identify as nonbinary, we are in no way representative of all nonbinary people and should not be misconstrued as speaking for all people who experience gendered marginalization. We also acknowledge that while we emphasize the importance of expertise that the social sciences bring to bear on this topic, we ourselves have collectively little formal training in such disciplines.

2 The state of gender-related studies in astronomy

A substantial number of recent studies have attempted to evaluate gender disparities within astronomy. Most of these publications were written by professional astronomers, and all were

1In practice, the primary subjects and beneficiaries of such work have typically been limited to cisgender, white, heterosexual, abled women. 2https://sgma.aas.org/ 3In this context, “pronouns” refers to the set of pronouns that should be used to refer to an individual person, such as “they/them/theirs” or “she/her/hers”. See https://www.mypronouns.org/ for more information. 4For a more general consideration of the necessity of and avenues for collaboration between the space sciences and the social sciences, we direct readers to the companion white paper by Berea and Arcand (2019).

4 intended for and circulated among audiences comprised of astronomy and astrophysics researchers. While this literature review is far from comprehensive, the papers described here are broadly illustrative of typical concepts and methods that astronomers employ in studying gender-related phenomena within the field.

Most commonly, these studies examine the impact of gender on career-related metrics. For example, Reid (2014), Patat (2016), and Lonsdale, Schwab and Hunt (2016) look at time allocation at major observatories by gender. Caplar, Tacchella and Birrer (2017) analyze citation rates of publications in major astronomy journals. Flaherty (2018) and follow-up study Perley (2019) both examine the length of time between the completion of the Ph.D. and hiring into a long-term position within or adjacent to astronomy.

Another topic of interest is social dynamics in professional settings. An ongoing series of publications, beginning with Davenport et al. (2014) and followed by Pritchard et al. (2014), Schmidt et al. (2016), and Schmidt and Davenport (2017), assesses the likelihood of a person asking a question in a conference session as a function of the gender of the question-asker, the gender of the speaker, and the gender of the session chair.

Two other noteworthy publications released this year concern methods intended to promote gender equity in astronomy. Huppenkothen, McFee and Nor´en (2019) describe an algorithm, Entrofy, which can be used in cases of cohort selection—i.e., to maximize diversity along committee-defined axes such as race, gender, career stage or seniority, skill set, and geographic origin when admitting students, awarding grants, choosing conference speakers, and so forth. Oliveira and de Rosa (2019) present an initiative implemented at the Space Telescope Science Institute to improve gender representation on institutional committees, and to track gender representation in activities that the committee organizes or contributes to, such as the selection of invited speakers for a conference.

2.1 Problematic approaches to gender and their impacts We identify three major concerns common to most or all of the analyses presented in the above works: (1) the treatment of gender as observable through means other than self-identification; (2) categorization schemes with limited gender options; and most critically, (3) an over-reliance on quantitative methodology that is at best insufficient for understanding gendered phenomena in astronomy, and at worst epistemically violent towards people whose genders are poorly represented by these schema. Moreover, these studies typically demonstrate little engagement with the vast bodies of relevant existing work in such disciplines as gender studies and sociology, nor do they prioritize the testimony and participatory inclusion of people of marginalized genders.

2.1.1 Gender as observable These studies, explicitly or implicitly, rely on gender information acquired by means other than participant self-identification. Most frequently, subjects are assigned a binary gender using first names; in some cases this is based upon the authors’ own perceptions, while others make use of

5 automated methods such as the Python package SexMachine5, the GlobalNameData6 database, and the Gender API7. In cases where gender is indeterminate based on a name alone, some studies search for other public records, such as photos or articles including third-person gendered pronouns, in order to infer gender; most simply remove all data points with indeterminate names. Still other studies obtain gender data from volunteer data collectors’ reports of subjects’ (perceived) gender in real time.

This treatment of gender as trivially discernible through names, physiology, or any other such external characteristics is unavoidably discriminatory8. For nonbinary people in particular, there is simply no acceptable outcome here: we are either misclassified into a binary gender, or considered uncategorizable and discarded. While this may sound trivial, experiences of misgendering and erasure have very real psychological and professional consequences for nonbinary, transgender and gender non-conforming individuals (Grant et al., 2011; McLemore, 2015; Davidson, 2016; Mizock et al., 2017; Thorpe, 2017; Cech, Erin A. and Pham, Michelle V., 2017; Cech and Rothwell, 2018).9

2.1.2 Gender as discrete A closely related corollary to the above is that gender in these works is always treated as a set of discrete categories, which are implicitly presumed to be stable and coherent across populations, within individuals, and over time. The majority employ the male/female binary as a matter of course, and while the Entrofy algorithm presented in Huppenkothen, McFee and Nor´en (2019) does not require gender to be strictly binary, it requires that it be discretizable. Specifically, the authors state that “while we appreciate that gender is not a discrete concept, we advise against modeling gender as a continuous variable here because the proposed algorithmic framework requires an order relation over continuous values” (Huppenkothen, McFee and Nor´en, 2019). Such frameworks inherently reduce members of a category to interchangeable data points, which loses much nuance and ultimately risks denying subjects authority over how their identity is represented.

2.1.3 Gender as statistic Several of the works we have described include statements to the effect of: “While we recognize that gender is not binary, we do not include nonbinary people in our analysis due to lack of statistical significance.”10 Statistical significance is here the determining factor in who gets to be accounted for—who counts. In this way, reducing the work of inclusion to that which is

5https://pypi.org/project/SexMachine/ 6https://github.com/OpenGenderTracking/globalnamedata 7https://gender-api.com/ 8For an extensive discussion of flaws in the premises of algorithmic gender determination, and the myriad negative consequences transgender people experience from it, see Keyes (2018); while the critique focuses on automated gender recognition from images, many of their argumentsare applicable more broadly to other external assessments of gender. 9For example, the authors of this paper have been so aggrieved by the studies described here that we collectively assembled, organized, and wrote a decadal white paper about it. 10While we recognize that such disclaimers are well-intentioned, we do not count them in our assessments of said papers due to their lack of significance as anything other than empty gestures.

6 quantifiable and measurable produces simplistic results that fail to describe the deep nuance and complexity of gender and the experiences of people navigating it within astronomy.

Additionally, such complexities cannot be properly understood without also considering race, dis/ability, and other axes of marginalization (Combahee River Collective, 1977/1986; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Prescod-Weinstein, 2016, 2017). Even the term “gender” has several shades of meaning–it can refer to the way someone is perceived, the way they are treated, and/or the way they see themselves. These concepts are all heavily influenced by other aspects of identity and social context, and are far from invariant across cultures (Oyˇew`um´ı, 1997; Mark McLelland, McLelland and Dasgupta, 2005; Chiang, 2012; Kugle and Kugle, 2014; Besnier and Alexeyeff, 2014; Bhaduri and Mukherjee, 2015). Serious conversations about gender equity must reckon with gender complexity.

2.2 Reinventing the wheel Gender is not a new area of study and gender inclusion is not a new problem. There have been efforts to make improvements in other disciplines for decades, and gender studies has existed as a field for at least the last century. Rather than deferring to established and well-researched understandings of gender and its individual and structural manifestations, many astronomers have chosen to attempt to solve problems of gender inclusion without consulting those whose fields have long been focused on this work. The hubris of this approach threatens to undermine the urgency of the problem at hand, requiring many astronomers to relearn lessons and rediscover concepts that are commonplace in other fields and, in the process, risk causing harm to those they intended to help. It further acts to frame the problem as one whose solution does not require the expertise of marginalized people themselves.

3 Recommendations

Ultimately, we recognize that however flawed their approaches, the studies and other initiatives that we have discussed have come from a genuine desire to effect positive change within our field. Therefore, for the future, we make these recommendations.

3.1 Methodological choices Approaches to gender, qualitative or quantitative, cannot come without a deep awareness of how complex, and contextual, gender is as a phenomenon. Prior to any gender research, responsible researchers must begin by thoroughly grounding the precise definition of ‘gender’ they seek to employ or investigate, the alignment of their data collection and analysis methods with said meaning, and the parameters of said data’s utility.

Despite our critiques of quantitative methods, we are not proposing to do away with them entirely; rather, what we are proposing is a community-wide reconsideration of the epistemic authority of such methods in matters of marginalization. Qualitative data and methods such as ethnographic description and participant testimony must be understood as valuable (and funded

7 accordingly), rather than dismissed as ‘anecdotal’ or ‘subjective’. Many examples of ethnographic work examining gender and race already exist in astronomy, including but not limited to Gonsalves (2018); Clancy et al. (2017); Ko et al. (2013); Horton and Holbrook (2013), and Guillen et al. (2011).

3.2 Collecting and reporting gender data We emphatically discourage gathering gender data through any means other than voluntary self-identification, and doubly discourage the use of automated gender classification methods (Keyes, 2018). We encourage the Decadal Survey Committee to recommend that journals and funding agencies prioritize gender equity initiatives that use the best practices described in this paper and/or are conducted in collaboration with social scientists.

For the collection of demographic data, we recommend use of the template provided by the Open Demographics initiative11, which includes survey questions on four facets of gender: cisgender/transgender status, gender conformity, intersex status, and gender identity. Respondents should have the options to specify that they prefer not to disclose this information, or to refuse to answer the question entirely: for some, even a refusal to disclose may be perceived as too revealing.

In cases such as allotting observing time where anonymity is desired, anonymity should be preserved throughout the assignment and the demographic information used only after its completion as a check on the system. In cases where anonymity is not sought, such as conference speaking slots and job applications, use of the Open Demographics template will prevent harmful assumptions from being made. In this scenario, however, we caution that if gender identity is intentionally withheld, that decision should be respected.

In all cases we strongly encourage the employment, or at least compensated consultation, of trained social scientists when studying marginalized people in astronomy. We therefore call for the creation and support of dedicated funding sources for interdisciplinary research in space science, with a focus on enabling collaboration by providing material support to experts in other fields (e.g., grants incorporating a Co-I or Collaborator status).

For further reading on gender-inclusive data collection and survey design, we recommend GenIUSS Group (2014); Labuski and Keo-Meier (2015); Westbrook and Saperstein (2015); Doan (2016); Magliozzi, Saperstein and Westbrook (2016); Broussard, Warner and Pope (2018); Glick et al. (2018) and references therein.

3.3 Privacy considerations Gender data should not be shared outside the context for which it was collected; for instance, if researchers wish to analyze demographic data for a particular conference, they should collaborate with conference organizers to institute collection of the data in a responsible, transparent way.

11http://nikkistevens.com/open-demographics/questions/gender.html

8 Explicit and rigorous precautions should be taken to protect participant privacy when collecting and presenting any kind of identifying information, and said precautions should be made clear to participants beforehand (e.g., by specifying what offices may handle personally identifiable information and publicly posting policies on these practices).

Astronomy is a fairly small, well-connected community, and marginalized individuals, particularly those who are multiply marginalized, can sometimes be uniquely identified through demographic data even in the absence of other identifying information. Thus, when reporting gender statistics, it is acceptable to group all nonbinary identities as one class (e.g., “We find that X percent of women, Y percent of men, and Z percent of nonbinary individuals...”). This practice should be avoided in survey design and data collection, but in cases where anonymity in reported results is a concern, grouping nonbinary respondents may help to preserve privacy.

3.4 Institutional and educational policies and practices A full consideration of gender equity in the context of institutional reform is beyond the scope of this paper. Our recommendation is this: gender equity requires the adoption of a more complex model of gender than has historically been employed by equity initiatives. Many organizations and committees currently focus only on women in astronomy. Thus, we recommend that this focus be shifted to people of marginalized gender in astronomy. We recognize that this is a major, fundamental change to the status quo, but as we move into the next decade of astronomy research, it is a change that must be made in order to support all members of the astronomy community.12

In order to facilitate such a systemic change, astronomers need to become familiar or at least acquainted with such disciplines as gender studies, critical race theory, ethics, and STSS13, while recognizing the limitations of our knowledge. We suggest that study in these areas be added to undergraduate and graduate curricula, as well as workforce development programs.

We also recommend that telescope Time Allocation Committees move to an anonymous peer review model as recently done by the , and use the Open Demographics template described above if collecting demographic information from proposers.

For additional guidelines on building inclusive physics and astronomy communities and institutions, we direct readers to the the Nashville Recommendations14 and the LGBT+ Inclusivity Best Practices Guide (Ackerman et al., 2018).

3.5 Final recommendations Our final, and perhaps most important recommendation, is to listen. Look around your communities to see who the most marginalized, most vulnerable members are and make sure their

12Although ? focus on physics education research, many of their approaches to this kind of systematic change can be applied in the context of astronomy research. 13Science, Technology, and Society Studies 14https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JipEb7xz7kAh8SH4wsG59CHEaAJSJTAWRfVA1MfYGM8/

9 voices are not just included but prioritized in conversations about equity and inclusion—that their needs and ideas are heard and valued.

3.5.1 A note on consulting people of marginalized genders Marginalized people are frequently called upon to educate others about the conditions of their marginalization, typically without compensation (Fricker, 2007; Berenstain, 2016). We recommend that any astronomer wishing to educate themselves about gender first seek out resources independently to the best of their abilities. In particular, astronomers wishing to collect demographic information in surveys or for the purposes of cohort selection are encouraged to consult the works cited in this paper. However, we welcome readers to direct any remaining questions to the corresponding author of this paper.

4 Cost estimates

Historically, the true cost of studies like those critiqued here have been unknown numbers of students, postdocs, early career researchers, and other scientists who have found themselves alienated and excluded from the astronomy community.15

Hiring social scientists to do this work responsibly and covering the associated institutional costs will, of course, require additional funds (Occupational Outlook Handbook: Sociologists, 2019). Sell (2017) offers a brief discussion of the financial costs associated with gender-inclusive survey design. We encourage interested astronomy researchers to anticipate and plan for such costs, and to seek out appropriate funding to collaborate with these experts.

15We anticipate that any astronomer who chooses not to conduct such a study will incur costs on the order of $0.00.

10 References

Ackerman, Nicole, Timothy Atherton, Adrian Ray Avalani, Christine A. Berven, Tanmoy Laskar, Ansel Neunzert, Diana S. Parno and Michael Ramsey-Musolf. 2018. “LGBT+ Inclusivity in Physics and Astronomy: A Best Practices Guide.” arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:1804.08406.

Atherton, Timothy J., Ram´on S. Barthelemy, Wouter Deconinck, Michael L. Falk, Savannah Garmon, Elena Long, Monica Plisch, Elizabeth H. Simmons and Kyle Reeves. 2016. “LGBT Climate in Physics: Building an Inclusive Community.” American Physical Society .

Berea, Anamaria and Kimberly Arcand. 2019. “The Role of Social Sciences for Astronomy and Astrophysics - Lessons from the History of NASA and the Future of Interdisciplinarity.” Astro 2020 Decadal Survey on Astronomy and Astrophysics .

Berenstain, Nora. 2016. “Epistemic Exploitation.” Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 3:569–590.

Besnier, N. and K. Alexeyeff. 2014. Gender on the Edge: Transgender, Gay, and Other Pacific Islanders. University of Hawai‘i Press. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=2UFi 7Sh3f4C

Bhaduri, S. and I. Mukherjee. 2015. Transcultural Negotiations of Gender: Studies in (Be)longing. Transcultural Research – Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context Springer India. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=lgyVCgAAQBAJ

Broussard, Kristin A., Ruth H. Warner and Anna R. D. Pope. 2018. “Too Many Boxes, or Not Enough? Preferences for How We Ask About Gender in Cisgender, LGB, and Gender-Diverse Samples.” Sex Roles 78(9):606–624. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0823-2

Caplar, Neven, Sandro Tacchella and Simon Birrer. 2017. “Quantitative evaluation of gender bias in astronomical publications from citation counts.” Nature Astronomy 1:0141.

Cech, Erin A. and Pham, Michelle V. 2017. “Queer in STEM Organizations: Workplace Disadvantages for LGBT Employees in STEM Related Federal Agencies.” Social Sciences 6(1). URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/6/1/12

Cech, Erin A. and William R. Rothwell. 2018. “LGBTQ Inequality in Engineering Education.” Journal of Engineering Education 107(4):583–610. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jee.20239

Chiang, H. 2012. Transgender China. Palgrave Macmillan US. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=ahsnYj3o4vwC

Clancy, Kathryn B. H., Katharine M. N. Lee, Erica M. Rodgers and Christina Richey. 2017. “Double jeopardy in astronomy and planetary science: Women of color face greater risks of

11 gendered and racial harassment.” Journal of Geophysical Research (Planets) 122(7):1610–1623.

Combahee River Collective. 1977/1986. The Combahee River Collective statement: Black Feminist organizing in the seventies and eighties. Freedom organizing series Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=sEqaAAAAIAAJ

Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” The University of Chicago Legal Forum 140:139–167.

Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43(6):1241–1299. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039

Davenport, James R. A., Morgan Fouesneau, Erin Grand, Alex Hagen, Katja Poppenhaeger and Laura L. Watkins. 2014. “Studying Gender in Conference Talks – data from the 223rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society.” arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:1403.3091.

Davidson, Skylar. 2016. “Gender inequality: Nonbinary transgender people in the workplace.” Cogent Social Sciences 2(1):1236511. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311886.2016.1236511

Doan, Petra L. 2016. “To Count or Not to Count: Queering Measurement and the Transgender Community.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 44(3/4):89–110. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44474064

Flaherty, Kevin. 2018. “The Leaky Pipeline for Postdocs: A study of the time between receiving a PhD and securing a faculty job for male and female astronomers.” arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:1810.01511.

Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.

GenIUSS Group, The. 2014. “Best Practices for Asking Questions to Identify Transgender and Other Gender Minority Respondents on Population-Based Surveys.”.

Glick, Jennifer L., Katherine Theall, Katherine Andrinopoulos and Carl Kendall. 2018. “For data’s sake: dilemmas in the measurement of gender minorities.” Culture, Health & Sexuality 20(12):1362–1377. PMID: 29533145. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2018.1437220

Gonsalves, Allison J. 2018. “Exploring how gender figures the identity trajectories of two doctoral students in observational astrophysics.” Physical Review Physics Education Research 14(1):010146.

12 Grant, J.M., L. Mottet, J.E. Tanis, J. Harrison, J. Herman, M. Keisling, National Center for Transgender Equality (U.S.) and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (U.S.). 2011. Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Discrimination Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=wQvWngEACAAJ

Guillen, Reynal, D. Gu, J. Holbrook, L. F. Murillo and S. Traweek. 2011. What Lies Behind NSF Astronomer Demographics? Subjectivities of Women, Minorities and Foreign-born Astronomers within Meshworks of Big Science Astronomy. In American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #217. Vol. 217 of American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts p. 431.06.

Horton, K. Renee and J. C. Holbrook. 2013. Gender studies and the role of women in physics. In American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. Beth A. Cunningham. Vol. 1517 of American Institute of Physics Conference Series pp. 33–34.

Huppenkothen, D., B. McFee and L. Nor´en. 2019. “Entrofy Your Cohort: A Data Science Approach to Candidate Selection.” arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:1905.03314.

Keyes, Os. 2018. “The Misgendering Machines: Trans/HCI Implications of Automatic Gender Recognition.” Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2(CSCW):88:1–88:22. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3274357

Ko, Lily T., Rachel R. Kachchaf, Maria Ong and Apriel K. Hodari. 2013. Narratives of the double bind: Intersectionality in life stories of women of color in physics, astrophysics and astronomy. In American Institute of Physics Conference Series, ed. Paula V. Engelhardt, Alice D. Churukian and N. Sanjay Rebello. Vol. 1513 of American Institute of Physics Conference Series pp. 222–225.

Kugle, S.A. and S.S.H. Kugle. 2014. Living Out Islam: Voices of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Muslims. NYU Press. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=QTUUCgAAQBAJ

Labuski, Christine and Colton Keo-Meier. 2015. “The (Mis)Measure of Trans.” TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly 2(1):13–33. URL: https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2848868

Lonsdale, Carol J., Frederic R. Schwab and Gareth Hunt. 2016. “Gender-Related Systematics in the NRAO and ALMA Proposal Review Processes.” arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:1611.04795.

Magliozzi, Devon, Aliya Saperstein and Laurel Westbrook. 2016. “Scaling Up: Representing Gender Diversity in Survey Research.” Socius 2:2378023116664352. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116664352

Mark McLelland, R.D., M.J. McLelland and R. Dasgupta. 2005. Genders, Transgenders and Sexualities in Japan. Asia’s transformations Routledge. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=8pUYmQEACAAJ

13 McLemore, Kevin A. 2015. “Experiences with Misgendering: Identity Misclassification of Transgender Spectrum Individuals.” Self and Identity 14(1):51–74. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2014.950691

Mizock, Lauren, T. Dawson Woodrum, Julie Riley, Erica A. Sotilleo, Nelly Yuen and Alayne J. Ormerod. 2017. “Coping with transphobia in employment: Strategies used by transgender and gender-diverse people in the United States.” International Journal of Transgenderism 18(3):282–294. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2017.1304313

Occupational Outlook Handbook: Sociologists. 2019. URL: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/sociologists.htm

Oliveira, C. and G. de Rosa. 2019. “Gender Diversity in Scientific Committees and Their Activities at Space Telescope Science Institute.”. URL: http://www.stsci.edu/news/newsletters/pagecontent/institute-newsletters/2019-volume- 36-issue-01/gender-diversity-in-scientific-committees-and-their-activities-at-space-telescope- science-institute.html

Oyˇew`um´ı, O. 1997. The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses. University of Minnesota Press. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=X3JSjO6 UvIC

Patat, F. 2016. “Gender Systematics in Telescope Time Allocation at ESO.” The Messenger 165:2–9.

Perley, Daniel A. 2019. “Gender and the Career Outcomes of PhD Astronomers in the United States.” arXiv e-prints p. arXiv:1903.08195.

Prescod-Weinstein, Chanda. 2016. “Intersectionality as a Blueprint for Postcolonial Scientific Community Building.”. URL: https://medium.com/@chanda/intersectionality-as-a-blueprint-for-postcolonial- scientific-community-building-7e795d09225a

Prescod-Weinstein, Chanda. 2017. “Curiosity and the end of discrimination.” Nature Astronomy 1:0145.

Pritchard, Jonathan, Karen Masters, James Allen, Filippo Contenta, Leo Huckvale, Stephen Wilkins and Alice Zocchi. 2014. “Asking gender questions.” Astronomy and Geophysics 55(6):6.8–6.12.

Reid, I. Neill. 2014. “Gender-Correlated Systematics in HST Proposal Selection.” PASP 126(944):923.

Schmidt, Sarah J. and James R. A. Davenport. 2017. “Who asks questions at astronomy meetings?” Nature Astronomy 1:0153.

14 Schmidt, Sarah J., Stephanie Douglas, Natalie M. Gosnell, Philip S. Muirhead, Rachel S. Booth, James R. A. Davenport and Gregory N. Mace. 2016. The Role Of Gender In Asking Questions At Cool Stars 18 And 19. In 19th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun (CS19). Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun p. 155.

Sell, Randall L. 2017. “Challenges and Solutions to Collecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data.” American Journal of Public Health 107(8):1212–1214. PMID: 28657779. URL: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303917

Thorpe, Amelia. 2017. “Where Do We Go? Gender Identity and Gendered Spaces in Postsecondary Institutions.” Antistasis 7(1). URL: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/antistasis/article/view/25468

Trexler, Adrienne L., Ximena C. Cid, Jennifer Blue and Ram´on Barthelemy. 2016. “Enriching gender in physics education research: A binary past and a complex future.” Physical Review Physics Education Research 12(020114).

Urry, C. M., L. Danly, E. J. Schreier and S. Tobias. 1993. The Baltimore Charter for Women in Astronomy. In American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #182. Vol. 182 of American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts p. 65.01.

Westbrook, Laurel and Aliya Saperstein. 2015. “New Categories Are Not Enough: Rethinking the Measurement of Sex and Gender in Social Surveys.” Gender & Society 29(4):534–560. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215584758

15