Nancy Baker et al. explores the ways that stepping outside of binary gender can improve the study of IPV generally in their study “Lessons from Examining Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence” (2013). They state that using gender as a marker variable instead of explanatory variable forces researchers to look at other factors, such as socio-economic status. (187). Using gender as an explanatory variable reflects the heterosexism and genderism in society. Devon Magliozzi, Aliya Saperstein, and Laurel Westbrook discuss the perceptions individuals have of their own gender in their article “Scaling up: Representing Gender Diversity in Survey Research” (2016). They asked respondents 30 questions from the General Social Survey (GSS), but instead of the GSS’s demographic question on sex (male/female), they used three questions. The first two were scales that measured masculinity and femininity separately; the scales were from 1 to 5, with 1 being “not at all,” and 5 being “Very.” Using the scales, they asked how respondents saw themselves and how others saw them. Then they included a categorical gender question, but separated into sex assigned at birth and current gender identification. They found that although more than 99 percent of respondents were categorically cisgender, fewer than 99 percent saw their gender in “traditionally dichotomous” terms (4). This shows the degree to which gender is a social construct, not a biological fact. Magliozzi et al. point out that we navigate social interactions through assessing others’ perceived gender, and therefore the prevalence of gender as a “fundamental, universal demographic attribute in survey research is not surprising” (1). But these assessments do not reflect reality; they reflect the genderism embedded in our society. If we fail to remember that gender is a social construct, the production of knowledge will suffer.