Perspectives on fertility preservation and parenthood among transgender youth and their parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the views of young people (YP) with gender dysphoria and their parents concerning fertility preservation and reproductive and life priorities. Design A cross-sectional questionnaire-based study assessed knowledge of potential effects of treatments for gender dysphoria on fertility, current and future life priorities and preferences regarding future fertility/parenting options among YP and parents. Results A total of 79 YP (81% assigned female at birth [AFAB], 19% assigned male at birth [AMAB], aged 12–18 years, 68% between ages 16 years and 18 years) and 73 parents participated. The top current life priority for YP among eight options wasbeing in good health; the least important priority washaving children. Anticipated life priorities 10 years from now were ranked similarly. Parents’ rankings paralleled the YP responses; however, parents ranked having children as a significantly higher priority for AFAB compared with AMAB YP in 10 years. The majority of YP (66% AFAB, 67% AMAB) want to be a parent in the future. However, most do not envision having a biological child. A large majority (72% AFAB, 80% AMAB) were open to adoption. None of the YP surveyed pursued fertility preservation. Conclusion Fertility is a low current and future life priority for transgender YP. The majority of YP wish to become parents but are open to alternative strategies for building a family. These data may explain in part the reported low rates of fertility preservation among this population. Further studies are needed to assess if life priorities change over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".