Gender-concordant identity documents and mental health among transgender adults in the USA: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transgender (trans) people experience profound mental health disparities compared with the general population, attributable in part to the psychological effects of gender non-affirmation. Despite the barriers to legal gender affirmation for trans people, little is known about its association with mental health. We therefore sought to determine whether having gender-concordant identity documents (IDs) is associated with mental health among trans adults in the USA. We hypothesised that having an ID that reflects one's preferred name and gender marker would be associated with reduced psychological distress and suicide risk. METHODS: In this cross-sectional observational study, we obtained data from the 2015 US Transgender Survey, the largest cross-sectional survey of trans adults in the USA, with 27 715 participants. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years), residing in a US state, territory, or overseas US military base; and considered themselves transgender, trans, genderqueer, non-binary, or similar. We excluded participants not living day-to-day in a different gender to the sex they were assigned at birth, participants who identified as crossdressers, and those missing data. The primary exposure of interest was whether all or some (vs none) of a respondent's IDs reflected their preferred name and gender marker. We examined associations with psychological distress (measured with the Kessler 6 scale) and suicide ideation, planning, and attempts in the past year, which we analysed using linear and modified Poisson regression models to examine associations with respondents' IDs. FINDINGS: Of 22 286 respondents included in our analytic sample, 10 288 (weighted percentage 45·1%) had their preferred name and gender marker on none, 9666 (44·2%) on some, and 2332 (10·7%) on all of their IDs. Compared with those with no gender-concordant ID, respondents for whom all IDs were concordant had lower prevalence of serious psychological distress (adjusted prevalence ratio 0·68, 95% CI 0·61-0·76), suicidal ideation (0·78, 0·72-0·85), and suicide planning (0·75, 0·64-0·87), adjusting for potential confounders. Having some versus no concordant ID was generally associated with smaller reductions in distress and suicidality. Gender-concordant ID was not associated with suicide attempts (eg, adjusted prevalence ratio for all vs no IDs was 0·92, 95% CI 0·68-1·24). INTERPRETATION: Possession of gender-concordant IDs might improve mental health among trans persons. Gender recognition policies should be considered structural determinants of transgender health. FUNDING: None.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".