Who Counts as Trans? A Critical Discourse Analysis of Trans Tumblr Posts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet and social media sites have long served as a rich form of community-building and knowledge exchange within transgender communities. In particular, Tumblr has become a popular site among trans youth in recent years. Paralleling changes in medical and mainstream societal understandings of what it means to be transgender, trans Tumblr users have engaged in dialogue and debate about the definitions and limits of trans identity. While research has established the potential for positive identity-formation among LGBTQ+ youth on Tumblr, it is also important to consider how online trans communities may re-inscribe hegemonic narratives in addition to disrupting dominant discourses and ideologies. Using a critical discourse analysis of Tumblr posts, this research analyses how trans Tumblr users define “who counts as trans,” including how users define gender dysphoria and its relationship to trans identities. Our findings provide critical insight into how trans communities define the boundaries of their identities in a struggle for visibility, resources, and respect.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it