Age, Autonomy, and Authority of Knowledge: Discursive Constructions of Youth Decision-Making Capacity and Parental Support in Transgender Minors’ Accounts of Healthcare Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While access to care is known to improve health outcomes for transgender youth, these youth often face challenges in accessing care related to decision-making capacity and the legal limitations regarding age of consent. In this study, we utilize discourse analytic methods to identify how notions of age, autonomy, and authority of knowledge influence transgender youths’ ability to make agentic decisions about their bodies and health, and better understand the power dynamics present in youths’ relations with parents and providers. We conducted 11 one-on-one interviews with transgender youth between the ages of 13 to 17 and one focus group with high school-age trans youth ( n = 8) in the Seattle-Tacoma area of Washington state. We identified two sets of discourses: (1) discourses of autonomy, which included self-determination, confidentiality, and authority of knowledge and (2) discourses of support, which included role ambiguity, trust/mistrust, and good and bad parents. Findings from this study highlight power dynamics present in trans youths’ relations with parents and providers.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".