Retransitioning: The experiences of youth who socially transition genders more than once
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Retransitions in youth are critical to understand, as they are an experience about which little is known and about which families and clinicians worry.Aims: This study aims to qualitatively describe the experiences of youth who made binary social transitions (came to live as the binary gender different from the one assigned at birth) in childhood by the age of 12, and who later socially transitioned genders again (here, called “retransitioning”).Methods: Out of 317 participants in an ongoing longitudinal study of (initially) binary transgender youth, 23 participants had retransitioned at least once and were therefore eligible for this study. Of those youth, 8 were cisgender at the time of data collection, 11 were nonbinary, and 4 were binary transgender youth (after having retransitioned to nonbinary identities for a period). Fifteen youth and/or their parent(s) participated in semi-structured interviews (MYouthAge = 11.3 years; 9 non-Hispanic White; 3 Hispanic White; 3 Multiracial; 10 assigned male; 5 assigned female). Interviews gauged antecedents of transitions, others’ reactions to transitions, and participants’ general reflections. Responses were coded and thematically analyzed.Results: Participants described various paths to retransitions, including that some youth identified differently over time, and that some youth learned about a new identity (e.g., nonbinary) that fit them better. Social environments’ responses to retransitions varied but were often neutral or positive. No participants spontaneously expressed regret over initial transitions.Conclusions: These findings largely do not support common concerns about retransitions. In supportive environments, gender diverse youth can retransition without experiencing rejection, distress, and regret.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".