Exploring the Impacts of Heteronormative and Cisnormative Ideologies on Fertility Intentions and Family Planning Experiences Within the 2SLGBTQ Community: A Qualitative Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Normative beliefs around gender and sexuality place individuals in the Two Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (2SLGBTQ) community at risk for poorer health outcomes within the health care system compared with their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts, particularly within gendered areas of care including family planning and fertility intentions. The purpose of this research was to explore the effect that the normative beliefs of heteronormativity and cisnormativity had on the experiences of 2SLGBTQ people engaged in family planning, and to begin to understand how health care providers can provide appropriate, safe, and holistic care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using case study methodology and completing semi-structured interviews with 11 participants with diverse genders and sexualities. Findings: For members of the 2SLGBTQ community, family planning is greatly affected by ideals of normal, intersections of identities, health care systems, and community. They may face additional emotional labor and intentional decision-making when related to family planning. Heteronormativity and cisnormativity greatly impact the health care that is received. Conclusions: The findings contribute information in the limited field of research related to the 2SLGBTQ community and may support health care providers in providing holistic care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".