Gender identity importance in cisgender and gender diverse adolescents in the <scp>US</scp> and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transgender adolescents often categorize themselves in the same way that cisgender adolescents do-that is, as girls/women and boys/men. Potential differences in the extent to which these self-categorizations matter to transgender and cisgender adolescents, however, have yet to be explored, as has the relative importance transgender adolescents place on their gender compared to their transgender self-categorization. In the current study, we explored self-reported identity importance in a sample of 392 primarily White (70%) and multiracial/ethnic (20%) 12-18-year-old (M = 15.02) binary transgender (n = 130), binary cisgender (n = 236), and nonbinary (n = 26) adolescents in the United States and Canada. Results revealed that binary transgender adolescents considered their gender self-categorization to be more important to them than both binary cisgender and nonbinary adolescents did. Most binary transgender adolescents rated their gender self-categorization as maximally important to them. Additionally, transgender adolescents considered their gender self-categorization to be more important to them than their transgender self-categorization (that is, their identification with the label "transgender"). These findings demonstrate that the identities that are often denied to binary transgender adolescents may be the very identities that are most important to them. Results also suggest that gender diverse adolescents with different gender identities may differ in the importance they place on these identities.
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 | 0.000 | 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".