“It's Very Cisnormatively Structured”: An Interpretive Description of Undergraduate Nursing Students' Experiences of Gender Inclusive and Affirming Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the experiences of undergraduate nursing students learning about transgender and gender diverse (TGD) health. We discuss nursing education's perpetuation of discrimination and erasure of TGD people and upholding of gender norms (cisnorms) is not sufficiently preparing students to care for TGD patients. Further, this rampant cisnormativity harms TGD nursing students. This interpretive description drew on queer theory and Hafferty's three levels of curriculum and engaged 18 undergraduate nursing students in initial and 13 in follow-up focus groups or interviews. Three key themes included (1) cisnormativity is perpetuated in nursing education through pervasive power and norms across the three levels of curriculum; (2) "The Trans Problem": Transgender and gender diverse people are othered in nursing education; and (3) Welcoming the other: Individual educators who welcome and affirm TGD people are crucial. Critical recommendations from students to advance gender inclusive and affirming practices are provided, including normalizing gender diversity in formal nursing education, the importance of accountability and representation in schools of nursing, and the need for nursing governing bodies to disrupt cisnormativity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".