Transgender Youth's Perspectives on the Relationships Between Pregnancy, Contraceptives, and Dysphoria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore how trans youth with pregnancy capacity think through and understand the associations between pregnancy, contraception methods, and dysphoria. METHODS: We conducted 8 asynchronous online focus groups (n = 152) between 2020 and 2021 with trans youth assigned female at birth, and thus presumed capable of pregnancy, aged 14-18, who were living in the United States. Data were analyzed using a qualitative thematic approach informed by interpretive description. RESULTS: Some youth participants were unequivocal in their belief that both pregnancy and contraception would give rise to gender-related distress, which affected how they framed the acceptability of pregnancy and various methods for its prevention. Others had more dynamic understandings of dysphoria, recognizing that it is not inevitable or uniformly experienced. Still others posited that dysphoria that does occur can be managed considering the individual's priority goal or desire - whether to become a gestational parent or to prevent pregnancy. Participants discussed the importance of accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare, even if doing so requires them to navigate terrains of potential dysphoria, including dysphoria that is provoked by having to access gendered spaces and services and due to the use of gendered language. DISCUSSION: Youth participants had varied, nuanced understandings of dysphoria and its potential impact on their conception, pregnancy, and contraception experiences. Many did not hold prescriptive views that dysphoria is a defining aspect of their lives as trans people. Findings suggest strategies for the delivery of gender-affirming, youth-friendly sexual and reproductive healthcare that attends to dysphoria-as-distress when it occurs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".