Transphobia Is in the Eye of the Prompter: Trans-Centered Perspectives on Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are the new hot trend being rapidly integrated into products and services—often, in chatbots. LLM-powered chatbots are expected to respond to any number of topics, including topics central to gender identity . In light of rising anti-trans discourse, we examined how two popular LLMs responded to real-world English-language questions about trans identity taken from Quora. We employed reflexive analysis that centered our situated knowledges of the trans community. We found that LLMs return pro-trans responses, even when presented with highly transphobic user prompts. While we also found highly transphobic LLM responses, we found that anti-trans sentiment in LLMs was often subtle, requiring a deep positional understanding from diverse trans stakeholders to interpret. Based on these findings, we recommend diverging from current “value-neutral” approaches that validate transphobia by taking an “all sides” approach. We provide considerations for both the evaluation and design of LLMs that center positional expertise.
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 | 0.031 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".