Gender Identity Health Within a Sample of Transmasculine Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personal identity is a multidimensional, universal, and ever-developing construct that forms primarily during youth. One domain of identity—gender—manifests quite clearly in terms of developmental course and psychosocial components in the lives of transgender individuals. Members of this population often initiate various social and medical transitions to rework their gendered characteristics to align more authentically with their internal selves. Consequently, healthcare and social service professionals express growing interest in facilitating and fostering the psychological health of transgender youth. Rather than focus on adversity (e.g., depression, suicidality, mental illness), the current study addresses this concern by describing positive components of the gender identity of 120 transmasculine youth participants. To this end, we operationalized gender identity health through three overarching constructs: developmental process, psychological functioning, and the positive outcomes of being a transgender person. Further, we investigate how these components interrelate, plus compare responses by age and gender identity cohorts. For age, we compared adolescent responses to the identity measures to those of transgender emerging adults (n = 166; 20–29 years) and adults (n = 53; 30–39 years). For gender, we partitioned the adolescent participants into binary (n = 91) versus non-binary (n = 29) identities. The descriptive results demonstrated that identity is reasonably developed, functional, and positive in this adolescent sample. Moreover, the three hypothetical components of transgender identity demonstrated modest overlap with each other. The youth did not differ in identity development, functionality, or positivity compared to older cohorts. Binary transmen scored slightly higher on gender authenticity and commitment than their non-binary transmasculine counterparts, but the two gender groups were the same on the other identity components. We discuss some practical implications of these findings as focus areas for healthcare providers and support systems to continue to foster healthy identity development.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".