MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414538116 · doi:10.1080/26895269.2025.2566190

“I had this fear that as an autistic person, they would take me less seriously”: Trans autistic experiences of epistemic (in)justice in gender-affirming care

2025· article· en· W4414538116 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kai Jacobsen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Transgender Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFeminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCouncil of Ontario UniversitiesCarleton University
KeywordsAutismQualitative researchPerceptionContext (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background A disproportionate number of transgender and nonbinary people are autistic, and research suggests that trans autistic people experience significant barriers and challenges to accessing gender-affirming care. Much of the existing research in this area focuses on determining why trans people are more likely to be autistic, and less research has attended to trans autistic people’s lived experiences of accessing gender-affirming care.Methods To better understand these barriers and their impacts, I conducted qualitative interviews with 12 trans autistic people who had recently accessed gender-affirming medical care in the province of Ontario, Canada. Interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.Results Participants reported being frequently not believed, listened to, or taken seriously by healthcare providers, which I conceptualize as instances of epistemic injustice. I identify how medical discourses, ideologies, and clinical guidelines create conditions for gender-affirming care in which trans autistic people experience pervasive epistemic injustice. For example, participants felt pressure to conform to a transnormative and neuronormative narrative in order to be taken seriously by gender-affirming care providers. Some providers misinterpreted autistic communication styles and unfairly discredited their client’s knowledge, eroding their trust in health care. While participants used creative self-advocacy strategies to access care, some providers felt threatened by this challenge to their epistemic power and medical authority. Conversely, participants also had positive experiences of epistemic justice when providers took their knowledge and lived experience seriously.Conclusion I argue that gender-affirming care providers must practice epistemic humility by listening deeply and acknowledging the limits of their knowledge to deliver patient-centered care for trans autistic people. Systemic changes to the healthcare system and disrupting transnormativity and neuronormativity are necessary to improve trans autistic people’s experiences of gender-affirming care and enable epistemic justice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Transgender HealthSame topicFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesFrench-language works237,207