MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415578831 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaf161.1950

Impacts of anti-trans discourses on gender-affirming care access in Brazil: family and provider views

2025· article· en· W4415578831 on OpenAlexaff
Júlia Clara de Pontes, Lee Ross, Rosana Machín

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransgenderThematic analysisEthnographyMental healthHealth careIdentity (music)Gender identityParticipant observation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Over the past decade, professional associations worldwide have endorsed gender-affirming care (GAC) for transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) youth, based on growing evidence of its benefits for mental health and well-being. Nonetheless, GAC has become a controversial topic, with rising anti-trans discourse targeting families, providers, and youth. To date, little research has explored the impact of these movements on access to care-especially in Latin America. This research examines two questions: (1) How does anti-trans discourse manifest in the experiences of parents of TGD youth and providers working with GAC? (2) How does it impact GAC access and provision? Data comes from an ethnographic study conducted at a transgender health care facility in a major Brazilian city (2023-2024), including 28 interviews (13 with family members of TGD youth ages 4-17 and 14 with providers) and 18 months of participant observation. A thematic analysis was conducted using a constructivist and interpretative lens. Findings show that anti-trans discourse is present in daily life, spread by professionals, institutions, and policymakers. It undermines the validity of transgender identity by reinforcing congruence between sex and gender, while discouraging affirming attitudes toward other diversities. For parents, it (i) makes it harder to challenge beliefs about their child's identity as a phase, (ii) increases guilt by linking gender nonconformity to poor parenting, and (iii) amplifies fear of regret. For providers, it (i) undermines trust in clinical assessments, (ii) reduces support from colleagues, and (iii) exposes services to scrutiny. Overall, anti-trans discourse fosters uncertainty, a sense of persecution, and hesitancy-affecting the ability to perceive needs, seek or provide care, and engage with GAC. Findings highlight how anti-trans narratives can erode support systems and shape health outcomes. Key messages • The research shows that anti-trans discourse has become a public health issue undermining the ability to seek and receive adequate support for families and youth. • There’s growing importance in opposing anti-trans discourse, particularly by protecting specialized services and increasing support for families and youth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public Health→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→