Transactional pathways of transgender identity development in transgender and gender-nonconforming youth and caregiver perspectives from the Trans Youth Family Study

Abstract

Background A growing body of research has examined transgender identity development, but no studies have investigated developmental pathways as a transactional process between youth and caregivers, incorporating perspectives from multiple family members. The aim of this study was to conceptualize pathways of transgender identity development using narratives from both transgender and gender nonconforming (TGN) youth and their cisgender (non-transgender) caregivers. Methods The sample included 16 families, with 16 TGN youth, ages 7–18 years, and 29 cisgender caregivers (N = 45 family members). TGN youth represented multiple gender identities, including trans boy (n = 9), trans girl (n = 5), gender fluid boy (n = 1), and girlish boy (n = 1). Caregivers included mothers (n = 17), fathers (n = 11), and one grandmother. Participants were recruited from LGBTQ community organizations and support networks for families with transgender youth in the Midwest, Northeast, and South regions of the United States. Each family member completed a one-time in-person semi-structured qualitative interview that included questions about transgender identity development. Results Analyses revealed seven overarching themes of transgender identity development, which were organized into a conceptual model: Trans identity development, sociocultural influences/societal discourse, biological influences, family adjustment/impact, stigma/cisnormativity, support/resources, and gender affirmation/actualization. Conclusions Findings underscore the importance of assessing developmental processes among TGN youth as transactional, impacting both youth and their caregivers.

Prevalence and Correlates of Suicidal Ideation Among Transgender Youth in California: Findings From a Representative, Population-Based Sample of High School Students

“…Additionally, although school-based policies and programs (e.g., gay– straight alliances) have been shown to be a protective factor for LGB adolescents by improving their experiences of school safety and well-being, 40,41 less is known about whether these school-based interventions provide protections for gender minority youth. 42 …”

Developmental Milestones in Young Transgender Women in Two American Cities: Results from a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Sample

“…Across studies, developmental models face common limitations 16 ; the majority, for example, (1) were adapted from gay/lesbian identity developmental paradigms, (2) conflate sexual orientation and transfeminine identity through frameworks of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender identity development, (3) draw from relatively small samples, (4) tend not to have data specific to YTW, (5) and do not consider the impact of demographic differences (e.g., race/ethnicity, age cohort) in their analysis. This study aimed to address these limitations by mapping age estimates of developmental milestones for YTW by race/ethnicity and cohort age in a racially/ethnically diverse community sample.…”

Fiction, Empathy, and Gender Diversity

“…For child and youth care workers, therefore, it is important to competently support these young people through understanding and affirming their gender explorations, defending against pathologizing their gender journeys, connecting them to appropriate resources as needed and desired, working with families towards understanding and acceptance, and advocating with them to secure rights and services. Research shows that young trans and gender-diverse people who are supported by adults within family systems and in community settings experience dramatically greater well-being than those without such supports, including strikingly less suicidality (93% lower, as cited in Travers et al, 2012); they also experience depression and anxiety at nonclinically significant levels, and have more self-esteem (Katz-Wise et al, 2017;Olson et al, 2016;Pullen Sansfaçon et al, 2018;Travers et al, 2012;Veale et al, 2015). Child and youth care practitioners are well-positioned to be among these key supportive adults.…”