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.

A recent measles outbreak in the United States was linked to a single source, yet it spanned eighteen jurisdictions and infected 121 people. Forty-seven states currently allow legal exemption from vaccination on religious grounds, eighteen of which also allow it on philosophical grounds. Recent research usually accepts a fundamental right to vaccine exemption and primarily seeks ways to protect herd immunity while also respecting that right, for example, by keeping the exemption available yet harder to procure or by imposing torts for infection-related injury. We argue that when herd immunity is at risk, any moral claim to exemption from vaccination on conscientious, philosophical, or religious grounds is overridden. Our argument rests on an analogy to a series of situations in which a person puts others at risk through philosophically or religiously motivated choices. In these situations, intuitively, there is no claim-right to compromise the safety of others. Similarly, we propose, there is no claim-right to refuse vaccination, regardless of one's conscience, when refusal is sufficiently likely to seriously affect herd immunity and the safety of others. We also address several counterarguments. The lack of a claim-right to exemption when herd immunity is at risk does not mean, however, that it is always prudent for the state to force vaccination, or even that forcing vaccinations must be legal. Alternatives to forced vaccination may prove wiser and more conducive to high vaccination rates.