No abstract

The presence of a trans* family member can challenge existing theoretical notions about the development of gender in families. Emerging knowledge about trans* identities consolidates around 5 primary challenges to existing theoretical notions of gender: (a) non‐dimorphic sex, (b) nonbinary gender, (c) the biological and social construction of gender, (d) gender identity development, and (e) family meaning making about transgender identity. These challenges structure an examination of hetero‐ and cisnormative expectations within family theory and help unpack long‐standing tensions between essentialist and social constructionist views of gender development. This can play out in family theory through a recognition of the tension between upholding and decentering cisnormativity within families. This article pinpoints locations where current family theories require reexamination and expansion to accurately conceptualize the flexibility and variability of families with trans* members.

Objective To explore family boundary ambiguity in the parent–child relationships of transgender youth. Background Transgender youth may perceive a lack of clarity about whether parents will accept their authentic gender expression, continue to support them physically and emotionally, and regard them as a member of the family. Uncertainty about being in or out of the family and whether family relationships endure is stressful and can lead to psychological distress, a sense of ambiguous loss, and frozen grief. Method Ethnographic content analysis was conducted based on interviews with 90 transgender youth recruited from community centers in 10 regions across 3 countries. Results Narratives revealed that transgender youth experienced family boundary ambiguity related to relational ambiguity, structural ambiguity, and identity ambiguity. Each experience of ambiguity obscured whether participants remained in the family and interpersonally connected to their parents. Conclusion Transgender youth actively navigated complex and ambiguous parent–child relationships whereby participants attempted to reconcile their need for authentic gender expression combined with their need for family connectedness and acceptance. Implications Family clinicians, educators, and policymakers are urged to consider family and transgender resilience through a lens of ambiguous loss and to promote a gender‐affirmative life‐span approach to clinical care for transgender individuals and their families.

In this article, we use an ambiguous loss framework to guide a process for decentering cisnormativity (the assumption that biological sex and gender are aligned) within families, specifically for those experiencing the gender identity transitions of family members. Individual family members have varied experiences with regard to gender transition and may or may not experience ambiguous loss depending on their position within the family system. Trans* persons themselves may also experience ambiguous loss as a result of the dialectical tension of acceptance and rejection by family members. We apply resilience processes developed for work with persons facing ambiguous loss to support trans* persons and their families as they navigate gender transitions.

No abstract

No abstract

Existing research on transgender individuals often frames the transgender population as homogeneous and tends to stratify the population into categories based on only sex assigned at birth. A growing body of literature has focused on the different experiences of those who identify as binary and those genderqueer or nonbinary (GQNB) individuals who defy binary categorization. Important distinctions between health outcomes between these subcategories of the population have begun to be elucidated. At the same time, little is known about differences in developmental trajectories between binary transgender and GQNB individuals. By understanding differences across the life span, researchers may be better suited to identify underlying milestones that serve as critical points in the development of discrepant health outcomes and use them to promote optimal health. Using data collected from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey (James et al., 2016), we identified 7 different transition milestones guided by Johnson's (2016) transnormative framework. Analyses of variance examined differences between binary transgender individuals and GQNB individuals. Post hoc analyses examined group differences between trans men, trans women, assigned female at birth genderqueer, and assigned male at birth genderqueer individuals. Significant differences were observed among the average age of each group with respect to each developmental milestone. Results suggest that applying a transnormative narrative to understanding the development of GQNB individuals may inadvertently marginalize the unique experiences of this heterogeneous population. Implications are discussed from clinical and social justice perspectives. Recommendations for honoring individual differences among GQNB persons are made for psychologists working this population. Public Significance StatementThe current study examined developmental differences between binary transgender and genderqueer or nonbinary individuals. Significant age differences were found regarding when individuals from four different transgender or nonconforming groups reached specific identity and transition milestones.

As many as nine million people identify as a transperson in the United States, yet mass clothing designing and manufacturing do not meet the needs of this consumer group. This research examines the role of fit in ready-to-wear (RTW) clothing using qualitative research methods. 90 transpeople from the United States, Canada, and Ireland participated in interviews and data from interviews were analyzed using line-by-line analysis, resulting in three themes. Theme 1 explored current fit problems with RTW clothing, Theme 2 explored the desire to use clothing to hide parts of the body that did not align with one’s gender identity, and Theme 3 explored the desire to use clothing to highlight parts of the body that did align with one’s gender identity. Findings from this research confirm the assumption that current RTW clothing does not meet the needs of the transperson population and offers areas where designers and manufactures can reassess their methods relative to this consumer group.