Sameness across Difference: A Postcolonial Feminist Analysis of Gender-Affirming Health Care in Thailand and the United States.

Joining a growing body of research calling for the integration of social analysis and postcolonial theory, recent work in medical sociology has analyzed health, illness, and medicine from a postcolonial lens. In this article, I argue for a postcolonial feminist approach to medical sociology that builds on this extant work while challenging methodological nationalism and cultural essentialism. Based on an analysis of gender-affirming health care for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people in Thailand and the United States, I propose "sameness across difference" as a framework to analyze commonalities in the health care experiences of marginalized populations across nations as the products of imperial legacies. Drawing on 83 interviews with health care providers, TGD patients, and TGD activists, I demonstrate the role of imperialism in sustaining barriers to gender-affirming health care through the uneven geographic distribution of care across rural and urban areas and the reinforcement of racial and class hierarchies within cities.

The reproduction of knowledge hierarchies in transgender medicine: Professional, lay, and global expertise in clinical practice guidelines.

The process for developing clinical practice guidelines in medicine has changed dramatically over time. Previously, small groups of clinicians crafted clinical practice guidelines based on their professional expertise, but guideline developers must increasingly consider patients' lay expertise, global expertise, and principles of evidence-based medicine. This article analyzes how the World Professional Association for Transgender Health grappled with diverse forms of expertise and evidence-based medicine in the process of creating its "Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8" (hereafter, SOC-8), a prominent set of clinical practice guidelines in transgender medicine. Analysis is based on 83 interviews with clinicians, patients, and activists in the U.S. and Thailand between 2019 and 2021, as well as observation of transgender health conferences and content analysis of written materials. I find that despite the ostensible goal of incorporating more diverse expertise in this version of the guidelines, the SOC-8 ultimately reproduced traditional knowledge hierarchies in science and medicine in which the lay expertise of transgender and gender non-conforming patients and expertise from the Global South remain marginalized. I attribute this re-marginalization to the regulatory objectivity enacted in the SOC-8 revision process, which re-legitimized professional expertise, established no formal infrastructure for ensuring the equal participation of Global South stakeholders, and permitted limited inclusion of lay expertise from transgender and gender non-conforming people with relatively high levels of privilege (according to race, education, and other social statuses). These findings have implications for future research on knowledge hierarchies in science and medicine and the creation of clinical practice guidelines.

"As a clinician, you have to be passionately involved": Advocacy and professional responsibility in gender-affirming healthcare.

Previous research has studied how clinicians such as physicians, nurses, social workers, and nutritionists understand advocacy as a professional responsibility. Analyses have typically focused on individual healthcare professions and have viewed ambiguity around the conceptualization of advocacy as detrimental. Little research has considered how multiple professions within a single field of healthcare interpret clinician advocacy, nor how ambiguity might be productive in a multidisciplinary field. This article addresses these gaps by utilizing science and technology studies scholarship on buzzwords to analyze how clinicians in the field of gender-affirming healthcare have come to understand advocacy as a professional responsibility despite significant ambiguity around the goals, tactics, and targets of advocacy. Gender-affirming healthcare refers to any kind of physical or mental healthcare that transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people obtain to affirm their gender identity. Drawing on interviews with 30 U.S. clinicians, observation of nine transgender health conferences, and content analysis of 202 professional journal articles and 11 professional association statements, I argue that ambiguity around advocacy has been key to its uptake as a responsibility across multiple professions in this field. Foregrounding interview data, I show how polysemy allows clinician respondents across professions to reassert their expertise as they delineate what constitutes good gender-affirming healthcare and defend the emergent field in three problem domains: health insurance, the marginalization of TGD people, and the legality of gender-affirming healthcare. I also demonstrate how theoretical work on buzzwords explains why three clinician respondents rejected advocacy as a professional responsibility.