LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wgfs21

Parenting Beyond the Binary? An Empirical

Test of Norm-Centered Stigma Theory and the
Stigmatization of Nonbinary Parents

Meredith G. F. Worthen & Chancey Herbolsheimer

To cite this article: Meredith G. F. Worthen & Chancey Herbolsheimer (2022) Parenting
Beyond the Binary? An Empirical Test of Norm-Centered Stigma Theory and the Stigmatization
of Nonbinary Parents, LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18:5, 429-447, DOI:
10.1080/27703371.2022.2123422

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/27703371.2022.2123422

Published online: 21 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 278

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wgfs21
LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal
2022, VOL. 18, NO. 5, 429–447
https://doi.org/10.1080/27703371.2022.2123422

Parenting Beyond the Binary? An Empirical Test of Norm-

Centered Stigma Theory and the Stigmatization of Nonbinary
Parents
Meredith G. F. Worthena and Chancey Herbolsheimerb
a
Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA; bDepartment of Sociology, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, TN, USA

KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT Stigma; nonbinary;
Currently, there are more than 150,000 nonbinary parents in the US yet parenthood;
the rigidity of the gender dichotomy when it comes to parenting remains motherhood; fatherhood;
a dominant trope. Nonbinary parenting experiences are especially important family; LGBTQ;
hetero-cis-normativity;
to address because nonbinary parents face unique strains due to their
Norm-Centered Stigma
violations of hetero-cis-normativity and culturally reinforced binary scripts Theory
about “moms” and “dads.” To investigate stigma toward nonbinary parents,
an intersectional investigation of Norm-Centered Stigma Theory (NCST) and
a sample of U.S. adults aged 18–64 stratified by U.S. census categories of
age, gender, race/ethnicity and census region collected from online panelists
(N = 2,912) are utilized. Specifically, social power axes including gender
identity (cisgender woman, cisgender man, trans woman, trans man; non-
binary people were excluded from the current study), sexual identity (het-
erosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual), and interactions among these axes of
social power are investigated as they moderate the relationships between
hetero-cis-normativity and stigmatizing perspectives toward nonbinary par-
ents in efforts to more deeply understand negativities directed toward
nonbinary people and their families.
Findings indicate that hetero-cis-normativity is strongly related to negativity
toward parenting beyond the binary and that heterosexual respondents,
and particularly hetero cis men, exhibit greater negativity toward nonbinary
parents than others. Implications for these findings are also provided.

According to The Williams Institute, there are more than 1.2 million nonbinary LGBTQ adults
in the U.S. and about one in eight (12.5%) nonbinary individuals are parents (Wilson & Meyer,
2021). Yet amidst growing awareness and recognition of nonbinary people and their experiences
(Reisner & Hughto, 2019; Wilson & Meyer, 2021; Worthen, 2021), the rigidity of the gender
dichotomy when it comes to parenting remains a dominant trope. Indeed, recent research
(Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022) shows that the “mom and dad = cis woman + cis man” stereo-
type is evocative of stigma toward trans mothers and trans fathers, yet explorations of nonbinary
parents are sparse, save a handful of studies (T. Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Bower-Brown & Zadeh,
2021; Fischer, 2021; Hafford-Letchfield et al., 2020; Tasker & Gato, 2020; Tornello et al., 2019).
This is significant because nonbinary people have been found to differ significantly from trans
women and trans men1 in terms of various measures of well-being including more depressive
distress, anxiety, and suicidality, less family support (Aparicio-García et al., 2018; Matsuno &
Budge, 2017; Reisner & Hughto, 2019), worse self-reported health (Burgwal et al., 2019), and

CONTACT Meredith G. F. Worthen mgfworthen@ou.edu Department of Sociology, University of Oklahoma, 780 Van
Vleet Oval, KH 331, Norman, OK 73019, USA.
© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
430 M. G. F. WORTHEN AND C. HERBOLSHEIMER

lower expressed resilience (Koziara et al., 2021). Yet little is known about nonbinary people’s
unique experiences as parents.
Because others have found that hetero-cis-normativity (a system of norms, privilege, and
oppression that situates heterosexual cisgender people above all others) (Worthen, 2016) and
the “mom and dad = cis woman + cis man” stereotype contribute to stigma toward trans parents
(Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022), it is clear that parenthood is strongly fixed within both
heterosexual and cisnormative presumptions that enforce a duality between motherhood and
fatherhood (Bower-Brown & Zadeh, 2021; Dietz, 2021; Downing, 2013; Fischer, 2021; Hines,
2006; MacDonald et al., 2021; Pfeffer, 2012). Beyond this, hetero-cis people, and especially
hetero-cis men, have been found to more strongly enforce hetero-cis-normativity and hetero-cis-nor-
mative perspectives in comparison to others (Montgomery & Stewart, 2012; Worthen, 2020).
Indeed, investigating attitudes toward trans mothers and trans fathers, both gender and sexual
identity as well as the intersections of gender and sexuality were all statistically significant
(Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022). Such findings demonstrate that it is important to examine
the intersecting gender and sexual identities of those who are expressing negativity toward
parenting beyond the binary. Norm-Centered Stigma Theory (NCST) (Worthen, 2020) is the
ideal theoretical framework to utilize to examine the stigmatization of nonbinary parents because
it emphasizes the significance and centrality of norms, in this case, hetero-cis-normativity, and
the ways intersecting identities relate to the stigmatization of others, in this case, parenting
beyond the binary.
The current study provides an empirical test of NCST to investigate the stigmatization of
nonbinary parents. First, the existing literature on non-binary parent stigma is reviewed with
an emphasis on the roles of gender and sexuality. Second, NCST is explained and hypotheses
are provided. Third, a sample of U.S. adults aged 18–64 stratified by U.S. census categories of
age, gender, race/ethnicity, and census region collected from online panelists (N = 2,912) is uti-
lized to investigate NCST’s three hypotheses which focus on social power axes including gender
identity (cisgender woman, cisgender man, trans woman, trans man; nonbinary people were
excluded from the current study), sexual identity (heterosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual), and inter-
actions among these axes of social power as they moderate the relationships between hetero-cis-nor-
mativity and stigmatizing perspectives toward nonbinary parents. Overall, the goal of the current
study is to more deeply comprehend negativities directed toward nonbinary people and their
families in efforts to work toward more inclusive understandings of pregnancy, birthing, par-
enting, and family.

Nonbinary parent stigma

Dominant sociocultural tropes about parents reflect hetero-cis-normativity. In particular, the
“mom and dad = cis woman + cis man” stereotype reinforces the perception that both “parents”
and “family” consist of a specific set of arrangements among specific types of people (Fineman,
2009; Pfeffer, 2012; Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022). This includes a framing of “the ‘ideal’
parenting situation as a cisgender mother and a cisgender father who are legally married to one
another and who are the biological parents of that child” (Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022, p.
2; see also Fineman, 2009). Because they violate these stereotypes, nonbinary parents and their
partners are at risk for negative experiences and stigma (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Bower-Brown
& Zadeh, 2021; Hafford-Letchfield et al., 2020; Tornello et al., 2019).
Negativity toward nonbinary parents is built not only from the perception that they violate
hetero-cis-normativity, but also, perceptions that having a nonbinary parent somehow goes against
the best interests of the child (Clarke, 2001; MacDonald et al., 2021; Nielsen, 1999; Shapiro &
Stewart, 2011). For example, though not focused exclusively on nonbinary parents, some research
has found that prejudices toward trans and nonbinary parenting are highly embedded in concerns
about how children will come to understand gender (e.g., trans and nonbinary parents disrupt
“appropriate” gender identity development in their children) (McGuire et al., 2016; Tornello et al.,
 LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal 431

2019; Veldorale-Griffin & Darling, 2016). This is coupled with generalized prejudices toward
nonbinary people and misunderstandings about their gender (e.g., “why can’t you just pick one
gender?” Worthen, 2021). Together, these perspectives are indicative of broader cultural assump-
tions that the ability to parent is dependent upon traits exclusive to cisgender mothers and
fathers (T. J. Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Bower-Brown & Zadeh, 2021; Fischer, 2021; Pfeffer, 2012).
Though not focused exclusively on nonbinary parenting, there is evidence that nonbinary
people face complex barriers and difficulties in healthcare settings, including reproductive health
care, that range from overt forms of discrimination and misgendering to ignorance and erasure
(Berner et al., 2021; Lampe & Nowakowski, 2021; Lane et al., 2021; Moseson et al., 2021; Tasker
& Gato, 2020). In particular, one study focused exclusively on nonbinary people (assigned female
at birth, AFAB) found evidence of numerous difficulties associated with pregnancy including
feelings of isolation, loneliness, and gender dysphoria built from the gendered language sur-
rounding pregnancy and pregnant people (read: expecting mothers) as well as problems finding
maternity clothes (Fischer, 2021). Birthing experiences may also be difficult for nonbinary people
due to the commonplace emphasis on certain body parts which may sometimes trigger uncom-
fortable associations with sex assigned at birth in ways that challenge gender identity (Tasker
& Gato, 2020). Beyond this, nonbinary parents have also expressed concerns with how their
nonbinary identity would impact their experiences with chestfeeding and other caregiving tasks
(Fischer, 2021). This is particularly troubling because nonbinary people may be excluded (and
missing) from parenting support/education networks due to cisnormative expectations about
parents, as found in other research which finds that parenting is conceptualized as “highly
normative” and “dominated by cis-bodied women” (Bower-Brown & Zadeh, 2021, p. 105; see
also Charlton et al., 2021; Falck et al., 2021; Greenfield & Darwin, 2021; Lampe et al., 2019;
Moseson et al., 2021). Overall, there is a consistent hetero-cis-normative cultural theme found
wherein pregnancy/birth-involved cis mothers coupled with biological cis fathers are seen as
inherent to parenthood. In turn, this (re)produces a stereotype of “mom and dad = cis woman + cis
man” that excludes nonbinary individuals. Despite this, there is a growing need for studies on
attitudes toward parenting beyond the binary. This includes an examination on the ways in
which hetero-cis-normativity, gender, sexuality, and the intersections among these influence the
stigmatization of nonbinary parents.

Gender, sexuality, and nonbinary parent stigma

Numerous studies find that gender, in particular being a woman, is associated with more positive
attitudes toward gender diversity, including nonbinary identities (Hill & Willoughby, 2005; Norton
& Herek, 2013; Willoughby et al., 2010; Worthen, 2016, 2020, 2021). Some additional research
indicates that sexuality (i.e., identifying as queer) is also related to more supportive attitudes
toward nonbinary people (Worthen, 2020). Though existing research does demonstrate significant
relationships between gender, sexuality, and attitudes toward trans parents (Antoszewski et al.,
2007; Landen & Innala, 2000; Leitenberg & Slavin, 1983; Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022), the
ways gender and sexuality may relate to perspectives about nonbinary parents have yet to be
explored. Thus, this is the first study to do so.

Stigma toward nonbinary parents – Mothers and fathers

Both hetero-cis-normativity and norms about what constitutes a “family” dictate that “parents”
consist of both a mother and a father (Pfeffer, 2012; Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022). Arguments
supporting this duality are built from the perspective that there are different sociocultural norms
and expectations for mothers and fathers. For example, traditional expectations of mothering
include nurturing and care-giving tasks (Cowdery & Knudson-Martin, 2005; Douglas & Michaels,
2005) and on average, women are viewed as more qualified primary caregivers in comparison
432 M. G. F. WORTHEN AND C. HERBOLSHEIMER

to men due to a perceived inherent ability to nurture (Millbank, 2008). In contrast, socio-cultural
scripts about fatherhood are typically focused more on financial provision and childcare assis-
tance (Kazura, 2000). Thus, the cultural expectations of fatherhood and motherhood are often
perceived as distinctly separate. Because nonbinary parents violate traditional hetero-cis-normative
expectations about both motherhood and fatherhood, they can be perceived as unable to accom-
plish the many (perceived as) cisgendered tasks associated with being parents. Thus, there are
societal expectations that (a) “parents” should consist of a “mother” and “father” and (b) these
two people should embody hetero-cis-normativity. This means that successful parenting is open
to only man + woman duos of people who are heterosexual and cisgender (Bower-Brown &
Zadeh, 2021; Douglas & Michaels, 2005; Falck et al., 2021; Greenfield & Darwin, 2021; Hicks,
2013; Kazura, 2000; MacDonald et al., 2021; Marks & Palkovitz, 2004; Nielsen, 1999; Pfeffer,
2012; Short, 2007). Beyond this, due to the cisgender scripts associated with parenting, nonbinary
parents may struggle with conceptualizing exactly what it means to be a nonbinary parent and
may also lack supportive resources to do so (for an interesting study about child care labor in
LGBTQ families, see Kelly & Hauck, 2015). Overall, multiple cultural norms conflict with the
belief that nonbinary people can successfully take on a parenting role.
An individual’s gender and sexual identity may also relate to their attitudes toward parenting
beyond the binary. That is, an ideology of “good” parenting aligns with privileged notions of a
motherhood and fatherhood duo and reinforces hetero-cis privilege by labeling mothers/fathers
who “fail” to meet this criteria as “bad parents” (Bower-Brown & Zadeh, 2021; O’Brien Hallstein,
2017). In particular, parents who identify as hetero and cisgender (whether or not they are
biological mothers and fathers) might perceive nonbinary parents as inadequate to fit the stan-
dard of “good” mothers and fathers. In line with this, multiple studies indicate that non-biological
mothers and fathers report higher parenting distress and less positive relationships with children
in comparison to biological parents (Adamsons et al., 2007; Berkowitz & Marsiglio, 2007; Flouri,
2008; Hicks, 2013; Shapiro & Stewart, 2011; Wojnar & Katzenmeyer, 2014). Taken together, these
findings suggest that there are negative perceptions about non-biological mothers and fathers,
which may include nonbinary parents and anyone else parenting outside of hetero-cis-normative
boundaries. In other words, research suggests that parents who do not fit into the “mom and
dad = cis woman + cis man” duality, which includes nonbinary parents, may exist within a “second
tier” parenting status (Ben-Ari & Livni, 2006; Bos et al., 2004; Hart, 2009; Nielsen, 1999; Peleg
& Hartman, 2019; Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022).
Because cis men have been found to be generally less open to gender and sexual diversity
and have more rigid hetero-cis-normative perspectives about parenting, cis men may be partic-
ularly likely to harbor hostilities about parenting beyond the binary (Montgomery & Stewart,
2012; Worthen, 2016, 2020, 2021; Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022). Trans men and trans women
may also have complex attitudes toward nonbinary parents. On the one hand, because trans
men and women also navigate the complexities of breaking cisnormativity (Bradford et al., 2019;
Gagné & Tewksbury, 1998; Serano, 2007) and may also endure similar experiences with having
their gender identities disregarded (Alegría, 2018; Grossman et al., 2006; Hill & Menvielle, 2009),
they may be sympathetic to difficulties nonbinary parents experience. On the other hand, because
trans men and women may also sometimes adhere to the stereotypes of the gender binary in
efforts to be seen (unquestionably) as men and women (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009; Serano, 2007;
Stein, 2018), they may be less open to nonbinary parenting. Indeed, one study found that being
a trans woman was positively related to stigmatizing perspectives toward nonbinary people
(Worthen, 2021). Thus, trans men and women may have complex feelings about nonbinary
parenting. This is especially important to investigate because no studies to date have specifically
examined these relationships.
In addition, the ways heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people view nonbinary parents
are likely also impacted by the culturally differing perceptions of mothers and fathers, yet little
research has investigated these relationships, especially using a theoretically informed lens. This
is noteworthy because research indicates that nonbinary people experience a unique form of
 LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal 433

minority stress related to feeling that their identities are invalidated by both hetero cisgender
people and LGBTQ people (Johnson et al., 2020). Thus, it is important to consider how both
gender and sexuality inform perspectives about parenting beyond the binary.

NCST and the stigmatization of nonbinary parents

Norm-Centered Stigma Theory (NCST) is a useful framework to examine attitudes toward par-
enting beyond the binary because it helps us to better understand the relationships between
social power and stigma against nonbinary parents. To put it succinctly, NCST examines the
significance of social power, norms/norm violations, and interactions among these as they relate
to stigma (Worthen, 2020). NCST fits with a large body of research on stigma that acknowledges
the central role played by norms and social power in in conceptualizing stigma (especially
Goffman, 1963; Link & Phelan, 2001; Stafford & Scott, 1986) and additional work that demon-
strates the ways in which intersections of social power and diverse identities impact life cir-
cumstances (e.g., Butler, 1993; Collins, 1999; Crenshaw, 1991; Davis, 2008). Below, NCST is
outlined in three ways: (1) the definitions of NCST’s three central tenets are provided, (2) a
description of NCST’s theoretical model is given, and (3) our hypotheses derived from NCST
are listed.

NCST’s three tenets

NCST Tenet 1: There is a culturally dependent and reciprocal relationship between norms and
stigma. Stigma depends upon the existence of norms. Without norms and, more specifically,
norm violations, there is no stigma. That is, norms are the key factor in recognizing stigma.
NCST defines this as norm centrality. Norms and stigma are mutually reinforcing because both
are contingent on cultural standards and norms about behaviors, life circumstances, beliefs, and
identities. Consequently, the link between stigma and norms is reciprocal (see also Goffman,
1963; Stafford & Scott, 1986). For the current analysis, the first tenet of NCST is as follows:
There is a culturally dependent relationship between hetero-cis-normativity and nonbinary par-
ent stigma.
NCST Tenet 2: The relationship between norms and stigma is organized by social power
dynamics between the stigmatized and the stigmatizers. NCST conceptualizes social power as a
significant component linking norms and stigma. That is, accepted standards and expectations
are perpetuated by certain groups embedded in and organized around extant cultural frameworks
which simultaneously oppress certain beliefs, behaviors, identities, and life circumstances while
privileging others. While those who violate norms are penalized with disadvantages and stigma,
those who abide by norms are rewarded with privilege resulting from the embodiment/adoption
of cultural, economic, social, familial, and political expectations. This process secures a social
power hierarchy between norm followers/non-stigmatized and norm violators/stigmatized. NCST
recognizes social power as organizational in this association between norms and stigma (see also,
Jones, 1984; Link & Phelan, 2001; Schur, 1983). For our analysis, the second tenet of NCST is
as follows: The association between hetero-cis-normativity and stigma against nonbinary parents
is organized by two key social identities with differing degrees of power: gender (cisgender man,
cisgender woman, trans woman, trans man) and sexual identity (heterosexual, gay/lesbian,
bisexual).
NCST Tenet 3: Stigma is inclusive of negativity and social sanctions directed toward norm
violations and norm violators justified through social power dynamics. This tenet provides jus-
tification for treating the stigmatized negatively based on social power. Because societies reward
those who follow and uphold norms, the punishment of norm violators with negativity, stigma,
and social sanctions is culturally validated. Thus, stigma and its negative byproducts are explained
by norms that simultaneously reflect the privilege of the powerful and the oppression of those
434 M. G. F. WORTHEN AND C. HERBOLSHEIMER

without. NCST, then, stresses social power as justification for the ongoing negativity that char-
acterizes stigmatized peoples’ experiences (see also Link & Phelan, 2001). For this analysis, the
third tenet of NCST is as follows: nonbinary parent stigma is inclusive of negativity and social
sanctions directed toward violations and violators of hetero-cis-normativity justified through
social power dynamics of gender and sexual identity.

NCST theoretical model and hypotheses

NCST posits that social power organizes the framework through which norm violations and
stigma are understood. More specifically, there are two key lenses: the stigmatizer lens and
the stigmatized lens2. The analysis employs the stigmatizer lens to examine the ways in which
the stigmatizer’s (i.e., the individual expressing negativity or passing judgment on another
individual) own intersections of social power result in feelings about the stigmatized. NCST
proposes there are two central relationships (see Figure 1). First, there is a direct relationship
between stigma and norm violation. That is, as violations of norms increase and/or become
more threatening, stigma increases. Second, the relationship between norm violations and
stigma is moderated by social power. Together, this leads to the following hypotheses that
guide this analysis:

• Hypothesis 1: There is a significant positive relationship between hetero-cis-normativity

and stigma toward nonbinary parents.
• Hypothesis 2a: The relationship between hetero-cis-normativity and stigma toward non-
binary parents is moderated by interactions between hetero-cis-normativity and axes of

Figure 1.  Theoretical model of NCST and nonbinary parent stigma with model numbers to be examined in Table 3.
 LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal 435

social power (gender identities: cis man, cis woman, trans woman, trans man; sexual
identities: heterosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual).
• Hypothesis 2b: The relationship between hetero-cis-normativity and stigma toward nonbinary
parents is moderated by interactions among axes of social power (gender identities: cis man,
cis woman, trans woman, trans man; sexual identities: heterosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual).

Methods
Data and sample characteristics
The data come from the 2018 LGBTQ and Hetero-cis Population Study (Worthen, 2020). Panelists
were recruited from Survey Sampling International (SSI), an international survey research and
survey sample provider with over 5 million U.S. online panel participants. Panel members are
recruited by SSI from online communities, social networks, and the web. Each panel member
is then profiled, authenticated, and verified as a reliable respondent for rigorous research par-
ticipation. SSI awards incentives to respondents upon survey completion.
A sample of U.S. adults aged 18–64 was obtained by SSI and stratified by census categories
of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and census region. For the first sampling frame, SSI sent out a
total of 63,4663 email invites to only heterosexual-cisgender potential respondents. A quota of
1,500 respondents (750 hetero cis men and 750 hetero cis women) was requested and met
(n = 1500). For the second sampling frame, a total of 103,001 email invites were sent out by
SSI to only LGBT potential respondents. A quota of 1,520 respondents (330 each of lesbian
women, gay men, bisexual women, bisexual men; 100 each of trans women and trans men)
was requested and met for lesbian women, gay men, and bisexual women; however, quotas
were not met for bisexual men (n = 314), trans women (n = 74), nor trans men (n = 55). Although
there was no quota set for nonbinary people, they comprised a notable portion of the study
sample (n = 95). A total of 4,994 individuals accessed the survey by clicking the survey invite
link, 4,583 began the survey by answering one or more survey items, and 3,104 respondents
completed all items in the survey for a survey start to completion rate of 68%. To speak to
this study’s goals, the current study’s sample excludes nonbinary people. Pansexual and asexual
people were also excluded due to small ns for a total sample size of N = 2,912. See Table 1 for
additional details.
Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 2,912).
Range Mean (SD)
Gender and sexual identities
 Cis Man* 0–1 .48 (.50)
 Cis Woman 0–1 .48 (.50)
  Trans Woman 0–1 .02 (.15)
  Trans Man 0–1 .02 (.12)
 Heterosexual* 0–1 .53 (.50)
 Gay/Lesbian 0–1 .24 (.43)
 Bisexual 0–1 .23 (.42)
Sociodemographics
 Caucasian/White* 0–1 .79 (.41)
 African American/Black 0–1 .10 (.29)
 Asian American/Pacific Islander 0–1 .06 (.24)
 Native American/Alaskan Native 0–1 .02 (.12)
 Multi-Racial 0–1 .02 (.15)
 Other Race 0–1 .01 (.09)
  Latinx Race 0–1 .01 (.09)
  Latinx Ethnicity 0–1 .13 (.34)
 Education 1–6 3.77 (1.46)
  Town Type (Rural – Large City) 1–4 2.64 (1.01)
 Age 18–64 40.71 (14.31)
*
reference category in regression models.
436 M. G. F. WORTHEN AND C. HERBOLSHEIMER

Survey design and implementation

The lead author created the survey instrument using Qualtrics (an online survey platform). The
survey was accessible on the Internet from November 5, 2018 to November 23, 20184. Through
the link provided in the invitation email from SSI, panelists could access the survey via PCs,
laptops, tablets and mobile phones. The survey included 184 closed-ended questions with both
multiple- and single-response items, and the average time to completion was 25.8 minutes. More
about the survey development can be found in Worthen (2020)5.

Dependent variables: Stigmatization of nonbinary parents

Respondents were asked to respond to the following statement: “Nonbinary people are not
capable of being good parents.” Response options were on a five-point Likert-type scale from
Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

Independent variables: Hetero-cis-normativity (HCN) Scale

Utilizing Worthen’s (2020) work, the HCN Scale (M = 12.27, R = 6–30, Cronbach’s alpha = .97)
includes six items with response options on a five-point Likert-type scale from Strongly Disagree
to Strongly Agree: (1) It is okay to think negatively about people who are gay or lesbian because
it is not normal to be gay or lesbian; (2) It is okay to think negatively about people who are
bisexual because it is not normal to be bisexual; (3) It is okay to think negatively about trans-
gender people because it is not normal to be transgender; (4) It is okay to think negatively
about people who are queer because it is not normal to be queer; (5) It is okay to think neg-
atively about people who are nonbinary or genderqueer because it is not normal to be nonbinary
or genderqueer; and (6) I don’t think anyone should be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer,
nonbinary, or genderqueer.

Independent variables: Sexual and gender identities

For sexual identity, respondents were asked “How would you describe yourself?” with the fol-
lowing response options: heterosexual, gay or lesbian, or bisexual. For gender identity, respondents
were asked “What best describes your gender?” with responses that were coded as cis men (those
that indicated “I identify as a man and my sex assigned at birth was male”), cis women (those
that indicated: “I identify as a woman and my sex assigned at birth was female”), trans women
(those that indicated: “I identify as a woman and my sex assigned at birth was male”), and trans
men (those that indicated: “I identify as a man and my sex assigned at birth was female”).

Sociodemographic controls
Sociodemographics have been found to be significantly related to LGBTQ attitudes (King et al.,
2009; Norton & Herek, 2013; Schilt & Westbrook, 2009; Worthen, 2016, 2020); thus, controls
for racial/ethnic identity, education, town type, and age are utilized in the current study. For
racial identity, the response options were: Caucasian/White, African American/Black, Asian
American/Pacific Islander, Native American/Alaskan Native, Multi-Racial, and Other Race
Please Specify. For the original Other Race category, n = 25 respondents wrote in responses
(e.g., “Hispanic,” n = 12; “Mexican,” n = 6) that were recoded into a new category of Latinx
Race. The final Other Race category (n = 24) was comprised of about half (46%, n = 11) Middle
Eastern individuals. In a separate question for Latinx Ethnicity, respondents were also asked
“Are you Hispanic or Latino/a/x? (A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central
American or other Spanish culture of origin regardless of race).” Education response options
 LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal 437

were: (1) less than high school, (2) high school/GED, (3) some college, (4) Associate’s, (5)
Bachelor’s, or (6) greater than Bachelor’s. Town type (where the majority of life was spent)
response options were (1) rural, (2) small town, (3) suburb, and (4) large city. Age was mea-
sured in years (18–64).

Method of analysis
Two sets of analyses comprise this study. In the first set of analyses, the mean values of the
dependent variables were compared for twelve groups using t-tests and ANOVAs (see Table 2).
In the second set of analyses, ordered logistic regressions were used to explore the effects of
the HCN Scale and social power axes (gender and sexual identity) on stigma toward nonbinary
parents. Ordered logistic regression was chosen because the response options for the dependent
variable have a natural ordering (strongly disagree to strongly agree), but the distances between
the adjacent levels are unknown. Results are presented in proportional odds ratios obtained by
exponentiating the ordered logit coefficients using the “or” option in STATA with 95% confidence
intervals. Following NCST, in Model 1, the HCN Scale, gender identity (reference category is
cis man) and sexual identity (reference category is heterosexual) are included along with socio-
demographic controls as detailed in Figure 1. In Model 2, interactions between the HCN Scale,
gender identity, and sexual identity (generated through the use of the “c.” prefix in STATA) as
well as interactions between the gender and sexual identities were included along with socio-
demographic controls (see also, Figure 1). Multi-collinearity was examined using STATA command
“collin” (Ender, 2010) which provides collinearity diagnostics for all variables utilized in each
model. The Mean VIF values ranged from 1.23 to 1.25 suggesting no issues with multicollinearity
(Allison, 2012).

Results
ANOVA results
The mean values for nonbinary parent stigma are compared in Table 2 between each of the
twelve groups: hetero cis men, hetero cis women, hetero trans women, hetero trans men, gay
cis men, gay/lesbian cis women, gay/lesbian trans women, gay trans men, bisexual cis men,
bisexual cis women, bisexual trans women, and bisexual trans men. ANOVA and post-hoc
Tukey-Kramer test results indicate many significant differences. Hetero cis men report signifi-
cantly higher levels of stigma toward nonbinary parents in comparison to hetero cis women,

Table 2. Mean values of nonbinary parent stigma by gender and sexual identity groups with ANOVA results (N = 2,912).
Group number Mean SD
Total Sample 2.25 1.26
1 Heterosexual Cis Man 2.86 1.26
2 Heterosexual Cis Woman 2.33 1.22
3 Heterosexual Trans Woman 2.85 1.18
4 Heterosexual Trans Man 3.00 1.46
5 Gay Cis Man 1.94 1.13
6 Gay/Lesbian Cis Woman 1.66 1.04
7 Gay/Lesbian Trans Woman 2.47 1.30
8 Gay/Lesbian Trans Man 2.00 1.20
9 Bisexual Cis Man 2.17 1.19
10 Bisexual Cis Woman 1.57 1.02
11 Bisexual Trans Woman 2.36 1.28
12 Bisexual Trans Man 2.42 1.44
ANOVA results and post hoc Tukey–Kramer test results establishing differences between groups in stigma toward nonbinary
parents (p < .05) df(11, 2901):.
F = 39.50; Group 1 ≠ Groups 2, 5, 6, 9, 10; Group 2 ≠ Groups 5, 6, 10; Group 3 ≠ Groups 5, 6, 10; Group 4 ≠ 5, 6, 10; Group
5 ≠ Group 10; Group 6 ≠ Group 9; Group 9 ≠ Group 10; Group 10 ≠ Group 11.
438 M. G. F. WORTHEN AND C. HERBOLSHEIMER

gay cis men, gay/lesbian cis women, bisexual cis men, and bisexual cis women. Hetero cis
women, hetero trans women, and hetero trans men report significantly higher levels of stigma
toward nonbinary parents in comparison to gay cis men, gay/lesbian cis women, and bisexual
cis women. Gay cis men, bisexual cis men, and bisexual trans women report significantly greater
stigma than bisexual cis women report. In contrast, gay/lesbian cis women report significantly
lower stigma toward nonbinary parents than bisexual cis men report.

Ordered logistic regression results in proportional odds ratios

Using NCST, stigma toward nonbinary parents is explored in Table 3. In Model 1, for a one-unit
increase in the HCN Scale, the odds of the stigmatization of nonbinary parents are 1.30 (p <
.05) times greater, given the other variables are held constant in the model. This finding fully
supports Hypothesis 1. In addition, for cis women, the odds of the stigmatization of nonbinary
parents are .64 (p < .05) times lower than for cis men (reference category) and for trans men,
the odds of the stigmatization of nonbinary parents are .60 times lower than for cis men (ref-
erence category) but only approach significance (p = .09). Model 2 includes the addition of
interaction terms. The patterns for the HCN Scale and cis women found in Model 1 remain in
Model 2. In addition, the interaction between the HCN Scale and bisexual identity (wherein the
reference category is heterosexual) is significant (p < .05) and increases the odds of the stig-
matization of nonbinary parents by 1.04 (p < .05) times demonstrating that supporting

Table 3. Ordered logistic regression results presented in proportional odds ratios [with 95% Confidence Intervals] estimating
the relationships among nonbinary parent stigma, the Hetero-cis-normativity (HCN) Scale, and social power axes (gender
identity and sexual identity) using NCST (N = 2,912).
Model 1 Model 2
OR CI OR CI
HCN scale 1.30* [1.28–1.32] 1.27* [1.24–1.30]
Social power axes
 Cis woman .54* [.55-.75] .53* [.35-.82]
  Trans woman .76 [.46–1.24] .40 [.01–2.20]
  Trans man .60† [.33–1.09] .49 [.09–2.68]
 Gay/lesbian .96 [.78–1.17] .55 [.06–4.65]
 Bisexual .90 [.74–1.09] .37 [.04–3.25]
HCN scale interaction terms
  HCN Scale*Cis Woman — — 1.02 [.99–1.04]
  HCN Scale*Trans Woman — — 1.02 [.94–1.11]
  HCN Scale*Trans Man — — 1.03 [.95–1.11]
  HCN Scale*Gay/Lesbian — — 1.03† [1.00–1.06]
  HCN Scale*Bisexual — — 1.04* [1.01–1.08]
Social power axes interaction terms
 Cis Woman*Gay/Lesbian — — .88 [.59-.1.33]
 Cis Woman*Bisexual — — 1.35 [.89–2.06]
  Trans Woman*Gay/Lesbian — — .80 [.20–3.18]
  Trans Woman*Bisexual — — .62 [.19–1.98]
  Trans Man*Gay/Lesbian — — 1.69 [.40–7.09]
  Trans Man*Bisexual — — 1.96 [.38–9.99]
Sociodemographic controls
 African American/Black 1.57* [1.22–2.08] 1.56* [1.21–2.00]
 Asian American/Pacific Islander .96 [.71–1.29] .93 [.69–1.26]
 Native American/Alaskan .75 [.41–1.37] .73 [.40–1.34]
 Multi-Racial .82 [.50–1.36] .83 [.50–1.37]
 Other Race 1.35 [.62–2.91] 1.24 [.57–2.71]
  Latinx Race .73 [.30–1.80] .69 [.28–1.72]
  Latinx Ethnicity 1.27* [1.01–1.59] 1.26* [1.00–1.58]
 Education 1.04 [.89–1.09] 1.04 [.99–1.10]
  Town Type (rural – large city) .98 [.91–1.06] .99 [.91–1.06]
 Age 1.01* [1.00–1.01] 1.00 [1.00–1.01]
 Mean VIF 1.23 1.25
 Pseudo R2 .24 .24
*p < .05, †p < .10, – not included in model.
 LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal 439

hetero-cis-normative thinking has a more robust effect on bisexual individuals’ perspectives about
nonbinary parents in comparison to heterosexual people’s perspectives about nonbinary parents.
Similarly, the interaction between the HCN Scale and gay/lesbian identity (wherein the reference
category is heterosexual) approaches significance (p = .09). These findings are consistent with
Hypothesis 2a. None of the social power axes interactions terms are significant, thus, Hypothesis
2 b, is not supported.

Controls and goodness of fit

Only two sociodemographic controls emerged as significant in both models. For African
American/Black people, the odds of the stigmatization of nonbinary parents are 1.57 (p < .05)
times greater in Model 1 and 1.56 (p < .05) times greater in Model 2 than for Caucasian/White
people (reference category) and for Latinx ethnicity, the odds of the stigmatization of nonbinary
parents are 1.27 (p < .05) times greater in Model 1 and 1.25 (p < .05) times greater in Model
2 than for non-Latinx ethnicity (reference category). The pseudo R2 values are .24 in Model 1
and in Model 2.

Discussion
While there is increasing awareness and recognition of nonbinary people and their experiences
(Reisner & Hughto, 2019; Wilson & Meyer, 2021; Worthen, 2021), the current project is amongst
only a handful of existing studies that have examined attitudes toward nonbinary parenting (T.
Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Bower-Brown & Zadeh, 2021; Fischer, 2021; Hafford-Letchfield et al.,
2020; Tasker & Gato, 2020; Tornello et al., 2019). This is noteworthy because the findings from
the current study show that when it comes to parenting, the rigidity of the gender dichotomy
remains a dominant trope (Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022). Specifically, using the stigmatizer
lens of Norm-Centered Stigma Theory (Worthen, 2020), the findings of the current study reflect
common themes found in previous work including the overarching sense of hetero-cis-norma-
tivity conveyed in reproduction, birthing, and parenting spaces/discourses that creates a narrow
and binary cultural definition of parenthood (T. Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Bower-Brown & Zadeh,
2021; Fischer, 2021; Hafford-Letchfield et al., 2020; Tasker & Gato, 2020; Tornello et al., 2019).
Put succinctly, the findings of the current study continue to reinforce the “mom and dad = cis
woman + cis man” stereotype found in previous work (Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022) that
contributes to the stigmatization of nonbinary parents. Furthermore, with two of the three NCST
hypotheses supported, there are important differences related to gender, sexual identities, and
attitudes toward parenting beyond the binary.
First, focusing on the t-test results that compare the mean values of attitudes toward nonbi-
nary parents, there are some patterns that reflect previous work. For example, findings from
the current study show that heterosexuals tended to be least accepting of nonbinary parents,
especially in comparison to gay and bisexual cis men and women. Heterosexuals may be more
interested in upholding rigid and binary perspectives about parenting because they may see their
own identities (as potential or actual heterosexual mom/dad couplings) as the “ideal” parenting
arrangement (Bower-Brown & Zadeh, 2021; Fineman, 2009). Such findings reflect previous work
that has found that heterosexuals are less accepting of parenting beyond the cis binary (Worthen
& Herbolsheimer, 2022). In contrast, bisexual women are most accepting of nonbinary parenting.
Bisexual women may be more supportive of parenting beyond the binary because they may also
have (or expect to have) stigmatizing experiences with parenthood. Indeed, studies show that
bisexual mothers experience stigma from both heterosexual and sexual minority communities,
feel their identities become “invisible” in pregnancy and parenting, and also report higher psy-
chological distress than parents of other sexual identities (Manley & Ross, 2020; Ross et al.,
2012). Thus, bisexual mothers may be especially sympathetic to the distresses nonbinary parents
can experience and this may be related to their more supportive attitudes toward parenting
440 M. G. F. WORTHEN AND C. HERBOLSHEIMER

beyond the binary (Flanders et al., 2019). Overall, such findings support NCST because the
stigmatizer’s own intersecting gender and sexual identities were found to be significant when
considering nonbinary parent stigma.
Second, looking at the ordered logistic regression results, as expected and consistent with
NCST and Hypothesis 1, hetero-cis-normativity has a significant relationship with negativity
toward nonbinary parents. Such findings align with previous studies that have found evidence
of hetero-cis-normative biases in parenting and pregnancy experiences (T. Biblarz & Stacey, 2010;
Bower-Brown & Zadeh, 2021; Fischer, 2021; Hafford-Letchfield et al., 2020; Tasker & Gato, 2020;
Tornello et al., 2019). Furthermore, consistent with Hypothesis 2a, the significant interaction
between the HCN Scale and bisexual identity demonstrates that supporting hetero-cis-normative
thinking has a more robust effect on bisexual individuals’ perspectives about nonbinary parents
in comparison to heterosexual people’s perspectives about nonbinary parents. This finding may
be related to continued misunderstandings about nonbinary people and their experiences
(Worthen, 2021). Indeed, previous work has found that nonbinary people endure a unique form
of minority stress coming from both hetero-cis people and LGBTQ people (Johnson et al., 2020).
It is also important to note that being a cis woman reduced the odds of the stigmatization of
nonbinary parents which is somewhat consistent with previous work that has found that cis
women are more accepting of parenting beyond the cis binary (Worthen & Herbolsheimer, 2022)
and nonbinary people more generally (Worthen, 2021). Taken together, the intersections of these
different identities are crucial to both understand and critique negative perceptions about non-
binary parenting.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the significant findings among our socio-demographic
controls and, in particular, race and ethnicity. Results showed that African American/Black
identity and Latinx ethnicity were significantly associated with stigmatizing nonbinary parents.
This somewhat aligns with previous work that has found that African American/Black and Latinx
cultural norms can reflect greater opposition to nontraditional family arrangements, such as
same-sex marriage, and LGBTQ people more generally (Baunach, 2012; Cauce &
Domenech-Rodriguez, 2002; Herek & Gonzalez-Rivera, 2006; Worthen, 2018). Together, our
results indicate it is essential to examine the ways in which gender, sexuality, and race/ethnicity
guide perceptions about parenting beyond the binary in order to gain a greater understanding
of how nonbinary parent stigma is formed.

Implications
Overall, the findings from the current study have the potential to improve support systems for
those parenting beyond the binary. In particular, because our results indicated that nonbinary
parents experience hostility from some groups, healthcare professionals should take care to be
sensitive to these parents’ unique needs. For example, previous work has indicated others who
parent beyond the binary—in particular trans men who give birth—experience stigma from
providers throughout pregnancy and birth. This may be due in part to internalized beliefs that
“ideal” parenting arrangements involve heterosexual cisgender couples (Bower-Brown & Zadeh,
2021; Fineman, 2009) and this can perpetuate misinformation about the ability of certain groups
(such as trans men and nonbinary people) who become pregnant (Charlton et al., 2021; Moseson
et al., 2021). To combat this, challenging stigma and ignorance about parenting beyond the
binary is much needed.
Furthermore, the findings from this analysis indicate that heterosexual respondents, and
particularly hetero cis men, exhibit greater negativity toward nonbinary parents than others
do. In contrast, bisexual women are the most supportive of those parenting beyond the
binary. Consequently, those working in healthcare, education, and social welfare should take
care to understand the ways in which gender and sexuality shape individual attitudes toward
nonbinary parents. For example, providing paperwork that is more inclusive of family diver-
sity to better support parents of all gender identities is essential (L. Davis, 2021; Falck et al.,
 LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal 441

2021; Moseson et al., 2021). Some progress is being made, such as updates to the maternity
services in England wherein a majority 71.5% (n = 93) of the National Health Services (NHS)
maternity websites were found to use inclusive language in a recent (2022) study (Jennings
et al., 2022). More work, however, is needed to promote global inclusivity of parenting
beyond the binary. Taken together, our results build on earlier work (Falck et al., 2021;
Fisher et al., 2014; Hafford-Letchfield et al., 2020, 2021; Lampe & Nowakowski, 2021; Moseson
et al., 2021) and emphasize the importance of implementing gender-inclusive support services
for parents.

Limitations and future research

There are some limitations to this study. For example, the measure of stigma against nonbinary
parents is limited. Other questions, such as those asking about legal rights of those parenting
beyond the binary, were not included (Chang, 2003; Cohen, 2017). Future work that utilizes
more nuanced measures of nonbinary parents’ lived experiences, including qualitative analysis,
would result in a better understanding of existing patterns. Furthermore, more comprehensive
questions of nonbinary parent stigma that examine the ways in which nonbinary individuals
become parents (that is, through biological reproduction, using assisted reproductive technologies,
adoption or step-parenthood, fostering, or surrogacy) would help to shed light on the mecha-
nisms that spur prejudice against nonbinary individuals. In addition, our data did not contain
measures of respondents’ parenting experiences such as their own family background or current
circumstances, which are likely to impact personal views of parenting beyond the binary.
Furthermore, respondents’ division of labor in their current and childhood household might
reflect “traditional” gender beliefs and thus, may be related to perspectives about nonbinary
parents (Brassel & Anderson, 2020; Kelly & Hauck, 2015; Pfeffer, 2012). As feminism and polit-
ical orientations have also been associated with openness to nonbinary genders (Molin et al.,
2021; Prusaczyk & Hodson, 2020) these measures may also be important to help us better
understand nonbinary parent stigma.
We would be remiss to not address the sample size, as there were low numbers of indi-
viduals identifying as transgender in the sample, thus future work that recruits a greater
number of transgender individuals is sorely needed (Bower-Brown & Zadeh, 2021; Fischer,
2021). It would also be useful to examine the ways in which nonbinary stigma might be
transferred to the children of these parents (L. Davis, 2021; Veldorale-Griffin & Darling,
2016; Zadeh et al., 2021). Furthermore, the sexual identity question was limited and queer
identity was not examined (though queer and nonbinary parenting has been explored in
previous work, see Carpenter & Niesen, 2021). Thus, future research should explore how
additional identities influence attitudes toward nonbinary parents. Finally, as stigma toward
those who parent beyond the binary occurs at micro, meso, and macro levels, and conse-
quently impacts physical/mental health and family formation, future analysis should further
investigate the complexities of nonbinary parenting (Charter et al., 2018; L. Davis, 2021;
Greenfield & Darwin, 2021; James et al., 2016; Lampe et al., 2019; Lampe & Nowakowski,
2021; White Hughto et al., 2015).

Concluding remarks
Our analysis provides key findings on perspectives about individuals parenting beyond the binary.
Using NCST as a lens through which to view these relationships reveals the usefulness of its
three tenants in untangling these associations. That is, findings are consistent with the first tenet
of NCST: There is a culturally dependent relationship between hetero-cis-normativity and stigma
toward nonbinary parents. By focusing on the central role norms play on stigma, the NCST
framework demonstrates that hetero-cis-normativity is a key factor in the stigmatization of
442 M. G. F. WORTHEN AND C. HERBOLSHEIMER

nonbinary parents. More specifically, findings indicate adherence to hetero-cis-normative per-

spectives is associated with greater hostility toward nonbinary parents.
Furthermore, our results indicate that gender and sexuality interact to significantly influence
the stigmatization of those parenting beyond the binary. That is, social power is key in orga-
nizing these relationships. This aligns with the second tenet of NCST: The relationship between
hetero-cis-normativity and stigma against nonbinary parents is organized by gender and sexual
identity. Specifically, our findings suggest that certain gender/sexual identities (for example,
hetero cis men) exhibit greater hostility to nonbinary parents when compared to other
respondents.
Cultural norms about nonbinary parenting and the ways these individuals might violate
hetero-cis-normative assumptions serve to help justify stigmatization (Bower-Brown & Zadeh,
2021; Downing, 2013; Hicks, 2013; Hines, 2006; MacDonald et al., 2021; Pfeffer, 2012; Tornello
et al., 2019). To put it more succinctly, negativity about parenting beyond the binary is note-
worthy because dominant values aim to uphold and maintain hetero-cis-normativity (Worthen,
2020). This aligns with the third tenet of NCST: nonbinary parent stigma is inclusive of nega-
tivity and social sanctions directed toward violations and violators of hetero-cis-normativity
which are justified through social power dynamics of gender and sexuality. Overall, by focusing
on the role norm violations (that is, hetero-cis-normativity) play in understanding nonbinary
parenting, our results highlight the need to work toward a more inclusive society and support
parenting beyond the binary.

Declaration of conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Notes
1. The current study considers those who identify as nonbinary as separate from those who identify as trans
women and trans men because these were separate response options in the survey instrument/data utilized
in this project. The authors recognize that there are limitations to this approach, especially because some
identify as both trans and nonbinary. Even so, data from The Williams Institute indicate that a majority of
nonbinary LGBTQ adults are not transgender (Wilson & Meyer, 2021).
2. The stigmatized lens examines how the target of stigma’s (i.e., the stigmatized) own axes of social power
impact their own experiences with negativity, prejudice, and stigma.
3. It is unknown how many of these emails were actually received and read by the potential respondents so
an exact response rate is also unknown. For example, junk mail filters could have prevented potential re-
spondents from seeing the email invitation, some may have opened the email but decided not to click the
link to access the survey, and some may have been deemed ineligible due to identity quotas being met as
requested by the author set by SSI (5 of the 8 identity quotas were met).
4. The survey was held open for 19 days in efforts to meet the quotas set for the LGBT groups. Five quotas
were met as follows: gay men (5 days in), bisexual women (7 days in), lesbian women (8 days in), cis men
and cis women (16 days in). The quotas for the remaining three groups (bisexual men, trans men, and
trans women) were not met. The survey was closed because SSI believed it was not realistic to expect these
quotas to fill in a reasonable amount of time.
5. Throughout the survey, the following informational definitions were provided: (a) gay men (men who have
romantic and sexual attractions to men), (b) lesbian women (women who have romantic and sexual attrac-
tions to women), (c) bisexual men (men who have romantic and sexual attractions to both men and wom-
en), (d) bisexual women (women who have romantic and sexual attractions to both men and women), (e)
transgender men (those who currently identify as men who were assigned "female" at birth), (f) transgen-
der women (those who currently identify as women who were assigned "male" at birth), (g) "queer" is often
used as an umbrella identity term that encompasses individuals who do not feel they fit within the cate-
gories of heterosexual, lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and/or those who are attracted to people of many genders,
and/or those who feel their sexual identity is fluid, and (h) "genderqueer" is often used as an umbrella
identity term that encompasses individuals who are gender-nonbinary or gender fluid and/or those who do
not feel they fit within the categories of man or woman.
 LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal 443

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the University of Oklahoma Office of the Vice President for Research
who provided financial support for the data collection utilized in this project via the Faculty Investment Program.

ORCID
Meredith G. F. Worthen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6765-5149

References
Adamsons, K., O’Brien, M., & Pasley, K. (2007). An ecological approach to father involvement in biological and
stepfather families. Fathering, 5(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0502.129
Alegría, C. (2018). Supporting families of transgender children/youth: Parents speak on their experiences, iden-
tity, and views. International Journal of Transgenderism, 19(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.201
8.1450798
Allison, P. (2012). When can you safely ignore multicollinearity? https://statisticalhorizons.com/multicollinearity
Antoszewski, B., Kasielska, A., Jędrzejczak, M., & Kruk-Jeromin, J. (2007). Knowledge of and attitude toward
transsexualism among college students. Sexuality and Disability, 25(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11195-006-9029-1
Aparicio-García, M. E., Díaz-Ramiro, E. M., Rubio-Valdehita, S., López-Núñez, M. I., & García-Nieto, I. (2018).
Health and well-being of cisgender, transgender and non-binary young people. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(10), 2133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102133
Baunach, D. M. (2012). Changing same-sex marriage attitudes in America from 1988 through 2010. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 76(2), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs022
Ben-Ari, A., & Livni, T. (2006). Motherhood is not a given thing: Experiences and constructed meanings of
biological and nonbiological lesbian mothers. Sex Roles, 54(7-8), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-006-9016-0
Berkowitz, D., & Marsiglio, W. (2007). Gay men: Negotiating procreative, father, and family identities. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 69(2), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00371.x
Berner, A. M., Connolly, D. J., Pinnell, I., Wolton, A., MacNaughton, A., Challen, C., Nambiar, K., Bayliss, J.,
Barrett, J., & Richards, C. (2021). Attitudes of transgender men and non-binary people to cervical screening:
A cross-sectional mixed-methods study in the UK. The British Journal of General Practice, 71(709), e614–e625.
https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0905
Biblarz, T. J., & Savci, E. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Marriage and Family,
72(3), 480–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00714.x
Biblarz, T., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1),
3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x
Bos, H. M. W., Van Balen, F., & Van Den Boom, D. C. (2004). Experience of parenthood, couple relationship,
social support, and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 45(4), 755–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00269.x
Bower-Brown, S., & Zadeh, S. (2021). I guess the trans identity goes with other minority identities: An inter-
sectional exploration of the experiences of trans and non-binary parents living in the UK. International Journal
of Transgender Health, 22(1–2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1835598
Bradford, N., Rider, G. N., Catalpa, J. M., Morrow, Q., Berg, D., Spencer, K., & McGuire, J. K. (2019). Creating
gender: A thematic analysis of genderqueer narratives. The International Journal of Transgenderism, 20(2–3),
155–168.
Brassel, S. T., & Anderson, V. N. (2020). Who thinks outside the gender box? Feminism, gender self-esteem, and
attitudes toward trans people. Sex Roles, 82(7-8), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01066-4
Burgwal, A., Gvianishvili, N., Hård, V., Kata, J., García Nieto, I., Orre, C., Smiley, A., Vidić, J., & Motmans, J.
(2019). Health disparities between binary and non binary trans people: A community-driven survey. The
International Journal of Transgenderism, 20(2-3), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2019.1629370
Butler, J. (1993). Critically queer. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 1(1), 17–32. https://doi.
org/10.1215/10642684-1-1-17
Carpenter, E., & Niesen, R. (2021). It’s just constantly having to make a ton of decisions that other people take
for granted: Pregnancy and parenting desires for queer cisgender women and non-binary individuals assigned
female at birth. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 17(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2020.1773367
Cauce, A. M., & Domenech-Rodriguez, M. (2002). Latino families: Myths and realities. 24.
444 M. G. F. WORTHEN AND C. HERBOLSHEIMER

Chang, H. (2003). My father is a woman, oh no! the failure of the courts to uphold individual substantive due
process rights for transgender parents under the guise of the best interest of the child. Santa Clara Law Review,
43(3), 649–698.
Charlton, B. M., Reynolds, C. A., Tabaac, A. R., Godwin, E. G., Porsch, L. M., Agénor, M., Grimstad, F. W., &
Katz-Wise, S. L. (2021). Unintended and teen pregnancy experiences of trans masculine people living in the
United States. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1–2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2
020.1824692
Charter, R., Ussher, J. M., Perz, J., & Robinson, K. (2018). The transgender parent: Experiences and constructions
of pregnancy and parenthood for transgender men in Australia. International Journal of Transgenderism, 19(1),
64–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2017.1399496
Clarke, V. (2001). What about the children? Arguments against lesbian and gay parenting. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 24(5), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-5395(01)00193-5
Cohen, C. (2017). Losing your children: The failure to extend civil rights protections to transgender parents.
George Washington Law Review, 85(2), 536–565.
Collins, P. H. (1999). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (Rev. 10th
Anniv., 2nd ed.). Routledge.
Cowdery, R. S., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2005). The construction of motherhood: Tasks, relational connection,
and gender equality. Family Relations, 54(3), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2005.00321.x
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of
color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist
theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700108086364
Davis, L. (2021). Deconstructing tradition: Trans reproduction and the need to reform birth registration in
England and Wales. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1–2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/26
895269.2020.1838394
Dietz, E. (2021). Normal parents: Trans pregnancy and the production of reproducers. International Journal of
Transgender Health, 22(1–2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1834483
Douglas, S., & Michaels, M. (2005). The mommy myth: The idealization of motherhood and how it has undermined
all women. Free Press.
Downing, J. B. (2013). Transgender-parent families. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent fami-
lies: innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 105–115). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_7
Ender, P. (2010). Collinearity issues. http://www.philender.com/courses/categorical/notes2/collin.html
Falck, F., Frisén, L., Dhejne, C., & Armuand, G. (2021). Undergoing pregnancy and childbirth as trans masculine
in Sweden: Experiencing and dealing with structural discrimination, gender norms and microaggressions in
antenatal care, delivery and gender clinics. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1–2), 42–53. https://
doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1845905
Fineman, M. (2009). The sexual family. In M. Fineman, J. Jackson, & A. Romero (Eds.), Feminist and queer
legal theory: Intimate encounters, uncomfortable conversations. Routledge.
Fischer, O. (2021). Non-binary reproduction: Stories of conception, pregnancy, and birth. International Journal
of Transgender Health, 22(1-2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1838392
Fisher, S., Reynolds, J. L., Hsu, W.-W., Barnes, J., & Tyler, K. (2014). Examining multiracial youth in context:
Ethnic identity development and mental health outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(10), 1688–1699.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0163-2
Flanders, C. E., Legge, M. M., Plante, I., Goldberg, A. E., & Ross, L. E. (2019). Gender socialization practices
among bisexual and other nonmonosexual mothers: A longitudinal qualitative examination. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 15(2), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2018.1461583
Flouri, E. (2008). Fathering and adolescents’ psychological adjustment: The role of fathers’ involvement, residence
and biolog y status. Child: care, Health and Development, 34(2), 152–161. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2007.00752.x
Gagné, P., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Conformity pressures and gender resistance among transgendered individuals.
Social Problems, 45(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097144
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.
Greenfield, M., & Darwin, Z. (2021). Trans and non-binary pregnancy, traumatic birth, and perinatal mental
health: A scoping review. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1-2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.108
0/26895269.2020.1841057
Grossman, A. H., D'Augelli, A. R., Salter, N. P., & Hubbard, S. M. (2006). Comparing gender expression, gender
nonconformity, and parents’ responses of female-to-male and male-to-female transgender youth: Implications
for counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 1(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1300/J462v01n01_04
Hafford-Letchfield, T., Cocker, C., Manning, R., & McCormack, K. (2020). Trans and nonbinary parenting. In
Social work and health care practice with transgender and nonbinary individuals and communities. Routledge.
Hafford-Letchfield, T., Cocker, C., Rutter, D., Manning, R., & McCormack, K. (2021). Doing the right thing and
getting it right: Professional perspectives in social work on supporting parents from gender diverse commu-
 LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal 445

nities. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1-2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.18

31417
Hart, P. (2009). On becoming a good enough stepmother. Clinical Social Work Journal, 37(2), 128–139. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10615-009-0202-8
Herek, G. M., & Gonzalez-Rivera, M. (2006). Attitudes toward homosexuality among U.S. residents of mexican
descent. Journal of Sex Research, 43(2), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552307
Hicks, S. (2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents and the question of gender. In A. E. Goldberg
& K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Innovations in research and implications for practice (pp. 149–162).
Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4556-2_10
Hill, D. B., & Menvielle, E. (2009). You have to give them a place where they feel protected and safe and loved:
The views of parents who have gender-variant children and adolescents. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6(2–3),
243–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361650903013527
Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and validation of the genderism and transphobia
scale. Sex Roles, 53(7-8), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x
Hines, S. (2006). Intimate transitions: Transgender practices of partnering and parenting. Sociology, 40(2), 353–371.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038506062037
James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S.
transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality.
Jennings, L., Gout, B., & Whittaker, P. (2022). Gender inclusive language on public-facing maternity services
websites in England. British Journal of Midwifery, 30(4), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2022.30.4.208
Johnson, K. C., LeBlanc, A. J., Deardorff, J., & Bockting, W. O. (2020). Invalidation experiences among non-binary
adolescents. Journal of Sex Research, 57(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1608422
Jones, E. E. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. W.H. Freeman.
Kazura, K. (2000). Fathers’ qualitative and quantitative involvement: An investigation of attachment, play, and
social interactions. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 9(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0901.41
Kelly, M., & Hauck, E. (2015). Doing housework, redoing gender: Queer couples negotiate the household division
of labor. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 11(5), 438–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2015.1006750
King, M. E., Winter, S., & Webster, B. (2009). Contact reduces transprejudice: A study on attitudes towards
transgenderism and transgender civil rights in Hong Kong. International Journal of Sexual Health, 21(1),
17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317610802434609
Koziara, K., Mijas, M. E., Wycisk, J., Pliczko, M. P., & Grabski, B. (2021). Exploring health and transition-related
needs in polish transgender and non-binary individuals. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18(6), 1110–1121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.04.001
Lampe, N. M., Carter, S. K., & Sumerau, J. E. (2019). Continuity and change in gender frames: The case of
transgender reproduction. Gender & Society, 33(6), 865–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219857979
Lampe, N. M., & Nowakowski, A. C. H. (2021). New horizons in trans and non-binary health care: Bridging
identity affirmation with chronicity management in sexual and reproductive services. International Journal of
Transgender Health, 22(1-2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1829244
Landen, M., & Innala, S. (2000). Attitudes toward transsexualism in a Swedish national survey. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 29(4), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1001970521182
Lane, B., Perez-Brumer, A., Parker, R., Sprong, A., & Sommer, M. (2021). Improving menstrual equity in the
USA: Perspectives from trans and non-binary people assigned female at birth and health care providers.
Culture, Health & Sexuality, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2021.1957151
Leitenberg, H., & Slavin, L. (1983). Comparison of attitudes toward transsexuality and homosexuality. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 12(4), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542194
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363–385. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363
MacDonald, T. K., Walks, M., Biener, M., & Kibbe, A. (2021). Disrupting the norms: Reproduction, gender
identity, gender dysphoria, and intersectionality. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1-2), 18–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2020.1848692
Manley, M. H., & Ross, L. E. (2020). What do we now know about bisexual parenting? A continuing call for
research. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBTQ-parent families: innovations in research and impli-
cations for practice (pp. 65–83). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35610-1_4
Marks, L., & Palkovitz, R. (2004). American fatherhood types: The good, the bad, and the uninterested. Fathering,
2(2), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0202.113
Matsuno, E., & Budge, S. L. (2017). Non-binary/genderqueer identities: A critical review of the literature. Current
Sexual Health Reports, 9(3), 116–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-017-0111-8
McGuire, J. K., Kuvalanka, K. A., Catalpa, J. M., & Toomey, R. B. (2016). Transfamily theory: How the presence
of trans* family members informs gender development in families: transfamily theory. Journal of Family Theory
& Review, 8(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12125
Millbank, J. (2008). The limits of functional family: Lesbian mother litigation in the era of the eternal biological
family. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 22(2), 149–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/
ebn001
446 M. G. F. WORTHEN AND C. HERBOLSHEIMER

Molin, A., Simond, A., Sato, S., Jaeggi, T., Gygax, P. M., & Meuwly, N. (2021). Linking political and feminist
ideology with openness towards non-binary gender: The development and initial validation of a scale to
measure subjective Openness towards Non-Binary Gender (ONBG). Journal of Gender Studies, 30(8), 901–914.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2020.1844644
Montgomery, S. A., & Stewart, A. J. (2012). Privileged allies in lesbian and gay rights activism: Gender, gener-
ation, and resistance to heteronormativity. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 162–177. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01742.x
Moseson, H., Fix, L., Hastings, J., Stoeffler, A., Lunn, M. R., Flentje, A., Lubensky, M. E., Capriotti, M. R.,
Ragosta, S., Forsberg, H., & Obedin-Maliver, J. (2021). Pregnancy intentions and outcomes among transgender,
nonbinary, and gender-expansive people assigned female or intersex at birth in the United States: Results from
a national, quantitative survey. International Journal of Transgender Health, 22(1-2), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.
1080/26895269.2020.1841058
Nielsen, L. (1999). Stepmothers: Why so much stress? A review of the research. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,
30(1-2), 115–148. https://doi.org/10.1300/J087v30n01_08
Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a
national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Roles, 68(11-12), 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6
O’Brien Hallstein, D. L. (2017). Introduction to mothering rhetorics. Women’s Studies in Communication, 40(1),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/07491409.2017.1280326
Peleg, A., & Hartman, T. (2019). Minority stress in an improved social environment: Lesbian mothers and the
burden of proof. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 15(5), 442–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2018.1556141
Pfeffer, C. A. (2012). Normative resistance and inventive pragmatism: Negotiating structure and agency in trans-
gender families. Gender & Society, 26(4), 574–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212445467
Prusaczyk, E., & Hodson, G. (2020). The roles of political conservatism and binary gender beliefs in predicting
prejudices toward gay men and people who are transgender. Sex Roles, 82(7-8), 438–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-019-01069-1
Reisner, S. L., & Hughto, J. M. W. (2019). Comparing the health of non-binary and binary transgender adults
in a statewide non-probability sample. Plos One, 14(8), e0221583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221583
Ross, L. E., Siegel, A., Dobinson, C., Epstein, R., & Steele, L. S. (2012). I don’t want to turn totally invisible”:
Mental health, stressors, and supports among bisexual women during the perinatal period. Journal of GLBT
Family Studies, 8(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2012.660791
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender Normals,” transgender peo-
ple, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(4), 440–464. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0891243209340034
Schur, E. M. (1983). Labeling women deviant: Gender, stigma, and social control. Temple University Press.
Serano, J. (2007). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of femininity. Seal Press.
Shapiro, D. N., & Stewart, A. J. (2011). Parenting stress, perceived child regard, and depressive symptoms among
stepmothers and biological mothers. Family Relations, 60(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1741-3729.2011.00665.x
Short, L. (2007). Lesbian mothers living well in the context of heterosexism and discrimination: Resources,
strategies and legislative change. Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507072912
Stafford, M. C., & Scott, R. R. (1986). Stigma, deviance, and social control. In S. C. Ainlay, G. Becker, & L. M.
Coleman (Eds.), The dilemma of difference: A multidisciplinary view of stigma (pp. 77–91). Springer US. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-7568-5_5
Stein, A. (2018). Unbound: Transgender men and the remaking of identity. Vintage Books.
Tasker, F., & Gato, J. (2020). Gender identity and future thinking about parenthood: A qualitative analysis of
focus group data with transgender and non-binary people in the United Kingdom. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,
865. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00865
Tornello, S. L., Riskind, R. G., & Babić, A. (2019). Transgender and gender non-binary parents’ pathways to
parenthood. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 6(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/
sgd0000323
Veldorale-Griffin, A., & Darling, C. A. (2016). Adaptation to parental gender transition: Stress and resilience
among transgender parents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(3), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0657-3
White Hughto, J. M., Reisner, S. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2015). Transgender stigma and health: A critical review
of stigma determinants, mechanisms, and interventions. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 147, 222–231. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.010
Willoughby, B. L. B., Hill, D. B., Gonzalez, C. A., Lacorazza, A., Macapagal, R. A., Barton, M. E., & Doty, N.
D. (2010). Who hates gender outlaws? A multisite and multinational evaluation of the genderism and trans-
phobia scale. International Journal of Transgenderism, 12(4), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2010.5
50821
Wilson, B., & Meyer, I. H. (2021). Nonbinary LGBTQ adults in the United States. The Williams Institute. https://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/nonbinary-lgbtq-adults-us/
 LGBTQ+ Family: An Interdisciplinary Journal 447

Wojnar, D. M., & Katzenmeyer, A. (2014). Experiences of preconception, pregnancy, and new motherhood for
lesbian nonbiological mothers. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing: JOGNN, 43(1), 50–60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1552-6909.12270
Worthen, M. G. F. (2016). Hetero-cis–normativity and the gendering of transphobia. International Journal of
Transgenderism, 17(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2016.1149538
Worthen, M. G. F. (2018). Gay equals white? Racial, ethnic, and sexual identities and attitudes toward LGBT
individuals among college students at a Bible Belt University. Journal of Sex Research, 55(8), 995–1011. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1378309
Worthen, M. G. F. (2020). Queers, bis, and straight lies: An investigation of LGBTQ stigma. Routledge.
Worthen, M. G. F. (2021). Why can’t you just pick one? The stigmatization of non-binary/genderqueer people
by cis and trans men and women: An empirical test of norm-centered stigma theory. Sex Roles, 85(5-6),
343–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01216-z
Worthen, M. G. F., & Herbolsheimer, C. (2022). Mom and dad = cis woman + cis man” and the stigmatization of
trans parents: An empirical test of norm-centered stigma theory. International Journal of Transgender Health,
0(0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2021.2016539
Zadeh, S., Imrie, S., & Golombok, S. (2021). Stories of sameness and difference: The views and experiences of
children and adolescents with a trans* parent. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/1550428X.2019.1683785